 How do you feel about women ministers? (583 views) Subscribe   
  From:  KAY113   12/21/2002 11:49 am  
To:  ALL   (1 of 80)  
 
  522.1  
 
The Bible clearly states that women are not permitted to teach or have authority over men, that women are to be silent in the church. How, then, can women become ordained ministers? 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Alex_Anatole (AlexAnatole)   12/22/2002 4:55 pm  
To:  KAY113   (2 of 80)  
 
  522.2 in reply to 522.1  
 
ALL Christians are called to "minister." 
But if the question is about the ordination of women to ordained ofices in the Church, then I have a simple question: How can a woman be the husband of one wife? 


Alex http://www.stseraphim.org http://forums.delphiforums.com/OrthodoxWay http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm http://www.Uticaod.com/news/photogallery/jordanville/Fr_Pishew.html 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Barbara (BARBARA3)    12/26/2002 3:53 pm  
To:  KAY113   (3 of 80)  
 
  522.3 in reply to 522.1  
 
Do you see a difference between an office of pastor and the commandment for all believers to minister?
Barbara 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)     12/27/2002 1:26 am  
To:  KAY113   (4 of 80)  
 
  522.4 in reply to 522.1  
 
We are all called to ministry....as our Lord told the disciples in Matthew 10:7-8:

7 And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' 
8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 

Then He commanded the disciples in Matthew 28:18-20

 18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 
20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

Because God does not judge by our genitalia, He judges the heart. So therefore women in ministry is allowed.  The unenlighted doctrine of men have used two scriptures to support the idea that women should not be in leadership.  That scripture in 1 Timothy 2:12 says:
12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

However, the previous verse qualifies the reason WHY they should not be permited to teach. 1 Timothy 2:11  Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.

The intent of Paul, you realize, he was speaking to a new Christian church with unskilled, new Christian women.  Of course women that are uneducated and unskilled should not teach or have authority over men!

In 1 Corinthians 14:34 you have the same comment by Paul.  Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 

But then he qualifies it again to state that IF THEY WANT TO LEARN SOMETHING, so these are women who were speaking out of turn, probably excited to learn this new doctrine, and disrupting the teachings.  Naturally, this would cause confusion and disorder.  Since God is not the author of confusion and is a God of order, this would be OUT OF ORDER.  But this is not to say that when a woman are skilled and educated in the things of God that they can't abide by the Great Commission as ordered by Jesus Christ to His disciples.  

1 Corinthians 14:35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. 

Another scripture is   Isaiah 3:12
 As for My people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.  O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, and destroy the way of your paths." 

This is not to be taken literally, but it means either that the rulers were under the influence of the harem, or the females of the court; or that they were effeminate and destitute of vigor and manliness in counsel. [They which lead thee] Hebrew "They who bless thee, or call thee blessed."  This refers to the public teachers and the false prophets, who blessed or flattered the people, and who promised them safety in their sins.  [Cause thee to err] Lead you astray; or lead you into sin and danger.  [And destroy] Hebrew "Swallow up."  (quote from Barnes' Notes)

Now from the OT to the NT, we have many, many scriptures that tell us how women are portrayed as leaders in God's army in the battle of good and evil.  Debra comes to mind [Judges 4:4 and Judges 5], who not only was a judge but also a prophetess, and a leader of an army.  

Another one was Queen Candance, of Ethiopia Acts 8:27, who was a Jew. 
Miriam was a prophetess Exodus 15:20; she also was a praise warrior and poetess Exodus 15:21. 
Women were warriors too Judges 9:53-54. 
Hannah was a type of prophetess who would speak those things as though they were, even though they were not...she spoke Samuel into existence....1 Samuel 2:1-10. 
Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, was a prophetess Luke 1:42-45. 
Huldah was a prophetess 2 Kings 22:14 and the king consulted with her 2 Chronicals 34:22-28. 
Anna was a prophetess in Luke 2:36-38. 
Phillip's four daughters were prophetess in Acts 21:9. 
Women were in business for themselves, with many people [both male and female] under them.  Proverbs 31 
They had property rights Numbers 27:1-11; Joshua 17:3-6; Job 42:15 
They sold real estate Ruth 4:3-9.  
Women have been last at the cross; first at the gravesite; first to have reported that the Lord had risen; and the first to see the Lord appear. 
Esther was Queen and saved her people the Book of Esther. 
Tabitha or Dorus as translated was a disciple, meaning she was in leaderhip as stated in Acts 9:36. 
Apollos was taught a more thorough teaching on the doctrine of Jesus Christ by Priscilla in Acts 18:26. 
Phoebe was a fellow servant and was given full acceptence as a fellow servant through Paul's instructions in Romans 16:1-2. 
The Philippian Christians who were women that labored along side of Paul in Philippians 4:3.
An additional scripture tells us that promotion comes from the Lord, not from man but from the Father who is Judge.  He does the putting down and exalting up of humanity. 

Psalms 75:6-7
6 For exaltation comes neither from the east nor from the west nor from the south. 
7 But God is the Judge:He puts down one, and exalts another. 

So one can see if one studies scripture that women indeed are used mightily by God to bring in the harvest, protect His people, used as praise warriors, prophetess, poets, and a host of other things.  All of which teach the word to both sexes and govern over both sexes.  One can not dispute the word of God and the historical influences women have had in spreading and maintaining the word of God.  Amen Mighty Women of God! ~Minister Falcon 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Alex_Anatole (AlexAnatole)   12/27/2002 6:21 pm  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)    (5 of 80)  
 
  522.5 in reply to 522.4  
 
All very, very true. 
And yet Jesus, Who's most loyal supporters and best friends were women, appointed not one woman to His inner circle of the 12. Neither did these Apostles ordain a single woman to the office of Bishop. 


Alex http://www.stseraphim.org http://forums.delphiforums.com/OrthodoxWay http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm http://www.Uticaod.com/news/photogallery/jordanville/Fr_Pishew.html 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)     12/27/2002 6:43 pm  
To:  Alex_Anatole (AlexAnatole)   (6 of 80)  
 
  522.6 in reply to 522.5  
 
And yet Paul appointed women to ministry and not one apostle objected because they knew that it was appropriate. Paul didn't do ANYTHING without consulting God and getting His permission.  

Jesus is still active, still appointing, and still giving the authority to His leadership as He calls them to inaugurate women in position of authority. It is impossible for humankind to do anything without God giving permission for it to happen. ~Minister Falcon

 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Alex_Anatole (AlexAnatole)   12/28/2002 6:28 am  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)    (7 of 80)  
 
  522.7 in reply to 522.6  
 
If you are refering to the honorable office of Deaconness, this is true. There was such an office, and there is talk of reviving it. But is was NEVER a steping stone to the priesthood or the episcopacy. 
And with all due respect to the Holy Apostle Paul, his actions reflect the teachings of Christ - they do not define them. That's why it's called "Christianity" and not "Paulianity." 

I know of at least one woman in the CHurch honored with the title "Equal to the Apostles," and countless women are remembered as Saints and Martyrs. Yet the fact remains that the ordination of women to the priesthood is al late Protestant invention with no basis in Church history or in Scripture. 

If you want historical precedent for a female priesthood, look to the pagan cults that Christianity displaced. There you will find prietesses in great numbers. 


Alex http://www.stseraphim.org http://forums.delphiforums.com/OrthodoxWay http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm http://www.Uticaod.com/news/photogallery/jordanville/Fr_Pishew.html 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)     12/29/2002 3:29 pm  
To:  Alex_Anatole (AlexAnatole)   (8 of 80)  
 
  522.8 in reply to 522.7  
 
Ahhhh, I see what you are saying.  You are repeating what the doctrine of your faith has taught you....whereas I am quoting the doctrine of Jesus Christ which is found in the bible.   There is the difference. ~Minister Falcon 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Alex_Anatole (AlexAnatole)   12/29/2002 5:30 pm  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)    (9 of 80)  
 
  522.9 in reply to 522.8  
 
<<You are repeating what the doctrine of your faith has taught you....whereas I am quoting the doctrine of Jesus Christ which is found in the bible.>> 
ROTFLMAO! 

Please! If what you say is true, then the very Apostles of Christ failed to understand the message which you claim is to clearly spelled out in the Scriptures. You are accusing the Apostles - those very ones upon whom the Holy Spirit descended on Pentecost! - of perverting the Gospel. 

I see four possibilities. 

1) Jesus was an incompetent teacher, since He so dreadfully failed to get His point across. 

2) The Apostles were such reprobate idiots that they were able to dismiss not only Christ's teaching, but the Holy Spirit's indwelling as well. 

3) The Holy Spirit is an impotent and incompetent Paraclete. 

or, 

4) You're making this stuff as you go along to suit your own whims. 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
I vote for #4. 


Alex http://www.stseraphim.org http://forums.delphiforums.com/OrthodoxWay http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm http://www.Uticaod.com/news/photogallery/jordanville/Fr_Pishew.html 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)     12/29/2002 5:52 pm  
To:  Alex_Anatole (AlexAnatole)   (10 of 80)  
 
  522.10 in reply to 522.9  
 
Let me give you one scripture that should give you a better understanding of what I am talking about.

Hebrews 7:20-28
20 And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath 
21(for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: "The LORD has sworn and will not relent, 'You are a priest forever 
According to the order of Melchizedek' "), 
22 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant. 
23 Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. 
24 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. 
25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. 
26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 
27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 
28 For the law appoints as high priests MEN who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever. 

The operative word here is MEN in the last verse.  Here is the definition of MEN from Thayer's Greek Lexicon.

anthroopos, anthroopou, ho [NT:444]
It is used:


1. universally, with reference to the genus or nature, without distinction of sex, a human being, whether male or female: 

John 16:21 a. with the article, generically, so as to include all human individuals: 
Matthew 4:4 b. so that a man is distinguished from beings of a different race or order from animals, plants, etc.: 
 Luke 5:10 . from God, from Christ as divine, and from angels: 
 Matthew 10:32 c. with the added notion of weakness, by which man is led into mistake or prompted to sin 
1 Corinthians 3:4 d. with the adjunct notion of contempt 
John 5:12 e. with a reference to the twofold nature of man soul and body: 
Romans 7:22 f. with a reference to the twofold moral condition of man 
Romans 6:6 g. with a reference to the sex, (contextually) a male: 
John 7:22 f 2. indefinitely, without the article a. someone, a (certain) man, b. where what is said holds of every man, Romans 3:28 3. in the plural is sometimes (the) people,4. It is joined:a. to another substantive -- a quasi-predicate of office, or employment, or characteristic a merchant (-man), 
Matthew 13:45 b. to a gentilic noun 
Matthew 27:32 5. with the article, the particular man under consideration, who he is being plain from the context: 
Matthew 12:13 6. 
Phrases: 2 Thessalonians 2:3 

Here is the proof that MEN did not mean the gender of a human but the whole human race.   

You need to research your scriptures by the language in which it is written, not by the language you speak and understand.   For that will bring you into err. 

I deal with facts, not with opinion.  I line up my beliefs with biblical fact that become my opinion. You might want to take another vote. ~Minister Falcon
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Alex_Anatole (AlexAnatole)   12/29/2002 6:04 pm  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)    (11 of 80)  
 
  522.11 in reply to 522.10  
 
<<I deal with facts, not with opinion. I line up my beliefs with biblical fact that become my opinion. You might want to take another vote.>> 
Again. And for the very last time. The thought that you, 20 centuries down the road, have discovered "facts" that were either missed or suppressed by the Apostles of the 12 is laughable. It is an insult to the Apostles, to the Holy Spirit, and to Christ Himself. 

My vote remains unchanged. 


Alex http://www.stseraphim.org http://forums.delphiforums.com/OrthodoxWay http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm http://www.Uticaod.com/news/photogallery/jordanville/Fr_Pishew.html 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  sparrow40   1/4/2003 2:32 pm  
To:  Alex_Anatole (AlexAnatole)   (12 of 80)  
 
  522.12 in reply to 522.11  
 
Why then did Jesus beckon the old woman to walk up into the inner place in the temple where only Jewish men preachers were allowed befored she was able to stand straight again? Jesus by doing this declared that women were equal to males in every respect, even in spiritual matters and duties. And how indeed can the Holy Spirit who abides in both males and females of mankind be lesser in one gender(and forbidden to preach or teach)then in another gender? We are commanded to not quench the Holy Spirit and to raise Jesus up so that Jesus may draw all men(males AND females)unto Himself and the holy Father. It is quite obviously evident that women can be Preachers, Pastors, Reverends, whatever you want to call them. There are female Rabbis as well. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Alex_Anatole (AlexAnatole)   1/4/2003 5:31 pm  
To:  sparrow40   (13 of 80)  
 
  522.13 in reply to 522.12  
 
<<Why then did Jesus beckon the old woman to walk up into the inner place in the temple where only Jewish men preachers were allowed befored she was able to stand straight again?>> 
Chapter and verse please? I honestly don't remember this one. 

As for the rest, equal does not mean identical. Does God discriminate against men because only women can give birth? Is God unfair because men tend to be taller than women? 

Of course not. 

We all are called to serve the Lord. But no woman (and not most men for that matter) is called to the Priesthood. 

Show me one woman mentioned anywhere in Scripture, OT or NT who served as a Priest or Bishop. 


Alex http://www.stseraphim.org http://forums.delphiforums.com/OrthodoxWay http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm http://www.Uticaod.com/news/photogallery/jordanville/Fr_Pishew.html 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)     1/8/2003 5:21 pm  
To:  Alex_Anatole (AlexAnatole)   (14 of 80)  
 
  522.14 in reply to 522.11  
 
The five fold ministry is Apostles, Pastors, Teachers [ministers], Evangelists, and Prophet [ess].  No priest is considered these things unless it is a denominational statement of which I don't address.

However, here is what God says about priests which is not determined by gender but by the blood of the Lamb:  

Revelation 1:5-6
5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 
6 and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.


Revelation 5:10
And have made us kings and priests to our God; and we shall reign on the earth." 


Revelation 20:6
Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. 


From Thayer's Greek Lexicon,  the use of US means: 

NT:846

I. self,
   1. When used to express opposition or distinction,
       a. it is added to the subjects implied in the verb, the personal pronouns egoo, heemeis, su, etc., being omitted: Luke 5:37 
       b. it is added to subjects expressed, whether to pronouns personal or demonstrative, or to nouns proper or common: John 3:28
       c. it is used to distinguish one not only from his companions, disciples, servants -- as Mark 2:25 but also from things done by him or belonging to him, as John 7:4
       d. self to the exclusion of others, i. e. he etc. alone, by oneself: Mark 6:31 
       e. self not prompted or influenced by another, i. e. of oneself of one's own accord: John 16:27 

   2. When it gives prominence, it answers:
       a. to our emphatic he, she, it: Matthew 1:21 
       b. it points out some one as chief, leader, master of the rest Matthew 8:24 
       c. it answers to our very, just, exactly Romans 9:3 d. even, Romans 8:21 


II. autos has the force of a simple personal pronoun of the third person, answering to our unemphatic he, she, it; and that 
   1. as in classic Greek, in the oblique cases, him, her, it, them, etc.
   2. in the N.T. even in the nominative it is put for a simple personal pronoun of the third person 
   3. Sometimes in the oblique cases the pronoun is omitted, being evident from the context: Mark 6:5 
   4. Not infrequently autos in the oblique cases is added to the verb, although the case belonging to this very verb has preceded: Matthew 8:1 
   5. By a Hebraism autos is used redundantly in relative sentences: Mark 7:25 
   6. where the subject or the object must be gathered especially from some preceding name of a province or city, or from the context: Matthew 4:23 


III. with the article, the same
     1. without a noun Hebrews 1:12 2. With a noun added: Matthew 26:44 


Indeed BOTH genders will be priests and kings but without genitalia.  We will be defined not as gender parts, but by our spirit man and our service to Him now.  ~Minister Falcon

 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Alex_Anatole (AlexAnatole)   1/8/2003 8:31 pm  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)    (15 of 80)  
 
  522.15 in reply to 522.14  
 
more word games. yawn. 
What does your Greek lexicon say about "husband of one wife"? 


Alex http://www.stseraphim.org http://forums.delphiforums.com/OrthodoxWay http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm http://www.Uticaod.com/news/photogallery/jordanville/Fr_Pishew.html 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)     1/9/2003 10:20 am  
To:  Alex_Anatole (AlexAnatole)   (16 of 80)  
 
  522.16 in reply to 522.15  
 
Here is what Barnes' Notes has to say:

1 Timothy 3:1

Verse 1. [This is a trite saying] Greek, "Faithful is the word" - the very phrase which is used in 1 Timothy 1:15. The idea here is, that it was worthy of credence; it was not to be doubted.


[If a man desire] Implying that there would be those who would wish to be put into the ministry. The Lord, undoubtedly, by his Spirit, often excites an earnest and irrepressible desire to preach the gospel-a desire so strong, that he in whom it exists can be satisfied in no other calling. In such a case, it should be regarded as one evidence of a call to this work. The apostle, however, by the statements which follow, intimates that wherever this desire exists, it is of the utmost importance to have just views of the nature of the office, and that there should be other qualifications for the ministry than a mere desire to preach the gospel. He proceeds, therefore, to state those qualifications, and no one who "desires" the office of the ministry should conclude that he is called to it, unless these qualifications substantially are found in him. The word rendered "desire" here oregoo (NT:3713), denotes properly, "to reach" or "stretch out" - and hence to reach after anything, to long after, to try to obtain; Hebrews 11:16.


[The office of a bishop] The Greek here is a single word - episkopees (NT:1984). The word episkopee (NT:1984) - "Episcope" - whence the word "Episcopal" is derived-occurs but four times in the New Testament. It is translated "visitation" in Luke 19:44, and in 1 Peter 2:12; "bishoprick," Acts 1:20; and in this place "office of a bishop." The verb from which it is derived episkopeoo (NT:1983), occurs but twice, In Heb.xii. 15, it is rendered "looking diligently," and in 1 Peter 5:2, "taking the oversight." The noun rendered bishop occurs in Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 2:25. The verb means, properly, to look upon, behold; to inspect, to look after, see to, take care of; and the noun denotes the office of overseeing, inspecting, or looking to. It is used to denote the care of the sick, Xeno. Oec. 15,9; compare "Passow;" and is of so general a character that it may denote any office of overseeing, or attending to. There is nothing in the word itself which would limit it to any class or grade of the ministry, and it is, in fact, applied to nearly all the officers of the church in the New Testament, and, indeed, to Christians who did not sustain "any" office. Thus it is applied:
(a) to believers in general, directing them to "look diligently, lest anyone should fail of the grace of God," Hebrews 12:15;
(b) to the elders of the church at Ephesus, "over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers," Acts 20:28;
(c) to the elders or presbyters of the church in 1 Peter 5:2, "Feed the flock of God, taking the oversight thereof;
(d) to the officers of the church in Philippi, mentioned in connection with deacons[esses] as the only officers of the church there, "to the saints at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons[esses]," Philippians 1:1;
(e) to Judas, the apostate. Acts 1:20; and 
(f) to the great Head of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Peter 2:25, "the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." From this use of the term it follows:
(1) That the word is never used to designate the "uniqueness" of the apostolic office, or so as to have any special applicability to the apostles. Indeed, the term "bishop" is "never" applied to any of them in the New Testament; nor is the word in any of its forms ever used with reference to them, except in the single case of "Judas," Acts 1:20.
(2) It is never employed in the New Testament to designate an order of men superior to presbyters, regarded as having any other functions than presbyters, or being in any sense "successors" to the apostles. It is so used now by the advocates of prelacy; but this is a use wholly unknown to the New Testament. It is so undeniable that the name is never given in the New Testament to those who are now called "bishops," that even Episcopalians concede it. Thus, Dr. Onderdonk (Tract on Episcopacy, p. 12) says, "All that we read in the New Testament concerning 'bishops' is to be regarded as pertaining to the 'middle grade;' that is, to those who are now regarded as earthly 'priests.'" This is not strictly correct, as is clear from the remarks above respecting what is called the "middle grade;" but it is strictly correct, so far as it affirms that it is "never" applied to prelates.
(3) It is used in the New Testament to denote ministers of the gospel who had the care or oversight of the churches, without any regard to gender, grade, or rank.
(4) It has now, as used by Episcopalians, a sense which is wholly unauthorized by the New Testament, and which, indeed, is entirely at variance with the usage there. To apply the term to a pretended superior order of clergy, as designating their special office, is wholly to depart from the use of the word as it occurs in the Bible.
(5) As it is never used in the Scriptures with reference to "prelates," it "should" be used with reference to the pastors, or other officers of the church; and to be a "pastor," or "overseer" of the flock of Christ, should be regarded as being a scriptural bishop.
[He desireth a good work] An honorable office; an office which it is right for a man to desire. There are some stations in life which ought never to be desired; it is proper for anyone to desire the office of a bishop who has the proper qualifications.

I see why you yawn, you are getting deliverance from false teaching....~Minister Falcon

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Alex_Anatole (AlexAnatole)   1/9/2003 6:59 pm  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)    (17 of 80)  
 
  522.17 in reply to 522.16  
 
Gee. 
You have "explained" everything about the term "bishop'... except for one thing. 

What does it imply that one of St Paul's criteria for a bishop is to be the husband of one wife. 

I notice you do not drag out you Greek lexicon to prove conclusively that "wife" could mean "spouse-of-either-gender." 

Nor have you cited a single example of a woman anywhere in Scripture being identified as a Priest or a Bishop. 

But, as the saying goes, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with ... your Greek lexicon. 

Alex 
http://www.stseraphim.org 
http://forums.delphiforums.com/OrthodoxWay 
http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm 
http://www.Uticaod.com/news/photogallery/jordanville/Fr_Pishew.html 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 1/9/2003 11:21:36 PM ET by Alex_Anatole (ALEXANATOLE) 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)     1/10/2003 2:42 am  
To:  Alex_Anatole (AlexAnatole)   (18 of 80)  
 
  522.18 in reply to 522.17  
 
Your one premise is 'wife'.  All your objections have been addressed except for the word 'wife'.  That's rich. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


Message 19 of 80 was Deleted    



   From:  Hamilton109   1/11/2003 10:24 am  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)    (20 of 80)  
 
  522.20 in reply to 522.10  
 
You do have PART of a point here, but only part of one. 
In one sense you are correct, all Christians are Priests in the sense that all Israel were to be Priests. YET, within the national Priesthood of Israel there were restrictions on who were Priests within that Priesthood. Someone from the tribe of Rubin was in one sense a Priest, but he was in no way eligable to serve as a Priest in the Temple. Likewise even within Levi there were restrictions. 

Are you going to suggest that because of this God does not love the other tribes as much as he loves Levi? Shall we call God a "Tribeist" the same way people say "sexist" or should we approach the situation with a little more humility? 

Hamilton
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  Hamilton109   1/11/2003 10:34 am  
To:  Alex_Anatole (AlexAnatole) unread  (21 of 80)  
 
  522.21 in reply to 522.11  
 
In and of itself your argument that "for 20 centuries we didn't know" is not really a sound argument. That MAY have been the case, even though I do not think that it was. 
My issue is "What does the text say?" and after lenghty study of what the best scholars on both sides of the question have to say, I have to say that it is not even close. The complimentarians clearly have the better scriptural evidence. 

Ironically, what actually convinced me against the idea of women in leadership was not the complimentarians but the writings of the equalitarians. I found their examination of scripture to be consistantly cavalier. 

Deep down I do not have any emotional problem with women in leadership, but the text really does not give us much wiggle room. 

Were the Archangel Michael to deliver the news that God had given me full authority to rewrite scripture, I might consider this change, but since neither I nor anyone else has been given this perogative, I will obey the totality of Scripture which teaches that a woman is to be under a man's authority, and that men are only supposed to be under the authority of other men. 

As politically incorrect as it sounds, it is the Biblical truth. 

Hamilton
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Hamilton109   1/11/2003 11:02 am  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)    (22 of 80)  
 
  522.22 in reply to 522.16  
 
One of the contexts that has NOT been examined here is the Levitical one. Jesus was a devout Jew who did all in accordance with Torah. If he was not and did not, he would not have been the sinless sacrifice. 
God had a lot to say about gender and its importance in the Law he gave to Moses. It is in this context that we need to read the New Testament, for the word of God is one, and the God who instructed Moses to write as he did is the SAME God who took human form and lived among men. 

Over all, there seems to be lots of confussion on the subject of gender, and the assertion that Gender only has to do with genitals only highlights the muddledness of the thought. I would encourage you to do the tough plowing on this subject by reading what Torah has to say about gender relationships. 

I would also encourage you to think about the relationship of authority to that of the Military. In the army there are officers and there are enlisted men. In one sense they are all equal, yet there are clear demarcations of authority. Exercise of authority does NOT mean either disrespect OR intrinsic inferiority. 

To illustrate this point I would encourage you to watch the movie "Saving Private Ryan" again and to pay particular attention to how those up and down the chain of command react to each other. Note how Capt. Miller and his Regemental Col. interact. Note how Capt. Miller and Sgt. Horvath interact. 

I'm convinced that much of the resistance to biblical authority in the Church and the Home would be overcome if two things were accomplished. 

First, if people recognized that even when some people abuse there authority that never implies that authority is in itself bad. At any given point and time there are a number of officers who have no business being officers, but no one suggests that the command structure should be abolished. 

Second, if people just have a little faith that God knows what he was talking about, they wouldn't try to take so much time trying to rewrite what he said. 

Hamilton
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)     1/11/2003 1:11 pm  
To:  Hamilton109   (23 of 80)  
 
  522.23 in reply to 522.20  
 
Priests are of the Levi tribe of which I do not dispute.

Priests of a denominational pursuit are also not Levi's yet they use the term Priest.

However, the five-fold ministry is apostle, pastor, prophet[ess], minister, and evangelist.  This is the area in which either sex can work.  If that were not so, then there would not be the word 'prophetess' in the bible.  Priest is not included in this five-fold ministry because this was a Jewish system, not the Gentile system.'

None of the apostles were priests.

The Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel [Ephesians 3:6].

This does not equate with the Jewish system of ceremonial law.  

In fact, Paul did not require Gentiles to come under the ceremonial law of the Jews in any way.  He taught them grace, being under grace.  This does not negate the moral law, but it does negate the ceremonial law in which Gentiles are not hindered as were the Jews.  Now Jews that are Messianic embrace Christ as their Messiah and are under grace as are the Gentiles. ~Minister Falcon
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)     1/11/2003 1:18 pm  
To:  Hamilton109   (24 of 80)  
 
  522.24 in reply to 522.22  
 
You said: I would also encourage you to think about the relationship of authority to that of the Military. In the army there are officers and there are enlisted men. In one sense they are all equal, yet there are clear demarcations of authority. Exercise of authority does NOT mean either disrespect OR intrinsic inferiority. 

Deborah lead an army of men [Judges 4:6-7], was a judge over Israel [Judges 4:4-5], and a prophetess {Judge 4:4].

 

 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Hamilton109   1/13/2003 4:31 pm  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)    (25 of 80)  
 
  522.25 in reply to 522.23  
 
>Priests are of the Levi tribe of which I do not dispute. 
> 
>Priests of a denominational pursuit are also not Levi's yet they use >the term Priest. 
That is NOT what I was talking about. I was talking about those from Rubin REALLY being priests, yet having a different role from the sons of Aaron. 

Is a man from Rubin a Priest? Well, yes and no. 

Dittos for a woman. 

I didn't write the restrictions God put in the Bible, but no one should kid themselves about them either. 

There is a point you are carefully missing, that is the issue of vows and authority. A woman could take a vow, but a husband or father could choose to negate that vow if he chose to do so. 

>However, the five-fold ministry is apostle, pastor, prophet[ess], >minister, and evangelist. This is the area in which either sex can >work. If that were not so, then there would not be the >word 'prophetess' in the bible. Priest is not included in this five->fold ministry because this was a Jewish system, not the Gentile >system.' 

In a sense, you have part of a point. 

>None of the apostles were priests. 
> 
>The Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers >of His promise in Christ through the gospel [Ephesians 3:6]. 
> 
>This does not equate with the Jewish system of ceremonial law. 

Slicing up the law into catagories is bad theology. Not that lots of theologians don't do it, but it is simply bad theology. 

>In fact, Paul did not require Gentiles to come under the ceremonial >law of the Jews in any way. 

Through the OT Gentiles were NEVER REQUIRED to take on the Law of Moses, but only the law of Noach. The teaching of Acts 15 is NOT a new development. 

>He taught them grace, being under grace. This does not negate the >moral law, but it does negate the ceremonial law in which Gentiles >are not hindered as were the Jews. 

More bad theology. The "Ceremonial law was" never negated, but by in large it does not apply to Gentiles. 

>Now Jews that are Messianic embrace Christ as their Messiah and are >under grace as are the Gentiles. 

Observance of the Law of Moses is the New Testament NORM for the JEWISH believer. 

Hamilton 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Hamilton109   1/13/2003 4:33 pm  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)    (26 of 80)  
 
  522.26 in reply to 522.24  
 
Yes she was. And she was a valid Judge and Prophetess. 
This is a far cry from saying this is normative, infact the story itself suggests that it was not.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)     1/13/2003 11:27 pm  
To:  Hamilton109   (27 of 80)  
 
  522.27 in reply to 522.26  
 
Besides Deborah, the office of the prophet was also given to Miriam, Huldah, Isaiah's wife, Elizabeth,  Anna, Priscilla [Prisca], Phoebe, Julia, Mary, Lois, Eunice, Dorcas [Tabitha] and Philip's four unmarried daughters.  This again is evidence that both the OT and the NT women were in offices and held positions of authority over men with the unction of the Holy Spirit's presence. Deborah held all these offices, however, God made it the possible and therefore the norm.  But the point being is that God gave her the promotion, not man.  Therefore, God appoints whom He choses to the five fold ministry be it male or female, not man.  That is not to say that the politics of religion has not appointed male or female incorrectly either. In the end, God is either with His servants [male or female] or He is not.  The fruits will determine whether God has indeed appointed His subject to office.

Now understand the move of God here.  He is not putting boundaries on His servants as to whether they are male or female.  He is looking at His servants by their spirit this is how the offices are to be viewed, not from an earthly perspective but a heavenly one. When you view the overwhelming evidence both in the NT and the OT that women were indeed put into position of authority by God, one should ascertain that it has to be because of the spirit or heart, and not because of the flesh.  When the spirit is subjective to the rule of the Spirit, then it is pliable and able to proceed to respond exactly as God dictates.  So the authority the woman or man is under is not their own or any man, but under the unction of the Spirit of Grace.  Anything they say is a direct response from the Lord, not from their imaginations.  So therefore, God is using them as a servant to speak for Him.  

Numbers 12:6 Then He said, Hear now My words:  If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream.

To determine if a prophet is genuine the test is in Deuteronomy 18:22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

Joel 2:28-29
28 "And it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions. 
29 And also on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days. 

It has been prophesied that both sexes will be made prophets.  We, meaning both sexes: 

We are all ministers of the word.
We are ambassadors for Christ.
We are called angels of the church.
We are apostles.
We are defenders of the faith.
We are elders.
We are fishers of men.
We are laborers.
We are laborers in the Gospel of Christ.
We are called Lights.
We are called men of God.  [Men meaning mankind.]
We are messengers of the church.
We are messengers of the Lord of Hosts.
We are ministers of God.
We are ministers of the Lord.
We are ministers of Christ.
We are ministers of the sancturary.
We are ministers of the gospel.
We are ministers of the word.
We are ministers of the NT.
We are ministers of the church.
We are ministers of the righteousness.
We are overseers.
We are pastors.
We are preachers.
We are preachers of righteousness.
We are servants of God.
We are servants of the Lord.
We are servants of Jesus Christ.
We are servants of the Ekklesia [the body of Christ].
We are shepherds.
We are soldiers of Christ.
We are stars.
We are the stewards of God.
We are the servants of the grace of God.
We are servants of the mysteries of God.
We are teachers.
We are watchmen.
We are witnesses.
We are workers together with God.


~Minister Falcon

 



 


 

 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)     1/13/2003 11:50 pm  
To:  Hamilton109   (28 of 80)  
 
  522.28 in reply to 522.25  
 
You said:  Slicing up the law into catagories is bad theology. Not that lots of theologians don't do it, but it is simply bad theology. 

AND

You said: More bad theology. The "Ceremonial law was" never negated, but by in large it does not apply to Gentiles.

Hebrews 10:8-18

8 Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), 
9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 
10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 
11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 
12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 
13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 
14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. 
15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, 
16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,"  
17 then He adds, "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."  
18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. 


Actually, in the NT it clearly states that the ceremonial Law is no longer applicable and therefore negated.  It is not my idea, but one that I understand to be as written by this above scripture.  Theology?  No fact. 

Here is the discourse about Acts 15 from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary

The leaders at Jerusalem had approved in principle Paul's mission to the Gentiles and did not insist upon circumcision for Gentile converts. Peter was in agreement with this policy; for some time later, when he came to Antioch, he showed that he had learned the lesson taught him by his vision from heaven, and freely entered into table fellowship with Gentile converts (Galatians 2:11-12). Two different churches now existed: the Jewish church in Jerusalem, in which Jewish Christians were free to continue the practice of the OT Law, but as Jews and not as Christians; and the Gentile church in Antioch, where none of the Jewish ceremonial requirements were practiced. Peter approved of Gentile freedom from the Law; and when he was in a Gentile environment, he laid aside his Jewish practices for the sake of Christian fellowship.

The "right wing" party in Jerusalem saw something which was not evident to Peter: that the growth of the Gentile church must mean the inevitable end of the Jewish church. As intercourse increased between the two churches, Jewish Christians would have to follow Peter's example and lay aside their Jewish practices. Therefore, when certain men came from James to Antioch (Galatians 2:12), they accused Peter of forsaking the Law and pointed out to him that his course of action meant the end of Judaism. Peter had not realized the consequences of his action. Therefore he withdrew from table fellowship with the Gentiles to reflect upon the situation. This immediately caused a breach in the church at Antioch. Paul recognized at once the implication of Peter's withdrawal; it meant nothing less than two separate churches-one Jewish Christians other Gentile. Either Jewish Christians would have to lay aside Jewish practices and eat with Gentiles, or Gentiles would have to accept the entire law of Moses; otherwise there would be a divided church. Paul was quite willing for Jews as Jews to practice the law of Moses. But he insisted that when Jewish Christians came into a Gentile church, they must lay aside their Jewish scruples and enter into free fellowship with Gentiles. A divided church was unthinkable, and for Gentiles to accept the Law meant the end of salvation by grace. Paul's viewpoint apparently prevailed, but those of the Jewish party in Jerusalem were not satisfied. They came to Antioch again and insisted that Gentiles be circumcised to become Christians.


~Minister Falcon

 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Hamilton109   1/16/2003 12:59 pm  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)    (29 of 80)  
 
  522.29 in reply to 522.27  
 
<<<Besides Deborah, the office of the prophet was also given to Miriam, Huldah, Isaiah's wife, Elizabeth, Anna, Priscilla [Prisca], Phoebe, Julia, Mary, Lois, Eunice, Dorcas [Tabitha] and Philip's four unmarried daughters.>>> 
First, it is key to realize that the Prophet (and Prophetess) is almost always out of the authority structure, meaning it is not an issue of speaking with there own authority. Being a prophet seems a little like being an official currier for a General. The currier has no resident authority, but only the authority of the Specific word given by God. 

I do not and never have denied that there were women Prophets. Furthermore, it is in the context of women being Prophets that they are commanded to have a head covering. The Apostle Paul AFFIRMS the status of the Prophetess even as he insists that they wear a sign that they themselves are under the authority of their husbands. 

Perhaps he was anticipating the error that you make next. 

<<<This again is evidence that both the OT and the NT women were in offices and held positions of authority over men with the unction of the Holy Spirit's presence.>>> 

See? 

<<<Deborah held all these offices, however, God made it the possible and therefore the norm.>>> 

Non-sequitor. That which is exceptional is not an argument for it being normative. The story of Deborah itself is in large measure a story of men who were afraid to lead. Barak is not exactly the strongest character we see in the Bible. 

That God could choose to make exceptions to his rule has Biblical precident in many different situations, but that in no way suggests that the exception creates a new norm. 

<<<But the point being is that God gave her the promotion, not man. Therefore, God appoints whom He choses to the five fold ministry be it male or female, not man. That is not to say that the politics of religion has not appointed male or female incorrectly either. In the end, God is either with His servants [male or female] or He is not. The fruits will determine whether God has indeed appointed His subject to office.>>> 

Or the appearance of fruits. I often hear this 

<<<Now understand the move of God here. He is not putting boundaries on His servants as to whether they are male or female.>>> 

Chapter and verse please? 

<<<He is looking at His servants by their spirit this is how the offices are to be viewed, not from an earthly perspective but a heavenly one. When you view the overwhelming evidence both in the NT and the OT that women were indeed put into position of authority by God,>>> 

What overwhelming evidence? I have studied this issue HARD and the evidence at best is thin and/or exceptional. 

<<<one should ascertain that it has to be because of the spirit or heart, and not because of the flesh.>>> 

Of course you are saying this because you think that gender is a matter of genitals and not innate God created nature. 

<<<When the spirit is subjective to the rule of the Spirit, then it is pliable and able to proceed to respond exactly as God dictates. So the authority the woman or man is under is not their own or any man, but under the unction of the Spirit of Grace.>>> 

Why do I get the sense that the rule of scripture suddenly becomes secondary to the Spirit's Leading? 

<<<Anything they say is a direct response from the Lord, not from their imaginations.>>> 

Would that it were so, but scripture tells us that that would be the exception, rather than the rule. 

<<<So therefore, God is using them as a servant to speak for Him. 

Numbers 12:6 Then He said, Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. 

To determine if a prophet is genuine the test is in Deuteronomy 18:22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.>>> 

Decidedly, but too little testing is done of self-proclaimed prophets. 

<<<Joel 2:28-29 
28 "And it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions. 
29 And also on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days. 

It has been prophesied that both sexes will be made prophets. We, meaning both sexes:>>> 

Great, I have no doubt of that. Never did. 

[Laundry list deleted] 

While women are called to be servants of the Most High, the issue here is one of the exercise of Authority, and frankly you have not dealt with the issues. 

My suggestion to people is that they study what the best and the brightest in both camps have to say on this subject. The following two websites carry them. 

www.cbmw.org and www.cbeinternational.org 

Study hard. This stuff WILL be on the final. 

Hamilton
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Hamilton109   1/16/2003 1:07 pm  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)    (30 of 80)  
 
  522.30 in reply to 522.28  
 
<<<<You said: Slicing up the law into catagories is bad theology. Not that lots of theologians don't do it, but it is simply bad theology. 
AND 

You said: More bad theology. The "Ceremonial law was" never negated, but by in large it does not apply to Gentiles.>>>> 

And I stand by that as totally accurate. 

<<<<Hebrews 10:8-18 

8 Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), 
9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 
10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 
11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 
12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 
13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 
14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.>>>> 

Notice that this says we have a better Priest, one who does not die, NOT that we do not have a High Priest. 

<<<>15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, 
16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,">>>> 

How is it being written in our hearts if it is negated? 

<<<<17 then He adds, "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." 
18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.>>>> 

Isn't that because the offering had already been made? 

<<<<Actually, in the NT it clearly states that the ceremonial Law is no longer applicable and therefore negated. It is not my idea, but one that I understand to be as written by this above scripture. Theology? No fact.>>>> 

Then how do you deal with the teachings of Acts 15 and especially 21? 

Were Paul and/or James lying? 

I will deal with the commentary passage you posted at length a little later. 

Hamilton
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  K-lynn (KlynnPLer1)   1/20/2003 4:39 pm  
To:  KAY113   (31 of 80)  
 
  522.31 in reply to 522.1  
 
The Bible clearly states that women are not permitted to teach or have authority over men, that women are to be silent in the church. How, then, can women become ordained ministers?

What if women are asked to minister? What then? I don't believe male or female should overstep their callings..nor should they refuse them.

I would not dare interrupt any man or woman of God while they were giving the Word of God, whether they were teaching, preaching or exhorting..

But where I attend worship services there are a variety of folks men/women/youth/children who are asked to use their individual talents to touch lives. 

God is no respector of persons...He has given us all a gift and we are responsible to turn that gift in whatever area.

If I am ask to share my testimony or to teach or to exhort the congregation I do so..It would become very boring if I only heard one person speak and share about God and His Glory..not that God is boring..He is not..and neither is His creation.

Just some thots..

Klynn

 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Hamilton109   1/28/2003 5:18 pm  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)    (32 of 80)  
 
  522.32 in reply to 522.28  
 
I promised a full examination of what this commentary said, and now I want to take a little time to examine it. 
>>>>Actually, in the NT it clearly states that the ceremonial Law is no longer applicable and therefore negated. It is not my idea, but one that I understand to be as written by this above scripture. Theology? No fact. 

Here is the discourse about Acts 15 from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary 

The leaders at Jerusalem had approved in principle Paul's mission to the Gentiles and did not insist upon circumcision for Gentile converts. Peter was in agreement with this policy; for some time later, when he came to Antioch, he showed that he had learned the lesson taught him by his vision from heaven, and freely entered into table fellowship with Gentile converts (Galatians 2:11-12). Two different churches now existed: the Jewish church in Jerusalem, in which Jewish Christians were free to continue the practice of the OT Law, but as Jews and not as Christians;<<<< 

There is ONE Church, and was only one Church, but it has MANY PARTS. 

>>>>and the Gentile church in Antioch, where none of the Jewish ceremonial requirements were practiced. Peter approved of Gentile freedom from the Law; and when he was in a Gentile environment, he laid aside his Jewish practices for the sake of Christian fellowship.<<<< 

Not exactly true, given Acts 21. 

>>>>The "right wing" party in Jerusalem saw something which was not evident to Peter: that the growth of the Gentile church must mean the inevitable end of the Jewish church.<<<< 

It was not inevitable, it happened that way, but as a result of what ONLY be called sin. There always should have been an operative Messianic branch of the Church but from very early on, the Church failed to read the Bible carefully, especially the part about not boasting over the branches. 

The Church has forced Jewish believers to be spiritual "cross-dressers" and has impoverished itself in the process. 

>>>>As intercourse increased between the two churches, Jewish Christians would have to follow Peter's example and lay aside their Jewish practices.<<<< 

As a Messianic Jew, I have no problem with my Gentile brothers and sisters eating pork, etc. All I ask is that if they want to invite me over for dinner that they respect the instructions that God has given to Jewish believers. If they know their Bible, they will NOT ask me to "lay aside my Jewish practices." 

>>>>Therefore, when certain men came from James to Antioch (Galatians 2:12), they accused Peter of forsaking the Law and pointed out to him that his course of action meant the end of Judaism. Peter had not realized the consequences of his action. Therefore he withdrew from table fellowship with the Gentiles to reflect upon the situation. This immediately caused a breach in the church at Antioch. Paul recognized at once the implication of Peter's withdrawal; it meant nothing less than two separate churches-one Jewish Christians other Gentile. Either Jewish Christians would have to lay aside Jewish practices and eat with Gentiles,<<<< 

There is NOTHING in Torah that would have forbidden Jew and Gentile from eating together, that is a Proto-Talmudic addition that needed to be rejected. 

>>>>or Gentiles would have to accept the entire law of Moses;<<<< 

Why? That never happened in the OT. 

>>>>otherwise there would be a divided church.<<<< 

No, there would be ONE church with many parts.... 

>>>>Paul was quite willing for Jews as Jews to practice the law of Moses. But he insisted that when Jewish Christians came into a Gentile church, they must lay aside their Jewish scruples and enter into free fellowship with Gentiles.<<<< 

Read Acts 21. "Paul, there is a slander going on around that you are telling Jewish believers in exile that they are to forsake circumcision, Moses, and the traditions of the fathers." (Hamilton free translation) 

Please tell me what this commentary sez about Acts 21?!? 

>>>>A divided church was unthinkable, and for Gentiles to accept the Law meant the end of salvation by grace.<<<< 

No one in authority ever asked them to. 

>>>>Paul's viewpoint apparently prevailed, but those of the Jewish party in Jerusalem were not satisfied. They came to Antioch again and insisted that Gentiles be circumcised to become Christians.<<<< 

Huh? 

The events of Acts 15 were a DIRECT result of what was happening in Galations 3. The Council of Jerusalem repudiated the Judaizers, but did NOT then or ever say that the Law of Moses was not operative for JEWISH believers. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)     1/29/2003 4:28 pm  
To:  Hamilton109   (33 of 80)  
 
  522.33 in reply to 522.32  
 
from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary: 

Two different churches now existed: the Jewish church in Jerusalem, in which Jewish Christians were free to continue the practice of the OT Law, but as Jews and not as Christians;<<<< 

You said:  There is ONE Church, and was only one Church, but it has MANY PARTS. 

You probably should write to the Wycliffe Bible Commentary and tell them your opinion since it was their research you are commenting on with your thoughts. 

from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary: 

>>>>and the Gentile church in Antioch, where none of the Jewish ceremonial requirements were practiced. Peter approved of Gentile freedom from the Law; and when he was in a Gentile environment, he laid aside his Jewish practices for the sake of Christian fellowship.<<<< 

You said:  Not exactly true, given Acts 21. 

You probably should write to the Wycliffe Bible Commentary and tell them your opinion since it was their research you are commenting on with your thoughts.

from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary: 

>>>>The "right wing" party in Jerusalem saw something which was not evident to Peter: that the growth of the Gentile church must mean the inevitable end of the Jewish church.<<<< 

You said:  It was not inevitable, it happened that way, but as a result of what ONLY be called sin. There always should have been an operative Messianic branch of the Church but from very early on, the Church failed to read the Bible carefully, especially the part about not boasting over the branches. 

The Church has forced Jewish believers to be spiritual "cross-dressers" and has impoverished itself in the process. 

You probably should write to the Wycliffe Bible Commentary and tell them your opinion since it was their research you are commenting on with your thoughts.

from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary: 

>>>>As intercourse increased between the two churches, Jewish Christians would have to follow Peter's example and lay aside their Jewish practices.<<<< 

You said: As a Messianic Jew, I have no problem with my Gentile brothers and sisters eating pork, etc. All I ask is that if they want to invite me over for dinner that they respect the instructions that God has given to Jewish believers. If they know their Bible, they will NOT ask me to "lay aside my Jewish practices." 

Gentiles are no longer heathens but adopted Jews, grafted into the Vine.  Therefore, the Jews are still God's chosen people but Gentiles that have turned to Christianity are treated equally by God as brothers/sisters to His chosen people and are not singled out as Jews or Gentiles any more.  We are all called Christians.  To single yourself out as a Messianic Jew tells me a great deal of how you feel about yourself and about Gentile Christians.

from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary: 

The "right wing" party in Jerusalem saw something which was not evident to Peter: that the growth of the Gentile church must mean the inevitable end of the Jewish church. As intercourse increased between the two churches, Jewish Christians would have to follow Peter's example and lay aside their Jewish practices. Therefore, when certain men came from James to Antioch (Galatians 2:12), they accused Peter of forsaking the Law and pointed out to him that his course of action meant the end of Judaism. Peter had not realized the consequences of his action. Therefore he withdrew from table fellowship with the Gentiles to reflect upon the situation. This immediately caused a breach in the church at Antioch. Paul recognized at once the implication of Peter's withdrawal; it meant nothing less than two separate churches-one Jewish Christians other Gentile. Either Jewish Christians would have to lay aside Jewish practices and eat with Gentiles, or Gentiles would have to accept the entire law of Moses; otherwise there would be a divided church. Paul was quite willing for Jews as Jews to practice the law of Moses. But he insisted that when Jewish Christians came into a Gentile church, they must lay aside their Jewish scruples and enter into free fellowship with Gentiles. A divided church was unthinkable, and for Gentiles to accept the Law meant the end of salvation by grace. Paul's viewpoint apparently prevailed, but those of the Jewish party in Jerusalem were not satisfied. They came to Antioch again and insisted that Gentiles be circumcised to become Christians.


You said:  There is NOTHING in Torah that would have forbidden Jew and Gentile from eating together, that is a Proto-Talmudic addition that needed to be rejected. 

The paragraph explained itself so I added on here, the completed paragraph.  Once you separated the paragraph at the point you did,  you lost the meaning of this statement which contained an answer.  You probably should write to the Wycliffe Bible Commentary and tell them your opinion since it was their research you are commenting on with your thoughts.

You give lots of opinion with no scripture to support your understanding.  You give lots of opinion with no commentary that supports your position.  I have given you scripture and recognized commentary to support my position and knowledge of the word of God.  It is fruitless to continue this discourse because you are set in your opinion and unteachable to the truth.  So at this point, we part, agreeing to disagree.  ~Minister Falcon
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Hamilton109   1/29/2003 5:07 pm  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)    (34 of 80)  
 
  522.34 in reply to 522.33  
 
Yes, I know that I was writing about the Wycliffe Bible Commentary, I was telling you why it was wrong, and if you did not see my specific scriptures cited, I THINK that if you go back and examine the prior posts, I mention Acts 21 and Is. 66 in some detail. 
If I remember incorrectly, I'll be happy to post more on that subject.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Hamilton109   1/29/2003 5:13 pm  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)    (35 of 80)  
 
  522.35 in reply to 522.33  
 
Oh yeah, unteachable is NOT something that you should accuse others of. 
Also, you are correct in stating that I do not quote commontaries much, especially as they touch on Acts 21, because I have heard about every euphenism for "lie" used when describing St. Paul's actions there. I don't quote books that slander Apostles.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Hamilton109   1/29/2003 5:28 pm  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)    (36 of 80)  
 
  522.36 in reply to 522.33  
 
I just tried to find an online version of the wycliffe commentary but I could not. Could you post what they have to say about Acts 21? 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)     1/29/2003 11:19 pm  
To:  Hamilton109   (37 of 80)  
 
  522.37 in reply to 522.36  
 
from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary


INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF ACTS 

Title. The title as we know it was not attached to the original book but belongs to the second century A.D.  The Gospel of Luke and The Acts are two volumes of a single work (see Commentary in loc.), and whatever title was originally prefixed to the Gospel served for both books. When the second volume began to circulate independently, this title was used to designate its contents.


Author. Neither the Gospel nor The Acts names their author, but he was most probably Luke, a friend and companion of Paul. The clue to authorship is provided by the three "we" sections, where the narrative is in the first person plural (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-21:18; 27:1-28:16), suggesting that the author was Paul's companion on these three occasions, and is using his travel diary as his source. Some have suggested that this travel document was written by an unknown companion of Paul and incorporated into Acts by a later unknown author. But the uniformity of style between this travel narrative and the rest of Acts and the retention of the first person plural make this most unlikely. Church tradition uniformly identifies Luke as Paul's companion, and the data of The Acts support this tradition.


Date. The date of Acts is linked with the problem of its abrupt ending (see Commentary in loc.). We do not (know) when it was written, but a date shortly after the conclusion of the narrative is likely. If so, Acts was written about A.D. 62 AD.


Sources. Aside from his own travel diary, Luke may have used written sources, especially for the earlier chapters of his work. As a companion of Paul, he was in a position to gather firsthand information from the apostle. Furthermore, since Luke was in Palestine during Paul's Caesarean imprisonment (Acts 21:18; 27:1), he had ample opportunity to gather information about the early days of the church from eyewitnesses.


Purpose. Luke wrote to assure Theophilus as to "the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed" (Luke 1:4). Theophilus was probably a Gentile convert to Christianity, and Luke wrote to give him a greater knowledge of Christian origins than he already possessed. This included the story of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (the "Gospel"), and the establishment and extension of the church.


Strictly speaking, Luke did not write a (history) of the early church. This is not to suggest that his narration is unhistorical or inaccurate. However, the task of a "historian" is to give a comprehensive narrative of all of the important facts. This, obviously, Luke did not attempt. He tells us nothing about the churches in Galilee (Acts 9:31) or about the evangelization of Egypt or Rome. His story is not The Acts of the Apostles, for only three of the original twelve appear in his narrative-Peter, James, John; and the latter two are only mentioned. The book of Acts is The Acts of Peter and Paul. Furthermore, Peter is practically dropped from the story after the conversion of Cornelius, and we are left wondering what became of him. Again, Luke gives no explanation of the rise of elders in the church (11:30), of how James came to a place of leadership in the Jerusalem church (15:13), of what Paul did in Tarsus after his conversion (9:30; see 11:25), and of many other important historical matters. Furthermore, he passes over some events with a few words (18:19-23) but relates other events in great detail (21:17-26:32). In other words, Luke is telling a story, not writing a "history." His story is that of the main outlines of the extension of the church from Jerusalem to Rome via Samaria, Antioch, Asia, and Europe; and in this story, only Peter and Paul played outstanding roles. The ministry of the other apostles elsewhere in the eastern world was not important to Luke.


Two themes underlie the story of this expansion: the rejection of the Gospel by the Jews and its reception by the Gentiles; and the treatment of the early church by local and Roman officials. Luke's main purpose, therefore, in his two-volume work (Luke-Acts) is to explain to Theophilus how it came about that the Gospel which began with the promise of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (Luke 1:32-33) ended with the Gentile church in Rome, distinct from Judaism.


Furthermore, Judaism was a religion recognized by Rome. The new religious fellowship that arose within Judaism and yet was not simply a sect in the older religion received the same recognition from Rome as did Judaism. Thus the Christian church became established in the Roman world as a legitimate religion distinct from Judaism.


Acts and the Epistles. The greatest problem in the history of the study of Acts has concerned its trustworthiness in comparison with the epistles of Paul. Luke does not refer to the epistles of Paul, and it is not always easy to correlate Paul's movements, as reflected in his epistles, with Luke's record. The greatest problem is: How can the events of Galatians 1:16-2:10 be correlated with the Lukan narrative? Equally good scholars have felt that the visit of Galatians 2:1-10 refers to (a) the famine visit of Acts 11:27-30 and (b) the council visit in Acts 15. Many scholars have felt that the narrative of Acts suffers in comparison with the epistles.


A second aspect of the problem is posed by the contrast between the portrait of Paul in Acts and that reflected in the missionary's own epistles. The Paul of Acts appears to be a flexible, reasonable person who was willing to compromise his principles for the sake of expediency (see Acts 16:3; 21:26); while the Paul of the epistles is an inflexible person of unbending convictions (Galatians 1:8; 2:3). The older Tubingen school of criticism built its theory of the history of the primitive church around a supposed conflict between Pauline and Judaistic Christianity, and held that The Acts reflects a late stage in the history of the conflict, when a synthesis was being achieved between the two contradictory viewpoints.


It is obviously impossible to deal in any detail with these problems, but they stand in the background of the study and often enter directly into the commentary.


If you want specific verses, just give them to me and I will post their commentary as well. ~Minister Falcon
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 
From:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)     1/30/2003 3:22 am  
To:  Hamilton109    
 
    
 
Here is another commentary from The Sword Project software concerning Acts 21:26:

Acts 21:26 #Ac 21:26| (26) Then Paul took the men, and the next day went with them into the temple purified, announcing the fulfilling of the days of purification, when an offering should be offered for each one of them. This I confess to be the most difficult passage in Acts to fully understand, and to reconcile with the teaching of Paul on the subject of the Mosaic law. We shall have the exact state of the question before our minds, by inquiring, first, What was the exact position of the Jerusalem brethren in reference to the law? second, What had Paul actually taught upon the subject? and third, How can the course pursued by both be reconciled to the mature apostolic teaching? First. It is stated, in this speech, of which James was doubtless the author, that the disciples about Jerusalem were "all zealous for the law." They recognized the authority of Moses as still binding; for they complained that Paul taught "apostasy from Moses" [#Ac 21:21|]. The specifications of this apostasy were, first, neglect of circumcision; second, abandonment of the customs." By "the customs" are meant those imposed by the law, among which, as seen in their proposition to Paul, were the Nazarite vows, with their burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, and meat-offerings (#Nu 6:13-17|), and, as seen in Paul's epistles, abstinence from unclean meats, and the observance of Sabbath-days, holy days, new moons, and Sabbatic years (#Ro 14:1-23 Ga 4:9,10 Col 2:16,17|). Second. Our iniquity into Paul's teaching on the subject must have separate reference to what he had taught before this time, and what he taught subsequently. None of his oral teachings on the subject are preserved by Luke, hence we are dependent for a knowledge of his present teaching upon those of his epistles which were written previous to this time. In none of the specifications above enumerated did he fully agree with his Jewish brethren. True, he granted the perpetuity of circumcision; yet not because he acknowledged with them the continued authority of the law, but because of the covenant with Abraham which preceded the law (see TFG "Ac 16:3). As for the law, he taught that it had been "a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith, but after faith is come, we are no longer under the schoolmaster" (#Ga 3:24,25|); that, "now we are delivered from the law, being dead to that in which we were held"; that we are "become dead to the law by the body of Christ" (#Ro 7:4-6|). In repudiating the authority of the law, he necessarily repudiated all obligation to observe "the customs." In reference to all these, he afterward said to the Colossians, that God had "blotted out the handwriting of ordinances which was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross." "Let no man, therefore, judge you in food or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of Sabbaths; which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ" (#Col 2:14,16,17|). While thus repudiating the obligation to observe the ordinances, he admitted the innocence of their observance, and forbade any breach of fellowship on account of it, laying down in reference to them all, this rule: "Let not him who eats, despise him who eats not; and let not him who eats not, judge him who eats" (#Ro 14:1-6|). In reference, therefore, to meats and days, he and the judaizers agreed that the Jews might observe them; and they differed as to the ground of this conclusion: the latter affirming that it was a matter of duty; the former holding that it was a matter of indifference. Thus far we have omitted special mention of one custom, because its importance demands for it a separate consideration. We refer to sacrifices. It is evident, from the transaction before us, as observed above, that James and the brethren in Jerusalem regarded the offering of sacrifices as at least innocent; for they approved the course of the four Nazarites, and urged Paul to join with them in the service, though it required them to offer sacrifices, and even sin-offerings. They could not, indeed, very well avoid this opinion, since they admitted the continued authority of the Mosaic law. Though disagreeing with them as to the ground of their opinion, as in reference to the other customs, Paul evidently admitted the opinion itself, for he adopted their advice, and paid the expense of the sacrifices which the four Nazarites offered [#Ac 21:23,24,26|]. Third. The commentators uniformly agree that Paul was right, and that the rites observed on this occasion are to be referred to that class which are indifferent, and in reference to which Paul acted upon the principle of being a Jew to the Jew, that he might win the Jew. m This would not be objectionable, if the proceeding had reference merely to meats and drinks, holy days, etc., to which it appears to be confined in their view; for all these were indifferent then, and are not less so at the present day. Who would say that it would now be sinful to abstain from certain meats, and observe certain days as holy? But it is far different with bloody sacrifices. If disciples, either Jewish or Gentile, should now assemble in Jerusalem, construct an altar, appoint a priesthood, and offer sin-offerings, they could but be regarded as apostates from Christ. But why should it be regarded as a crime now, if it was innocent then? The truth is, that, up to this time, Paul had written nothing which directly conflicted with the service of the altar, and he did not yet understand the subject correctly. His mind, and those of all the brethren, were as yet in much the same condition on this subject that they were before the conversion of Cornelius, in reference to the reception of the uncircumcised into the Church. If we admit that the proposition above quoted from Galatians, affirming that "we are no longer under the law" [#Ga 3:24,25|], was, when fully understood, inconsistent with the continuance of the sacrifice, we make his case only the more likely like Peter's in regard to the Gentiles; for he announced propositions, on Pentecost, which were inconsistent with his subsequent course, until he was made to better understand the force of his own words. Peter finally discovered that he was wrong in that matter, and Paul at length discovered that he was wrong, in his connection with the offerings of these Nazarites. Some years later, the whole question concerning the Aaronic priesthood and animal sacrifices was thrust more distinctly upon his mind, and the Holy Spirit made to him a more distinct revelation of the truth upon the subject, and caused him to develop it to the Churches, in Ephesians, Colossians, and especially in Hebrews. In the last-named Epistle, written during his imprisonment in Rome, he exhibited the utter inefficiency of animal sacrifices; the sacrifice of Christ, once for all, as the only sufficient sin offering; and the abrogation of the Aaronic priesthood by that of Christ, who was now the only high priest and mediator between God and man. After these developments, he could not, for any earthly consideration, have repeated the transaction with the Nazarites; for it would have been to insult the great High Priest over the house of God, by presenting, before a human priest, an offering which could not take away sin, and which would proclaim the insufficiency of the blood of the atonement. We conclude, therefore, that the procedure described in the text was inconsistent with the truth as finally developed by the apostles, but not with so much of it as was then understood by Paul. This conclusion presents but another proof that the Holy Spirit, in leading the apostles "into the truth," did so by a gradual development running through a series of years (see Commentary, #Ac 10:9-23 11:1-18|). When Paul finally was enabled to understand and develop the whole truth on this subject, no doubt the opinions and prejudices of the more liberal class of Jewish disciples yielded to his clear and conclusive arguments. But, doubtless, some still clung to the obsolete and unlawful service of the temple, assisting the unbelieving Jews to perpetuate it. Then came in the necessity for the destruction of their temple and city, so that it should be impossible for them to longer offer sacrifices which had been superseded. The destruction of the temple was not the legal termination of the Mosaic ritual; for it ceased to be legal with the death of Christ (#Eph 2:14-16 Col 2:14|); but this brought to an end its illegal continuance. Before we dismiss this passage, there are two more points claiming a moment's attention. First, the justness of the accusation which the brethren had heard against Paul. He had certainly taught the Jews that they were no longer under the law, and that "the customs" were no longer binding, and this was, in one sense, "apostasy from Moses." But he had not, as he was charged, taught them to abandon the customs; for he had insisted that they were innocent; and, in reference to circumcision, he had given no ground of offense whatever. Hence the charge, as understood by those who preferred it, was false; and it was with the utmost propriety that Paul consented to disabuse their minds, though the means he adopted for that purpose was improper. The last point claiming attention is the nature of the purification which Paul underwent. The statement which we have rendered, he "purified himself with them," is understood, by some commentators, to mean that he took part in their vow of abstinence n. But for this meaning of the term, agnizw , there is no authority in the New Testament; everywhere else it means to purify, and Paul's own statement to Felix, that "they found me purified in the temple" (#Ac 24:18|), in which he speaks of the same event, and uses the same word, is conclusive as to its meaning here. It will be remembered that no Jew who, like Paul, had been mingling with Gentiles, and disregarding the ceremonial cleanness of the law, was permitted to enter the outer court of the temple without being purified. This purification he must have undergone, and there is no evidence that he underwent any other. But it is said that he purified himself "with them," which shows that they, too, were unclean. Now, when a Nazarite became unclean within the period of his vow, it was necessary that he should purify himself, shear his head on the seventh day, and on the eighth day bring certain offerings. Then he lost the days of his vow which had preceded the uncleanness, and had to begin the count anew from the day that the offering was presented. This is fully stated in #Nu 6:1-27|, where the law of Nazarite is prescribed. Such was the condition of these Nazarites, as is further proved by the notice given of the "days of purification," and the mention, in #Ac 21:27|, of "the seven days," as of a period well known. Nazarites had no purification to perform except when they became unclean during their vow; and there was no period of seven days connected with their vow, except in the instance just mentioned. In this instance, as the head was to be sheared on the seventh day, and the offerings presented on the eighth, there were just seven whole days employed. Paul's part was to give notice to the priest of the beginning of these days, and to pay the expenses of the offerings; but he had to purify himself before he went in for this purpose. m Bloomfield, Olshausen, Neander, Hackett, Howson, etc. n Bloomfield, Olshausen. (OCA 261-262) 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 1/30/2003 6:24:57 AM ET by OSMFALCON 
From:  Hamilton109   1/31/2003 11:18 am  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)     
 
    
 
>>Ac 21:26| (26) Then Paul took the men, and the next day went with them into the temple purified, announcing the fulfilling of the days of purification, when an offering should be offered for each one of them.<< 
>>This I confess to be the most difficult passage in Acts to fully understand, and to reconcile with the teaching of Paul on the subject of the Mosaic law. We shall have the exact state of the question before our minds, by inquiring, first, What was the exact position of the Jerusalem brethren in reference to the law? second, What had Paul actually taught upon the subject? and third, How can the course pursued by both be reconciled to the mature apostolic teaching? First. It is stated, in this speech, of which James was doubtless the author, that the disciples about Jerusalem were "all zealous for the law." They recognized the authority of Moses as still binding; for they complained that Paul taught "apostasy from Moses" [#Ac 21:21|]. The specifications of this apostasy were, first, neglect of circumcision; second, abandonment of the customs." By "the customs" are meant those imposed by the law, among which, as seen in their proposition to Paul, were the Nazarite vows, with their burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, and meat-offerings (#Nu 6:13-17|), and, as seen in Paul's epistles, abstinence from unclean meats, and the observance of Sabbath-days, holy days, new moons, and Sabbatic years (#Ro 14:1-23 Ga 4:9,10 Col 2:16,17|). Second. Our iniquity into Paul's teaching on the subject must have separate reference to what he had taught before this time, and what he taught subsequently. None of his oral teachings on the subject are preserved by Luke, hence we are dependent for a knowledge of his present teaching upon those of his epistles which were written previous to this time. In none of the specifications above enumerated did he fully agree with his Jewish brethren. True, he granted the perpetuity of circumcision; yet not because he acknowledged with them the continued authority of the law, but because of the covenant with Abraham which preceded the law (see TFG "Ac 16:3). As for the law, he taught that it had been "a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith, but after faith is come, we are no longer under the schoolmaster" (#Ga 3:24,25|); that, "now we are delivered from the law, being dead to that in which we were held"; that we are "become dead to the law by the body of Christ" (#Ro 7:4-6|).<< 

The Chapter when taken as a whole, certainly does not suggest this. 

This is especially true when taken in the context of Romans 3, culminating in verse 31, clearly suggests that we are immune to the CURSE that disobedience to the law brings (grace) but not that the law is negated. 

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. 

Galations makes the same point. Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree: 

>>In repudiating the authority of the law, he necessarily repudiated all obligation to observe "the customs." In reference to all these, he afterward said to the Colossians, that God had "blotted out the handwriting of ordinances which was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross." "Let no man, therefore, judge you in food or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of Sabbaths; which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ" (#Col 2:14,16,17|).<< 

First, who was he writing to? Gentiles. Gentiles who were never obligated to follow Sabbaths, New Moons and Holy Days. 

Second, we see a clue of a very specific problem he was addressing. 
Col 2:20-23 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the COMMANMENTS AND DOCTINES OF **MEN**? 

Notice that he was not negating the law of God here but the Law of MEN. Judaizing (requiring Gentiles to live like Jews is a law of MAN not of God.) 

>>While thus repudiating the obligation to observe the ordinances, he admitted the innocence of their observance, and forbade any breach of fellowship on account of it, laying down in reference to them all, this rule: "Let not him who eats, despise him who eats not; and let not him who eats not, judge him who eats" (#Ro 14:1-6|).<< 

Let Jewish believers be Jewish believer and let Gentile believers be Gentile believers. 

>>In reference, therefore, to meats and days, he and the judaizers agreed that the Jews might observe them; and they differed as to the ground of this conclusion: the latter affirming that it was a matter of duty; the former holding that it was a matter of indifference.<< 

Isogesis. 

>>Thus far we have omitted special mention of one custom, because its importance demands for it a separate consideration. We refer to sacrifices. It is evident, from the transaction before us, as observed above, that James and the brethren in Jerusalem regarded the offering of sacrifices as at least innocent; for they approved the course of the four Nazarites, and urged Paul to join with them in the service, though it required them to offer sacrifices, and even sin-offerings. They could not, indeed, very well avoid this opinion, since they admitted the continued authority of the Mosaic law. 
Though disagreeing with them as to the ground of their opinion, as in reference to the other customs, Paul evidently admitted the opinion itself, for he adopted their advice, and paid the expense of the sacrifices which the four Nazarites offered [#Ac 21:23,24,26|].<< 

The ONLY idea where the law of moses does not remain in effect is in soteriological terms. My observance does not save me. Paul didn't believe it and the author HERE has no evidence to believe that James and the saints and Jerusalem differed with Paul in any way on this point. 

>>Third. The commentators uniformly agree that Paul was right, and that the rites observed on this occasion are to be referred to that class which are indifferent, and in reference to which Paul acted upon the principle of being a Jew to the Jew, that he might win the Jew. m This would not be objectionable, if the proceeding had reference merely to meats and drinks, holy days, etc., to which it appears to be confined in their view; for all these were indifferent then, and are not less so at the present day.<< 

The text does not warrant the author's conclusion and if he is correct, the "Anti-Missionaries" are correct in saying that Paul was a liar. 

>>Who would say that it would now be sinful to abstain from certain meats, and observe certain days as holy? But it is far different with bloody sacrifices. If disciples, either Jewish or Gentile, should now assemble in Jerusalem, construct an altar, appoint a priesthood, and offer sin-offerings, they could but be regarded as apostates from Christ.<< 

Okay, but the author is here constructing a "straw man." 

>>But why should it be regarded as a crime now, if it was innocent then?<< 

Because the Temple was still standing. 

>>The truth is, that, up to this time, Paul had written nothing which directly conflicted with the service of the altar, and he did not yet understand the subject correctly.<< 

Acts was written LATE in Paul's life, and if he were mistaken, it would have been highly appropriate for him to correct himself in the pages of Acts, but he does not. 

>>His mind, and those of all the brethren, were as yet in much the same condition on this subject that they were before the conversion of Cornelius, in reference to the reception of the uncircumcised into the Church.<< 

Again, the commentator mistakes the dating of Acts, and in any event, the apparent contradictions 

>>If we admit that the proposition above quoted from Galatians, affirming that "we are no longer under the law" [#Ga 3:24,25|],<< 

Soteriologically, we are not under the Law, but Paul makes it CLEAR in Romans 3 and 7 that it is NOT done away with. 

>>was, when fully understood, inconsistent with the continuance of the sacrifice, we make his case only the more likely like Peter's in regard to the Gentiles; for he announced propositions, on Pentecost, which were inconsistent with his subsequent course, until he was made to better understand the force of his own words. Peter finally discovered that he was wrong in that matter, and Paul at length discovered that he was wrong,<< 

Paul did? Chapter and verse please? And remember that we have to find something written AFTER Acts to support the author's contention. 

>>in his connection with the offerings of these Nazarites. Some years later, the whole question concerning the Aaronic priesthood and animal sacrifices was thrust more distinctly upon his mind, and the Holy Spirit made to him a more distinct revelation of the truth upon the subject, and caused him to develop it to the Churches, in Ephesians, Colossians,<< 

Books written to predominantly Gentile congregations. 

>>and especially in Hebrews.<< 

The best scholarship now understands the Paul was almost certainly NOT the author of Hebrews. The style of using quotations in Hebrews is profoundly different than any of Paul's other writings, also, the use of greek iw somewhat different that Paul's. 

>>In the last-named Epistle, written during his imprisonment in Rome, he exhibited the utter inefficiency of animal sacrifices; the sacrifice of Christ, once for all, as the only sufficient sin offering; and the abrogation of the Aaronic priesthood by that of Christ, who was now the only high priest and mediator between God and man.<< 

Please note that Hebrews proclaims that CHRIST became the High Priest, not that the office of High Priest was done away with. This is an immense clue as to the issue of the existance or non-existance of the Law. 

>>After these developments, he could not, for any earthly consideration, have repeated the transaction with the Nazarites; for it would have been to insult the great High Priest over the house of God, by presenting, before a human priest, an offering which could not take away sin, and which would proclaim the insufficiency of the blood of the atonement.<< 

The inescapable conclusion of these words are that Paul, James and the congregation at Jerusalem were devoid of understanding and discernment. This creates a HUGE problem for faith far beyond Messianic issues. 

>>We conclude, therefore, that the procedure described in the text was inconsistent with the truth as finally developed by the apostles, but not with so much of it as was then understood by Paul.<< 

If Acts were written early in Paul's life, the author would have a point, but it was written at the end of his life, so if Paul was incorrect, he persisted in this error for years and never acknowledged his sin. 

>>This conclusion presents but another proof that the Holy Spirit, in leading the apostles "into the truth," did so by a gradual development running through a series of years (see Commentary, #Ac 10:9-23 11:1-18|). When Paul finally was enabled to understand and develop the whole truth on this subject, no doubt the opinions and prejudices of the more liberal class of Jewish disciples yielded to his clear and conclusive arguments. But, doubtless, some still clung to the obsolete and unlawful service of the temple, assisting the unbelieving Jews to perpetuate it.<< 

Again, this conclusion relies on early dating of Acts, and it also relies on the idea that the community of believers did not KNOW that the Temple was going to be destroyed. Not only Yeshus's words were known, but John the Baptist first proclaimed that the Temple was doomed saying "The axe is already laid at the root of the tree." The Temple was destroyed, in all probability, 40 years to the DAY after John spoke those words. 

No mature believer was caught flat-footed by the destruction of the Temple, so we cannot read anything into the issues of observance based on the belief the the Temple was going to stay around. 

>>Then came in the necessity for the destruction of their temple and city, so that it should be impossible for them to longer offer sacrifices which had been superseded. The destruction of the temple was not the legal termination of the Mosaic ritual; for it ceased to be legal with the death of Christ (#Eph 2:14-16 Col 2:14|); but this brought to an end its illegal continuance.<< 

It was necessary so that no other pretender could claim to be the Messiah. For the Messiah had to come to THAT SECOND TEMPLE, or the Prophesy was NOT fulfilled. 

The Law of Moses was observed by Jews in exile before so the destruction of the temple does not create an argument against observance now anymore than it did at the time of exile in Babylon. 

>>Before we dismiss this passage, there are two more points claiming a moment's attention. First, the justness of the accusation which the brethren had heard against Paul. He had certainly taught the Jews that they were no longer under the law, and that "the customs" were no longer binding, and this was, in one sense, "apostasy from Moses." But he had not, as he was charged, taught them to abandon the customs; for he had insisted that they were innocent; and, in reference to circumcision, he had given no ground of offense whatever. Hence the charge, as understood by those who preferred it, was false; and it was with the utmost propriety that Paul consented to disabuse their minds, though the means he adopted for that purpose was improper. The last point claiming attention is the nature of the purification which Paul underwent. The statement which we have rendered, he "purified himself with them," is understood, by some commentators, to mean that he took part in their vow of abstinence n. But for this meaning of the term, agnizw , there is no authority in the New Testament; everywhere else it means to purify, and Paul's own statement to Felix, that "they found me purified in the temple" (#Ac 24:18|), in which he speaks of the same event, and uses the same word, is conclusive as to its meaning here. It will be remembered that no Jew who, like Paul, had been mingling with Gentiles,<< 

TORAH never says that Jews and Gentiles cannot associate, that was a Talmudic addition. That was also the Point of Peter's vision in Acts 10-- it was not taking about FOOD it was talking about men (Gentiles) who EAT that food. 

>>and disregarding the ceremonial cleanness of the law, was permitted to enter the outer court of the temple without being purified. This purification he must have undergone, and there is no evidence that he underwent any other. But it is said that he purified himself "with them," which shows that they, too, were unclean. Now, when a Nazarite became unclean within the period of his vow, it was necessary that he should purify himself, shear his head on the seventh day, and on the eighth day bring certain offerings. Then he lost the days of his vow which had preceded the uncleanness, and had to begin the count anew from the day that the offering was presented. This is fully stated in #Nu 6:1-27|, where the law of Nazarite is prescribed. Such was the condition of these Nazarites, as is further proved by the notice given of the "days of purification," and the mention, in #Ac 21:27|, of "the seven days," as of a period well known. Nazarites had no purification to perform except when they became unclean during their vow; and there was no period of seven days connected with their vow, except in the instance just mentioned. In this instance, as the head was to be sheared on the seventh day, and the offerings presented on the eighth, there were just seven whole days employed. Paul's part was to give notice to the priest of the beginning of these days, and to pay the expenses of the offerings; but he had to purify himself before he went in for this purpose. m Bloomfield, Olshausen, Neander, Hackett, Howson, etc. n Bloomfield, Olshausen. (OCA 261-262)<< 

I will note that this is one of the MILDER versions of this error that I have read over the years. It is an error fueled by a misunderstanding of the PURPOSES and SUBJECTS of the Law of Moses. No Gentile was ever subject to the Law of Moses per se, without his being adopted into the Nation of Israel, and Paul wasn't going to let it start on his watch. As recorded in Acts 15, we see that James and the Council of Jerusalem had the same opinion. Nowhere is there any credible biblical evidence that they considered abandoning Circumcision, Moses and the tradions as being anything other that walking disorderly for Jewish believers. 

Hamilton
 
From:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)     1/31/2003 3:53 pm  
To:  Hamilton109    
 
    
 
You said:  The Chapter when taken as a whole, certainly does not suggest this. 

This is especially true when taken in the context of Romans 3, culminating in verse 31, clearly suggests that we are immune to the CURSE that disobedience to the law brings (grace) but not that the law is negated. 

Lets look at several things here.  First of all scripture in Hebrews.

Hebrews 10:8-18 
8 Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), 
9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 
10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 
11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 
12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 
13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 
14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

There are three parts to the law:  ceremonial law, civil law, and moral law.

This is the ceremonial law that was removed according to Hebrews 10:8-18.  The ceremonial law is of works.  That has been abolished.  

The next scripture that we look at is this in Romans 3 which tells us about ceremonial law and the moral law.

Romans 3:27-31
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 
29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 
30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

The Moral Law which is the Law that defines sin has not been removed.  We are not bound to this law IF we are in our spirit man; that is, walking in the Spirit and not in the flesh.  Grace does not reside in the flesh, it resides in the Spirit.

You said:  First, who was he writing to? Gentiles. Gentiles who were never obligated to follow Sabbaths, New Moons and Holy Days. 

We know that Paul primarily ministered to Gentiles, however that didnt exclude Jews because the pilgrims of the dispersion went to Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.  They were the elect, that is Jews [1 Peter 1:1-2].  For example, in Acts 18:24 which talks about Apollos, a Jew born in Alexandria.  He preached the word, but had to be called aside by a man and woman who had to teach him further about the baptism of the Holy Spirit because he only knew about the baptism of repentance [vs. 25-26]. 

You said:  Second, we see a clue of a very specific problem he was addressing. Col 2:20-23 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the COMMANMENTS AND DOCTINES OF **MEN**? 

Notice that he was not negating the law of God here but the Law of MEN. Judaizing (requiring Gentiles to live like Jews is a law of MAN not of God.) 

This is called the Civil Law of which we are obligated to obey in the area in which you live.  I do not obey the laws of Jerusalem, but I obey the laws of my city, county, state, and federal government.  However, if I were to travel to Jerusalem I would certainly have to obey the laws that are civil in order to keep the peace.  

You said:  Though disagreeing with them as to the ground of their opinion, as in reference to the other customs, Paul evidently admitted the opinion itself, for he adopted their advice, and paid the expense of the sacrifices which the four Nazarites offered [#Ac 21:23,24,26|].<< 

These persons Paul could join, and then show decisively that he did not intend to undervalue or disparage the laws of Moses when those laws were understood as mere ceremonial observances.  He joined them in observing the forms of purification prescribed by the Law of Moses in the observance of the vow of the Nazarite. The purifying here refers to the vows of sanctity which the Nazarites were to observe. They were to abstain from wine and strong drink; they were to eat no grapes, moist or dried; they were to come near no dead body, nor to make themselves "unclean" for their father, mother, brother, or sister, when they died (Numbers 6:3-7); and they were to present an offering when the days of the vow were completed, Numbers 6:8. 

Paul shared with them the expense of the offerings required when the vow is completed.  Those offerings were a ram of a year old for a burnt-offering, a sheep of the same age for a sin-offering, a ram for a thank-offering, a basket of unleavened cakes, and a libation of wine.  The shaving of the head, or the cutting off the hair which had been suffered to grow during the continuance of the vow (Numbers 6:5), was an observance indicating that the vow had been performed.  Paul was requested to join with them in the expense of the offerings, that then meant that the whole of the ceremonies having been observed, their heads might be shaved as an indication that every part of the vow had been complied with.

[And all may know] By the fact of his observance of one of the rites of the Mosaic religion, all may have evidence that it is not his purpose or practice to speak contemptuously of those rites, or to undervalue the authority of Moses.

[Are nothing] Are untrue, or without any foundation.

[Walkest orderly] That you live in accordance with the real requirements of the Law of Moses.  To walk, in the Scriptures, often denotes "to live, to act, to conduct in a certain manner."  All that they wished Paul to show by this was, that he was not an enemy of Moses.  They who gave this counsel were Christians, and they could not wish him to do anything which would imply that he was not a Christian.

The infidels tried to make it look like Paul was double-dealing, to deceive the Jews in Jerusalem, to make them believe that Paul actually conformed to the ceremonial law, when his conduct among the Gentiles showed that he did not.

But lets us observe that the law was not necessary in order to have salvation; it would have been improper to cause a Gentile convert to observe that law since they never did it before; and when the Jews urged its observance as necessary to justification and salvation, Paul strenuously opposed this view of it everywhere.  Yet that, as a matter of expediency, he did not oppose its being observed either by the Jews, or by the converts made among the Jews.  In fact, there is other evidence besides the case before us that Paul himself continued to observe some, at least, of the Jewish rites, and his conduct in public at Jerusalem was in strict accordance with his conduct in other places. See Acts 18:18.  The sum of the whole matter is this, that when the observance of the Jewish ceremonial law was urged as necessary to justification and acceptance with God, Paul resisted it; when it was demanded that its observance should be commanded to the Gentiles to observe, he opposed it; in all other cases he made no opposition to it, and was ready himself to comply with it, and willing that others should also.

So therefore if a Jew does not comply with the ceremonial law it would not be a sin because they are under grace which brings in justification and salvation.  For Paul, this had all to do with motive and knowledge.  He knew that ceremonial law was null and void because the final sacrifice was the Cross, not any animal.  However, he observed it not from the standpoint of salvation and justification, but from the standpoint that was not sin.  A better way came along which was Jesus.  Does that mean that the old way is not good?  No of course not.  But the new way, the better way should be observed and embraced because the Lord Himself was made that ceremonial law once and for all.  He fulfilled that law, not destroyed it.  Why do both when only one is required?  Can the ceremonial law of the Jews replace the final sacrifice?  No it cant so why do it?  It makes no sense when a better way is given to access grace.  

You said:  Paul did? Chapter and verse please? And remember that we have to find something written AFTER Acts to support the author's contention. 

Here it is Galatians 2:11-21.  And again remember this is the commentary speaking not me. 

You said:  The best scholarship now understands the Paul was almost certainly NOT the author of Hebrews. The style of using quotations in Hebrews is profoundly different than any of Paul's other writings, also, the use of greek iw somewhat different that Paul's. 

Quote from Barnes' Notes:

To those who are familiar with the investigations which have taken place in regard to this Epistle, it need not be said that the question of its authorship has given rise to much discussion. The design of these notes does not permit me to go at length into this inquiry. Those who are disposed to see the investigation pursued at length, and to see the objections to the Pauline origin examined in a most satisfactory manner, can find it done in the Introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews, by Prof. Stuart, pp. 77-260. All that my purpose requires is to state, in a very brief manner, the evidence on which it is ascribed to the apostle Paul. That evidence is, briefly, the following:

(1) That derived from the church at Alexandria. Clement of Alexandria says, that Paul wrote to the Hebrews, and that this was the opinion of Pantaenus, who was at the head of the celebrated Christian school at Alexandria, and who flourished about 180 AD   Pantaenus lived near Palestine. He must have been acquainted with the prevailing opinions on the subject, and his testimony must be regarded as proof that the Epistle was regarded as Paul's by the churches in that region. Origen, also of Alexandria, ascribes the Epistle to Paul; though he says that the "sentiments" are those of Paul, but that the words and phrases belong to some one relating the apostle's sentiments, and as it were commenting on the words of his master. The testimony of the church at Alexandria was uniform after the time of Origen, that it was the production of Paul. Indeed there seems never to have been any doubt in regard to it there, and from the commencement it was admitted as his production. The testimony of that church and school is particularly valuable, because:

(a) it was near to Palestine, where the Epistle was probably sent;

(b) Clement particularly had traveled much, and would be likely to understand the prevailing sentiments of the East;

(c) Alexandria was the seat of the most celebrated theological school of the early Christian ages, and those who were at the head of this school would be likely to have correct information on a point like this; and 

(d) Origen is admitted to have been the most learned of the Greek fathers, and his testimony that the "sentiments" were those of Paul may be regarded as of unique value.

(2) It was inserted in the translation into the Syriac, made very early in the second century, and in the Old Italic version, and was hence believed to be of apostolic origin, and is by the inscription ascribed to Paul. This may be allowed to express the general sense of the churches at that time, as this would not have been done unless there had been a general impression that the Epistle was written by him. The fact that it was regarded EARLY as an inspired book is also conclusively shown by the fact that the Second Epistle of Peter, and the Second Epistle and Third Epistle of John, are not found in that version. They came later into circulation than the other epistles, and were not possessed, or regarded as genuine, by the author of that version. The Epistle to the Hebrews IS found in these versions, and was, therefore, regarded as one of the inspired books. In those versions it bears the inscription, "To the Hebrews."

(3) This Epistle was received as the production of Paul by the Eastern churches. Justin Martyr, who was born at Samaria, quotes it, about the year 140 AD It was found, as has been already remarked, in the Peshito-the Old Syriac Version, made in the early part of the second century Jacob, bishop of Nisibis, also (about 325 AD) repeatedly quotes it as the production of an apostle. Ephrem Syrus, or the Syrian, abundantly ascribes this Epistle to Paul. He was the disciple of Jacob of Nisibis, and no man was better qualified to inform himself on this point than Ephrem. No man stands deservedly higher in the memory of the Eastern churches. After him, all the Syrian churches acknowledged the canonical authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews. But the most important testimony of the Eastern church is that of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, in Palestine. He is the well-known historian of the church, and he took pains from all quarters to collect testimony in regard to the Books of Scripture. He says, "There are fourteen epistles of Paul, manifest and well known: but yet there are some who reject that to the Hebrews, alleging in behalf of their opinion, that it was not received by the church of Rome as a writing of Paul." The testimony of Eusebius is particularly important.

He had heard of the objection to its canonical authority. He had weighed that objection. Yet in view of the testimony in the case, he regarded it as the undoubted production of Paul. As such it was received in the churches in the East; and the fact which he mentions, that its genuineness had been disputed by the church of Rome, and that he specifies no other church, proves that it had NOT been called in question in the East. This seems to me to be sufficient testimony to settle this inquiry. The writers here referred to lived in the very country to which the Epistle was evidently written, and their testimony is uniform. Justin Martyr was born in Samaria; Ephrem passed his life in Syria; Eusebius lived in Cesarea, and Origen passed the last twenty years of his life in Palestine. The churches there were unanimous in the opinion that this Epistle was written by Paul, and their united testimony should settle the question.

Indeed when their testimony is considered, it seems remarkable that the subject should have been regarded as doubtful by critics, or that it should have given rise to so much protracted investigation. I might add to the testimonies above referred to, the fact that the Epistle was declared to be Paul's by the following persons: Archelaus, Bishop of Mesopotamia, about 300 AD; Adamantius, about 330 AD; Cyril, of Jerusalem, about 348 AD; the Council of Laodicea, about 363 AD; Epiphanius, about 368 AD; Basil, 370 AD; Gregory Nazianzen, 370 AD; Chrysostom, 398 AD, etc. etc. Why should not the testimony of such men and churches be admitted? What more clear or decided evidence could we wish in regard to any fact of ancient history? Would not such testimony be ample in regard to an anonymous oration of Cicero, or poem of Virgil or Horace? Are we not constantly acting on far feebler evidence in regard to the authorship of many productions of celebrated English writers?

(4) In regard to the Western churches, it is to be admitted that, like the Second Epistle of Peter, and the Second Epistle and Third Epistle of John, the canonical authority was for some time doubted, or was even called in question. But this may be accounted for. The Epistle had not the name of the author. All the other epistles of Paul had. As the Epistle was addressed to the Hebrews in Palestine, it may not have been soon known to the Western churches. As there were spurious epistles and gospels at an early age, much caution would be used in admitting any anonymous production to a place in the sacred canon. Yet it was NOT LONG before all these doubts were removed, and the Epistle to the Hebrews was allowed to take its place among the other acknowledged writings of Paul. It was received as the Epistle of Paul by Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, about 354 AD; by Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari, 354 AD; by Victorinus, 360 AD; by Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, 360 AD; by Rufinus, 397 AD, etc. etc.

Jerome, the well-known Latin Father, uses in regard to it the following language: "This is to be maintained, that this Epistle, which is inscribed to the Hebrews, is not only received by the churches at the East as the apostle Paul's, but has been in past times by all ecclesiastical writers in the Greek language; although most [Latins] think that Barnabas or Clement was the author." Still, it was not rejected by "all" the Latins. Some received it in the time of Jerome as the production of Paul. See Stuart, pp. 114,115, for the full testimony of Jerome. Augustine admitted that the Epistle was written by Paul. He mentions that Paul wrote fourteen epistles, and specifies particularly the Epistle to the Hebrews. He often cites it as a part of Scripture, and quotes it as the production of an apostle-Stuart, p. 115. From the time of Augustine it was undisputed. By the Council of Hippo, 393 AD, the Third Council of Carthage, 397 AD, and the Fifth Council of Carthage, 419 AD, it was declared to be the Epistle of Paul, and was commended to the churches as such.

(5) As another proof that it is the writing of Paul, we may appeal to the internal evidence:

(a) The author of the Epistle was the companion and friend of Timothy. "Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty-or is sent away - apolelumenon (NT:630) - with whom if he come speedily, I will make you a visit." Hebrews 13:23. Sent away, perhaps, on a journey, to visit some of the churches, and expected soon to return. In Philippians 2:19, Paul speaks of sending Timothy to them "so soon as he should see how it would go with him," at the same time expressing a hope that he should himself see them shortly. What is more natural than to suppose that he had now sent Timothy to Philippi; that during his absence he wrote this Epistle; that he was waiting for his return; and that he proposed, if Timothy should return soon, to visit Palestine with him? And who would more naturally say this than the apostle Paul-the companion and friend of Timothy; by whom he had been accompanied in his travels; and by whom he was regarded with special interest as a minister of the gospel?

(b) In Hebrews 13:18-19, he asks their prayers that he might be restored to them; and in ver. 23, he expresses a confident expectation of being able soon to come and see them. From this it is evident that he was then imprisoned, but had hope of speedy release-a state of things in exact accordance with what existed at Rome. Philippians 2:17-24.

(c) He was in bonds when he wrote this Epistle. Hebrews 10:34, "Ye had compassion of me in my bonds;" an expression that will exactly apply to the case of Paul. He was in "bonds" in Palestine; he was two whole years in Caesarea a prisoner Acts 24:27; and what was more natural than that the Christians in Palestine should have had compassion on him, and ministered to his needs? To what other person would these circumstances so certainly be applicable?

(d) The salutation Hebrews 13:24 "they of Italy salute you," agrees with the supposition that it was written by Paul when a prisoner at Rome. Paul writing from Rome, and acquainted with Christians from other parts of Italy, would be likely to send such a salutation. In regard to the "objections" which may be made to this use of the passage, the reader may consult Stuart's Introduction to the Hebrews, p. 127, following 

(c) The "doctrines" of the Epistle are the same as those which are taught by Paul in his undisputed writings. It is true that this consideration is not conclusive, but the want of it would be conclusive evidence AGAINST the position that Paul wrote it. But the resemblance is not GENERAL. It is not such as any man would exhibit who held to the same general system of truth. It relates to "peculiarities" of doctrine, and is such as would be manifested by a man who bad been reared and trained as Paul had:

(1) No one can doubt that the author was formerly a Jew-and a Jew who had been familiar to an uncommon degree with the institutions of the Jewish religion. Every rite and ceremony; every form of opinion; every fact in their history, is perfectly familiar to him. And though the other apostles were Jews, yet we can hardly suppose that they had the familiarity with the minute rites and ceremonies so accurately referred to in this Epistle, and so fully illustrated. With Paul all this was perfectly natural. He had been brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, and had spent the early part of his life at Jerusalem in the careful study of the Old Testament, in the examination of the prevalent opinions, and in the attentive observance of the rites of religion. The other apostles had been born and trained, apparently, on the banks of Gennesareth, and certainly with few of the opportunities which Paul had had for becoming acquainted with the institutions of the temple service. This consideration is fatal, in my view, to the claim which has been set up for Clement as the author of the Epistle. It is wholly incredible that a foreigner should be so familiar with the Jewish opinions, laws, institutions, and history, as the author of this Epistle manifestly was.

(2) There is the same preference for Christianity over Judaism in this Epistle which is shown by Paul in his other epistles, and exhibited in the same form. Among these points are the following - "The gospel imparts superior light." Compare Galatians 4:3,9; 1 Corinthians 14:20; Ephesians 4:11-13; 2 Corinthians 3:18; with Hebrews 1:1-2; 2:2-4; 8:9-11; 10:1; 11:39-40. "The gospel holds out superior motives and encouragements to piety." Compare Galatians 3:23; 4:2-3; Romans 8:15-17; Galatians 4:1; 5:13; 1 Corinthians 7:19; Galatians 6:15; with Hebrews 9:9,14; 12:18-24,28; 8:6-13. "The gospel is superior in promoting the real and permanent happiness of mankind." Compare Galatians 3:13; 2 Corinthians 3:7,9; Romans 3:20; 4:24-25; Ephesians 1:7; Romans 5:1-2; Galatians 2:16; and the same views in Hebrews 12:18-21; 9:9; 10:4,11; 6:18-20; 7:25; 9:24. "The Jewish dispensation was a type and shadow of the Christian." See Colossians 2:16-17; 1 Corinthians 10:1-6; Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:45-47; 2 Corinthians 3:13-18; Galatians 4:22-31,1-5; and for the same or similar views, see Hebrews 9:9-14; 10:1; 8:1-9; 9:22-24. "The Christian religion was designed to be perpetual, while the Jewish was intended to be abolished."

See 2 Corinthians 3:10-11,13,18; 4:14-16; Rom. vii. 4-6; Galatians 3:21-25; 4:1-7; 5:1; and for similar views compare Hebrews 8:6-8,13; 7:17-19; 10:1-14. "The person of the Mediator is presented in the same light by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews and by Paul." See Philippians 2:6-11; Colossians 1:15-20; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Ephesians 3:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 15:25-27; and for the same and similar views, see Hebrews 1:2-3; 2:9,14; 12:2; 2:8; 10:13. "The death of Christ is the propitiatory sacrifice for sin." See 1 Timothy 1:15; 1 Corinthians 15:3; Rom. viii. 32; 3:24; Galatians 1:4; 2:20; 1 Corinthians 5:7; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23; Rom. v. 12-21; 3:20,28; 8:3; 1 Timothy 2:5-6. For similar views see Hebrews 1:3; 2:9; 5:8-9; 7; 8; 9; 10: "The general method and arrangement of this Epistle and the acknowledged epistles of Paul are the same." It particularly resembles the Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, where we have first a doctrinal and then a practical part.

The same is true also to some extent of the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians. The Epistle to the Hebrews is on the same plan. As far as Hebrews 10:19, it is principally doctrinal; the remainder is mainly practical. "The manner of appealing to, and applying the Jewish Scriptures, is the same in this Epistle as in those of Paul." The general structure of the Epistle, and the slightest comparison between them, will show this with sufficient clearness. The general remark to be made in view of this comparison is, that the Epistle to the Hebrews is just such an one as Paul might be expected to write; that it agrees with what we know to have been his early training, his views, his manner of life, his opinions, and his habit in writing; that it accords better with his views than with those of any other known writer of antiquity; and that it falls in with the circumstances in which he was known to be placed, and the general object which he had in view. So satisfactory are these views to my mind, that they seem to have all the force of demonstration which can be had in regard to any anonymous publication, and it is a matter of wonder that so much doubt has been experienced in reference to the question who was the author.

It is difficult to account for the fact that the name of the author was omitted. It is found in every other Epistle of Paul, and in general it is appended to the epistles in the New Testament. It is omitted, however, in the three Epistles of John, for reasons which are now unknown. And there may have been similar reasons also unknown for omitting it in this case. The simple fact is, that it is anonymous; and whoever was the author, the same difficulty will exist in accounting for it. If this fact will prove that Paul was not the author, it would prove the same thing in regard to any other person, and would thus be ultimately conclusive evidence that it HAD no author. What were the reasons for omitting the name can be only matter of conjecture. The most probable opinion, as it seems to me, is this. The name of Paul was odious to the Jews. He was regarded by the nation as an apostate from their religion, and everywhere they showed special malignity against him.

See the Acts of the Apostles. The fact that he was so regarded by them might indirectly influence even those who had been converted from Judaism to Christianity. They lived in Palestine. They were near the temple, and were engaged in its ceremonies and sacrifices-for there is no evidence that they broke off from those observances on their conversion to Christianity. Paul was abroad. It might have been reported that he was preaching against the temple and its sacrifices, and even the Jewish Christians in Palestine might have supposed that he was carrying matters too far. In these circumstances it might have been IMPRUDENT for him to have announced his name at the outset, for it might have aroused prejudices which a wise man would wish to allay. But if he could present an argument, somewhat in the form of an essay, showing that he believed that the Jewish institutions were appointed by God, and that he was not an apostate and an infidel; if he could conduct a demonstration that would accord in the main with the prevailing views of the Christians in Palestine, and that was adapted to, strengthen them in the faith of the gospel, and explain to them the true nature of the Jewish rites, then the object could be gained without difficulty, and then they would be prepared to learn that Pant was the author, without prejudice or alarm. Accordingly he thus conducts the argument; and at the close gives them such INTIMATIONS that they would understand who wrote it without much difficulty. If this was the motive, it was an instance of TACT such as was certainly characteristic of Paul, and such as was not unworthy any man. I have no doubt that this was the true motive. It would be soon known who wrote it; and accordingly we have seen it was never disputed in the Eastern churches.

You said:  Please note that Hebrews proclaims that CHRIST became the High Priest, not that the office of High Priest was done away with. This is an immense clue as to the issue of the existance or non-existance of the Law. 

AMEN!

You said:  The inescapable conclusion of these words are that Paul, James and the congregation at Jerusalem were devoid of understanding and discernment. This creates a HUGE problem for faith far beyond Messianic issues. 

I believe that has been addressed in other statements I made to you.

You said: If Acts were written early in Paul's life, the author would have a point, but it was written at the end of his life, so if Paul was incorrect, he persisted in this error for years and never acknowledged his sin. 

Quoting from Barnes' Notes 

All antiquity is unanimous in ascribing this book to Luke as its author. It is repeatedly mentioned and quoted by the early Christian writers, and is mentioned as his work without a dissenting voice. The same thing is clear from the book itself. It professes to have been written by the same person who wrote a "former treatise," addressed to the same person, Theophilus (compare Acts 1:1 with Luke 1:3), and it bears manifest marks of being from the same pen. It is designed evidently as a continuation of that Gospel, since, in this book, the author has taken up the history at the very time where he left it in the Gospel Acts 1:1-2.

Where, or at what time, this book was written, is not known with certainty.  However, since the history is continued to the second year of the residence of Paul at Rome Acts 28:31, Acts was evidently written about as late as the year 62 AD And, since it makes no mention of the subsequent facts in the life of Paul, or of any other event of history, it seems clear that it was not written much after that time. It has been common, therefore, to fix the date of the book at about 63 AD It is also probable that it was written at Rome. In Acts 28:16 Luke mentions his own arrival at Rome with Paul. Since Luke does not mention his departure from that city, it is to be presumed that Acts was written there. Some have supposed that it was written at Alexandria in Egypt, but of that there is no sufficient evidence.

The canonical authority of this book rests upon the same foundation as that of the Gospel by the same author.  Its authenticity has not been called in question at any time in the church.

This book has commonly been regarded as a history of the Christian church, and of course the first ecclesiastical history that was written. But it cannot have been designed as a general history of the church.  Many important transactions have been omitted.  It gives no account of the church at Jerusalem after the conversion of Paul; it omits his journey into Arabia Galatians 1:17; it gives no account of the propagation of the gospel in Egypt or in Babylon 1 Peter 5:13, or of the foundation of the church at Rome, or of many of Paul's voyages and shipwrecks 2 Corinthians 11:25; and, it omits the labors of most of the apostles, and confines the narrative chiefly to the transactions of Peter and Paul.

You said:  Again, this conclusion relies on early dating of Acts, and it also relies on the idea that the community of believers did not KNOW that the Temple was going to be destroyed. Not only Yeshus's words were known, but John the Baptist first proclaimed that the Temple was doomed saying "The axe is already laid at the root of the tree." The Temple was destroyed, in all probability, 40 years to the DAY after John spoke those words. 

No mature believer was caught flat-footed by the destruction of the Temple, so we cannot read anything into the issues of observance based on the belief the the Temple was going to stay around. 

This commentary was not referring to the temple in the sense of it being kept around forever.  This commentary was the observance of the ceremonial law that was now abolished by the final sacrifice of Lamb of God.  It seems like you are coming at this from a different angle than the commentary intented.

You said:  It was necessary so that no other pretender could claim to be the Messiah. For the Messiah had to come to THAT SECOND TEMPLE, or the Prophesy was NOT fulfilled. 

The Law of Moses was observed by Jews in exile before so the destruction of the temple does not create an argument against observance now anymore than it did at the time of exile in Babylon. 

Again scripture addresses this in Hebrews 10:8-18 and Romans 3:27-31.

You said:  TORAH never says that Jews and Gentiles cannot associate, that was a Talmudic addition. That was also the Point of Peter's vision in Acts 10-- it was not taking about FOOD it was talking about men (Gentiles) who EAT that food. 

I am not an expert of the Torah nor am I an expert on the Talmudic addition.  So I can not comment here with a view to those writings.  However, what I do know is from the Bible.  Moses seemed to imply in his institutions that was common understanding with the Jews; to keep separate from the surrounding nations.  He forbade alliances by contract and by marriage because they were idolatrous nations.  [Leviticus 18:24-30 and Deuteronomy 7:3-12; compare Ezra 9:11-12.]  This command the Jews perverted, and explained it as referring to contact of all kinds even to the exercise of friendly offices and commercial transactions. Compare John 4:9.  To keep company or come unto one of another nation, a stranger, an uncircumcised Gentile was an abomination.  It was not made so by the law of God, but by the decree of their wise men, which they looked upon to be no less binding.  They did not forbid them to converse or traffic with Gentiles in the street or shop, or upon the exchange, but to eat with them.  Even in Joseph's time, the Egyptians and Hebrews could not eat together, Genesis 43:32.  The three children would not defile themselves with the king's meat, Daniel 1:8.  They might not come into the house of a Gentile, for they looked upon it to be ceremonially polluted.  Thus Jews look upon the Gentiles scornfully in contempt.

You said:  I will note that this is one of the MILDER versions of this error that I have read over the years. It is an error fueled by a misunderstanding of the PURPOSES and SUBJECTS of the Law of Moses. No Gentile was ever subject to the Law of Moses per se, without his being adopted into the Nation of Israel, and Paul wasn't going to let it start on his watch. As recorded in Acts 15, we see that James and the Council of Jerusalem had the same opinion. Nowhere is there any credible biblical evidence that they considered abandoning Circumcision, Moses and the tradions as being anything other that walking disorderly for Jewish believers. 

Paul characterizes circumcision as a yoke in Acts 15:10-17.  He explains that no one not even their fathers could bear the yoke.  It is through the grace of Jesus that they are saved, not by circumcision.  James came into agreement with Paul and quoted a scripture that was a prophecy citing that it was being fulfilled [vs. 16-7].  So yes, circumcision is not required for salvation.  Although in my family we observed this tradition for our children.  What is required, though, is the circumcision of the heart of which many of us still have not completely done.  This has taken the place of the physical circumcision.

God bless ~Minister Falcon



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 2/1/2003 1:49:19 AM ET by OSMFALCON 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 2/1/2003 2:03:48 AM ET by OSMFALCON 
From:  Nlitnd1   2/17/2003 2:19 pm  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)    (41 of 80)  
 
  522.41 in reply to 522.40  
 
To whomever disagrees, 
It is interesting that we value women for everything but being one with intelligence. Its fine when we look upon a woman and think about how sexy she is. Its fine when we get all the loving we need from a woman. Its fine when we get to go home to a meal waiting with a smile. Its fine when she willingly bears our children. But God forbid she know a little bit more about the Bible than we do. God forbid we learn from a woman. God forbid a woman preach the Bible. 

As a matter of fact I'll go a step further. An educated person realizes that he/she can learn from anyone and anything anywhere at anytime. The moment/second that we think a person is dumb or underqualified is the moment that we do not deserve to learn. If you don't think you can learn from a woman then you my friend are not what you claim to be and you then become useless. There are many women far more qualified to be preachers than many many who are already behind the pulpit. 

There is not one scripture promoting the idea that women are not to be ministers. In fact the opposite is clearly true. A little history lesson would be good for those who think that when Paul addressed the women to be silent meant for them not to preach. It was meant for something far different.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)     2/17/2003 6:00 pm  
To:  Nlitnd1   (42 of 80)  
 
  522.42 in reply to 522.41  
 
Amen! Well said!

The scriptures I cited concerning women should not teach were qualified with scripture that adjoined with it.  It basically said that unlearned women should not teach.  However, mankind has perverted the one scripture without reviewing the other scriptures that surround it.  Therefore is had been believed that all women should not teach.  

They second reason why women should not teach they cite is the fact that Eve was deceived.  Truly she was deceived and tempted Adam to disobey God, but she also had not the benefit of complete instruction as Adam had.  One can only guess that Adam passed on all the other instruction, but this is doubtful.  This would account then for the reason that Adam was held accountable for losing our relationship to God, rather than Eve.   ~Minister Falcon
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  JOHHAR   2/17/2003 6:29 pm  
To:  KAY113 unread  (43 of 80)  
 
  522.43 in reply to 522.1  
 
Were living in rebellious times (sigh).

But I would have you know, that .. the head of the woman is the man......For a man ... is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man...

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression... 

A bishop then must be ... the husband of one wife...Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife...

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Evolution, pro-choice, women preachers...were living in rebellious times.

John
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Nlitnd1   2/18/2003 10:04 am  
To:  JOHHAR   (44 of 80)  
 
  522.44 in reply to 522.43  
 
And you are living in the dark ages or in another country. You need to study the context, which very few know how to do. If you do not know context then you are wasting your time reading the Bible.http-- 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 2/18/2003 1:04:59 PM ET by NLITND1 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Nlitnd1   2/18/2003 5:55 pm  
To:  JOHHAR   (45 of 80)  
 
  522.45 in reply to 522.44  
 
Another point, we are no longer under the law. If you think we are for even a second then you have a lot of animal sacrifices that you need to catch up on. Without those animal sacrifices you are outside of the law. As for me, well I was never subject to the Law being one of those heathens. Secondly even if I were the Law and its ordinances were nailed to the tree, abolished. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD confirmed the abolishing of the Law. Therefore let your women prophesy (which means to preach by the way), I believe it is in Acts where it talks about women prophesying. Who and where do you think they prophesied?? In a closet?? Who then would know that they prophesied?? 
Women of that day were not the educated party in the family. Women were second class citizens. This is a fact still prevalent in many countries in particular the middle east. Standard normal custom of that day. Women were not seen in the temple, they were not present during the reading of the Torah. They were very ignorant in even their own religion. The men read the Torah, the men understood the Torah. Hence when Paul preached out of scripture, the Torah ( they didn't have a NT) they were recieving brand new knowledge. Stuff they never heard before. Another fact, it requires education to be educated. Learning is acquired, you learn how to learn. As you learn you realize how much you do not know. 

Now with that understanding imagine you are one of these women, in a group setting. Back in that day it was not a building full of pews, it was a group session. Two way communications, Q&A time. Paul would give out revelation, brand new revelation never heard in the ears of the women. The men understood the revelations because they were not only learned period, but they were learned in scripture. The women would ask a million questions, they were excited about the new revelations concerning their new faith and freedom from the Law. Paul would have never ministered if he had to address every single question that these women would have asked. The men would never have gotten into the meat of the word. Hence he said wait until they get home, then their questions can be answered on a one to one basis. Therefore eliminating the confusion that would arise if everything had to be addressed when they were assembled together. Thus women be silent in the churches. 

Were the women completely silent in the churches?? Absolutely not. This command only pertained to babes in Christ, the unlearned, who had a plethora of questions roaming around in their minds, not even really knowing how to ask the questions. It wasn't even until the late 19th century that we finally let women become educated in our society. Women still struggle in some areas to be treated with the respect that they deserve. 

To take this scripture out of context and apply it to prohibiting a women from exploiting the word of God is ludicrous and plain wrong. Study to show your self approved. Don't let your personal biases prevent you from recieving the truth.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)     2/18/2003 11:58 pm  
To:  JOHHAR   (46 of 80)  
 
  522.46 in reply to 522.43  
 
Johhar,

Have you read this thread?  There are numerous statements of scriptural facts concerning women in the ministry.  All the scriptures you cite are really taken out of context from the other scriptures that Paul has given us.  If you read the scriptural facts on this thread, it addresses your remarks quite clearly. It will give you a better picture of the times and the meaning of Paul's statement.  It is not being presented as opinion but of scripture quote.  Some of the statements should be viewed with renewed interest and then take it to the Lord for confirmation.  ~Minister Falcon



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 2/19/2003 3:07:41 AM ET by OSMFALCON 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Nlitnd1   2/19/2003 12:54 pm  
To:  JOHHAR   (47 of 80)  
 
  522.47 in reply to 522.46  
 
Johhar, 
Concerning context. One of the most common errors when dealing with context is to whom is the audience. Christians or whomsoever reads the Bible have a tendancy to have a mindset that the Bible was written directly to them. When the reality of it is that it was written directly to whom it was addressed. As well as the conversations contained within the pages of scripture. The conversations were their conversations, their questions, their concerns, their comments. Not our conversations etc. etc. The Bible does not address you and I. The Bible is strictly at the most indirect, we can only learn from it, we can only obtain examples, we can only obtain what life 2000+ years ago could maybe possibly have been like. What they went through, what they discovered, what they experienced. 

Making scripture personal can remove the context in which it was written. Each epistle that Paul wrote was that an epistle, a letter. Written solely to the recipient. When Paul wrote these letters they were not intended to be archived for ages to come. He did not write them with that mindset. Just as you write a letter to a loved one. Did you intend for that letter to be recieved by someone in a future 2000 years? I highly doubt it. You wrote it to whom you intended to recieve it. If the to whom decides to archive it and store it away then that is their decision. Come 2000 years from now and someone opens the box that your letter was in and reads it, doesn't mean it was written for them. Can they obtain information from it, yes. Can they learn from it, yes. More than likely though they will not know why you wrote the letter the way you wrote it, i.e. your mental state, your language, your ideas, your questions and your comments. 

This same idea should be kept in mind when reading all the Bible. In particular when it comes to the words of Jesus. When studying the Word of God, we should be constantly asking to whom is Jesus speaking to. An honest and realistic individual would notice that He is always speaking only to His contemporaries, not to someone off in the future somewhere. These were normal humans like you and I. Who spoke to each other the same way you and I speak. We talk to each other not some future group of people who don't even exist. 

The main point is the women that Paul addressed were those women and only those women. He wrote to specific women. This address is not indicated in any of the other letters that Paul wrote. It definitly was not Paul's intention to carry this statement on for all ages to come. It was a one time issue, addressed once, to a select group of people. 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
 
 
From:  Hamilton109   2/25/2003 1:55 pm  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)     
 
    
 
<<<<You said: The Chapter when taken as a whole, certainly does not suggest this. 
This is especially true when taken in the context of Romans 3, culminating in verse 31, clearly suggests that we are immune to the CURSE that disobedience to the law brings (grace) but not that the law is negated.>>>> 

>>Lets look at several things here. First of all scripture in Hebrews.<< 

I find it interesting that you do not start off dealing directly with the passage at hand. 

>>Hebrews 10:8-18 
8 Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law),<< 

This is interesting because the portion being quoted is from the prophets who were NOT saying that the sacrifices were passing away. 

>>9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 
10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 
11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 
12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 
13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 
14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.<< 

The picture you need to understand is one of a software upgrade. You cannot just run the "upgrade" packet without having the basic program there to upgrade. 

Have things changed? Sure, but more remains the same than has changed. 

>>There are three parts to the law: ceremonial law, civil law, and moral law.<< 

First, if I WERE to accept what you say (and I don't) how do you decide which part is ceremonial as opposed to civil and moral? Once you start to actually put things in one group or another you run into problems. Is homosexuality a violation of the moral, civil, or cerimonial law? Why? Is profaning a Sabbath moral, civil or cerimonial? Why? Then ask what Sabbaths are you talking about? How about purity laws? Why is sleeping with a woman during her period any different than having a same sex relationship? They are both considered abominations. 

>>This is the ceremonial law that was removed according to Hebrews 10:8-18. The ceremonial law is of works. That has been abolished.<< 

Then how do you deal with what Paul did in Acts 21? Was he wrong? Was he lying? 

>>The next scripture that we look at is this in Romans 3 which tells us about ceremonial law and the moral law. 

Romans 3:27-31 
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 
29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 
30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. 

The Moral Law which is the Law that defines sin has not been removed. We are not bound to this law IF we are in our spirit man; that is, walking in the Spirit and not in the flesh. Grace does not reside in the flesh, it resides in the Spirit.<< 

I have no idea where this teaching is from, but is smells like an old fashioned platonic dualism, a la "gnosticism." 

<<<<You said: First, who was he writing to? Gentiles. Gentiles who were never obligated to follow Sabbaths, New Moons and Holy Days.>>>> 

>>We know that Paul primarily ministered to Gentiles, however that didnt exclude Jews because the pilgrims of the dispersion went to Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. They were the elect, that is Jews [1 Peter 1:1-2]. For example, in Acts 18:24 which talks about Apollos, a Jew born in Alexandria. He preached the word, but had to be called aside by a man and woman who had to teach him further about the baptism of the Holy Spirit because he only knew about the baptism of repentance [vs. 25-26].<< 

But that does not speak to my point. Yes he ministered to Jews in the diaspora, but the specific instruction was not an instruction for JEWS to disregard Shabbat and circumcision, otherwise the anti-missionaries would be right and he WAS a liar. 

<<<<You said: Second, we see a clue of a very specific problem he was addressing. Col 2:20-23 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the COMMANMENTS AND DOCTINES OF **MEN**? 

Notice that he was not negating the law of God here but the Law of MEN. Judaizing (requiring Gentiles to live like Jews is a law of MAN not of God.)>>>> 

>>This is called the Civil Law of which we are obligated to obey in the area in which you live. I do not obey the laws of Jerusalem, but I obey the laws of my city, county, state, and federal government. However, if I were to travel to Jerusalem I would certainly have to obey the laws that are civil in order to keep the peace.<< 

You are suggesting now that the so-called "civil law" is the law of men? That is the only way that you can make sense of this issue. 

<<<<You said: Though disagreeing with them as to the ground of their opinion, as in reference to the other customs, Paul evidently admitted the opinion itself, for he adopted their advice, and paid the expense of the sacrifices which the four Nazarites offered [#Ac 21:23,24,26|].>>>> 

>>These persons Paul could join, and then show decisively that he did not intend to undervalue or disparage the laws of Moses when those laws were understood as mere ceremonial observances. He joined them in observing the forms of purification prescribed by the Law of Moses in the observance of the vow of the Nazarite. The purifying here refers to the vows of sanctity which the Nazarites were to observe. They were to abstain from wine and strong drink; they were to eat no grapes, moist or dried; they were to come near no dead body, nor to make themselves "unclean" for their father, mother, brother, or sister, when they died (Numbers 6:3-7); and they were to present an offering when the days of the vow were completed, Numbers 6:8. 

Paul shared with them the expense of the offerings required when the vow is completed. Those offerings were a ram of a year old for a burnt-offering, a sheep of the same age for a sin-offering, a ram for a thank-offering, a basket of unleavened cakes, and a libation of wine. The shaving of the head, or the cutting off the hair which had been suffered to grow during the continuance of the vow (Numbers 6:5), was an observance indicating that the vow had been performed. Paul was requested to join with them in the expense of the offerings, that then meant that the whole of the ceremonies having been observed, their heads might be shaved as an indication that every part of the vow had been complied with. 

[And all may know] By the fact of his observance of one of the rites of the Mosaic religion, all may have evidence that it is not his purpose or practice to speak contemptuously of those rites, or to undervalue the authority of Moses. 

[Are nothing] Are untrue, or without any foundation. 

[Walkest orderly] That you live in accordance with the real requirements of the Law of Moses. To walk, in the Scriptures, often denotes "to live, to act, to conduct in a certain manner." All that they wished Paul to show by this was, that he was not an enemy of Moses. They who gave this counsel were Christians, and they could not wish him to do anything which would imply that he was not a Christian.<< 

Um, agreed, but I was not arguing that. I was arguing that Paul and James saw observance as "walking orderly" for JEWISH believers. Not that they were saved by observance, but that they had a role to play within the body AS JEWISH Believers. 

<<The infidels tried to make it look like Paul was double-dealing,>> 

and they still do today. 

<<to deceive the Jews in Jerusalem, to make them believe that Paul actually conformed to the ceremonial law, when his conduct among the Gentiles showed that he did not.>> 

Well, if "his conduct among the gentiles showed that he did not" then he truly was a liar, and I would not be able to call him an apostle. It would also show that James was lacking in discernment and as such unqualified to lead the Congregations. 

>>But lets us observe that the law was not necessary in order to have salvation;<< 

I never suggested that it was. What I suggested is that there is an issue of role fulfillment in keeping the Law. 

>>it would have been improper to cause a Gentile convert to observe that law since they never did it before;<< 

Generally true, (sorta) but the Torah always allowed gentiles who WANTED to become Jews a way to do so, but it was NEVER a requirement for those who wished to worship the God of Abraham. 

>>and when the Jews urged its observance as necessary to justification and salvation, Paul strenuously opposed this view of it everywhere.<< 

...As do I. 

>>Yet that, as a matter of expediency, he did not oppose its being observed either by the Jews, or by the converts made among the Jews.<< 

And you have chapter and verse evidence for this motivation? 

>>In fact, there is other evidence besides the case before us that Paul himself continued to observe some, at least, of the Jewish rites, and his conduct in public at Jerusalem was in strict accordance with his conduct in other places. See Acts 18:18. The sum of the whole matter is this, that when the observance of the Jewish ceremonial law was urged as necessary to justification and acceptance with God, Paul resisted it; when it was demanded that its observance should be commanded to the Gentiles to observe, he opposed it; in all other cases he made no opposition to it, and was ready himself to comply with it, and willing that others should also.<< 

Then the question is one of MOTIVATION. As you have stated it I agree wholeheartedly with the first part, but disagree in part with the latter part of your statement. Paul and James us a very strong Hebraic phrase, translated into greek, that Paul was Walking in order, keeping the Law of Moses. 

Hence one who did NOT keep the Law given to Moses would NOT be walking in order, or to put it more suscinctly, walking disorderly. 

>>So therefore if a Jew does not comply with the ceremonial law it would not be a sin because they are under grace which brings in justification and salvation.<< 

Disobedience is a sin, and grace can only happen in the presence of sin. If I did not sin, I would not ever need grace. Yes, there is grace for those who walk disorderly, but at best, they are failing to live out the roles God has assigned to them. 

>>For Paul, this had all to do with motive and knowledge. He knew that ceremonial law was null and void because the final sacrifice was the Cross, not any animal.<< 

There are many purposes to the law, and covering sins is only one part of the purpose of the Law. 

>>However, he observed it not from the standpoint of salvation and justification, but from the standpoint that was not sin. A better way came along which was Jesus. Does that mean that the old way is not good? No of course not. But the new way, the better way should be observed and embraced because the Lord Himself was made that ceremonial law once and for all.<< 

You are suggesting that Paul and James either accidentally or purposely misled the Jews of his day. The message they sent was that observance was normative. 

>>He fulfilled that law, not destroyed it. Why do both when only one is required? Can the ceremonial law of the Jews replace the final sacrifice?<< 

Neither I nor Paul, nor James ever suggested that it was. 

>>No it cant so why do it? It makes no sense when a better way is given to access grace.<< 

Because it has OTHER purposes. 

<<<<You said: Paul did? Chapter and verse please? And remember that we have to find something written AFTER Acts to support the author's contention.>>>> 

>>Here it is Galatians 2:11-21. And again remember this is the commentary speaking not me.<< 

Again, Galations was written LONG before Acts, thank you. So even if it did support your contention, which it does not, you are still stuck without a reference. 

The passage here is referring to Jews obeying a talmudic add-on to the Law. Nowhere in Torah is a Jew forbidden to eat with a Gentile. Peter's vision is about MEN not FOODS. More specifically it is about the MEN who ate foods forbidden to Jews, but not forbidden to Gentiles. 

If I refused to eat with Gentiles I should certainly be rebuked, because I would then be following the Law of MEN not the Law of God. 

Likewise, if I looked to the Law for my salvation, I also should be rebuked. I do not put my trust in observance, but only in Messiah's work. 

<<<<You said: The best scholarship now understands the Paul was almost certainly NOT the author of Hebrews. The style of using quotations in Hebrews is profoundly different than any of Paul's other writings, also, the use of greek is somewhat different that Paul's.>>>> 

>>Quote from Barnes' Notes: 

To those who are familiar with the investiga 

[huge quote snipped] 

I understand that lots of people think it was Paul, but if that is correct, why did he change is style of quotations so dramatically when he was writing to people who least needed to full quotations? 

<<<<You said: The inescapable conclusion of these words are that Paul, James and the congregation at Jerusalem were devoid of understanding and discernment. This creates a HUGE problem for faith far beyond Messianic issues.>>>> 

<<I believe that has been addressed in other statements I made to you.>> 

With all due respect, I do not think you have, especially since you seem to think that observance is related to salvation. I certainly do not believe that, nor did Paul or James. 

<<<<You said: If Acts were written early in Paul's life, the author would have a point, but it was written at the end of his life, so if Paul was incorrect, he persisted in this error for years and never acknowledged his sin.>>>> 

>>Quoting from Barnes' Notes 

All antiquity is unanimous in ascribing this book to Luke as its author. It is repeatedly mentioned and quoted by the early Christian writers, and is mentioned as his work without a dissenting voice. The same thing is clear from the book itself. It professes to have been written by the same person who wrote a "former treatise," addressed to the same person, Theophilus (compare Acts 1:1 with Luke 1:3), and it bears manifest marks of being from the same pen. It is designed evidently as a continuation of that Gospel, since, in this book, the author has taken up the history at the very time where he left it in the Gospel Acts 1:1-2. 

Where, or at what time, this book was written, is not known with certainty. However, since the history is continued to the second year of the residence of Paul at Rome Acts 28:31, Acts was evidently written about as late as the year 62 AD And, since it makes no mention of the subsequent facts in the life of Paul, or of any other event of history, it seems clear that it was not written much after that time. It has been common, therefore, to fix the date of the book at about 63 AD It is also probable that it was written at Rome. In Acts 28:16 Luke mentions his own arrival at Rome with Paul. Since Luke does not mention his departure from that city, it is to be presumed that Acts was written there. Some have supposed that it was written at Alexandria in Egypt, but of that there is no sufficient evidence.<< 

As yourself the following questions. 

Were the events in Acts 15 a result of the events at Galatia? I think the answer is clearly "yes." If however it was NOT, when did the events at Galatia take place? 

Also, the earliest that it could have been written was during his captivity in Rome. That means that he persisted in a view of observance being normative at least thru that period. Read Paul's conversation with the Jews of Rome in Acts 28 and it becomes clear that he saw observance as normative OR he was lying. 

>>The canonical authority of this book rests upon the same foundation as that of the Gospel by the same author. Its authenticity has not been called in question at any time in the church.<< 

That actually helps make MY point. 

>>This book has commonly been regarded as a history of the Christian church, and of course the first ecclesiastical history that was written. But it cannot have been designed as a general history of the church. Many important transactions have been omitted. It gives no account of the church at Jerusalem after the conversion of Paul; it omits his journey into Arabia Galatians 1:17; it gives no account of the propagation of the gospel in Egypt or in Babylon 1 Peter 5:13, or of the foundation of the church at Rome, or of many of Paul's voyages and shipwrecks 2 Corinthians 11:25; and, it omits the labors of most of the apostles, and confines the narrative chiefly to the transactions of Peter and Paul.<< 

Great. So it is not exhaustive. No history can be exhaustive, but none of this gives any support to your contention, nor do you give any ref supporting your claim. 

<<<<You said: Again, this conclusion relies on early dating of Acts, and it also relies on the idea that the community of believers did not KNOW that the Temple was going to be destroyed. Not only Yeshus's words were known, but John the Baptist first proclaimed that the Temple was doomed saying "The axe is already laid at the root of the tree." The Temple was destroyed, in all probability, 40 years to the DAY after John spoke those words. 

No mature believer was caught flat-footed by the destruction of the Temple, so we cannot read anything into the issues of observance based on the belief the the Temple was going to stay around.>>>> 

>>This commentary was not referring to the temple in the sense of it being kept around forever. This commentary was the observance of the ceremonial law that was now abolished by the final sacrifice of Lamb of God. It seems like you are coming at this from a different angle than the commentary intented.<< 

Frankly, I think the commentary missed the boat and creates far more thological problems than it solves. Such is the danger of commentaries. 

<<<<You said: It was necessary so that no other pretender could claim to be the Messiah. For the Messiah had to come to THAT SECOND TEMPLE, or the Prophesy was NOT fulfilled. 

The Law of Moses was observed by Jews in exile before so the destruction of the temple does not create an argument against observance now anymore than it did at the time of exile in Babylon.>>>> 

>>Again scripture addresses this in Hebrews 10:8-18 and Romans 3:27-31.<< 

Well, Romans 3:31 sure does <VBG> 

<<<<You said: TORAH never says that Jews and Gentiles cannot associate, that was a Talmudic addition. That was also the Point of Peter's vision in Acts 10-- it was not taking about FOOD it was talking about men (Gentiles) who EAT that food.>>>> 

>>I am not an expert of the Torah nor am I an expert on the Talmudic addition. So I can not comment here with a view to those writings. However, what I do know is from the Bible. Moses seemed to imply in his institutions that was common understanding with the Jews; to keep separate from the surrounding nations. He forbade alliances by contract and by marriage because they were idolatrous nations. [Leviticus 18:24-30 and Deuteronomy 7:3-12; compare Ezra 9:11-12.] This command the Jews perverted, and explained it as referring to contact of all kinds even to the exercise of friendly offices and commercial transactions. Compare John 4:9. To keep company or come unto one of another nation, a stranger, an uncircumcised Gentile was an abomination. It was not made so by the law of God, but by the decree of their wise men,<< 

Agreed, but I would put wise in quotation marks. They were not being wise. 

>>which they looked upon to be no less binding.<< 

Mar 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with [their] lips, but their heart is far from me. 
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. 
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, 

You are correct, they had a huge problem remebering that they were different. 

>>They did not forbid them to converse or traffic with Gentiles in the street or shop, or upon the exchange, but to eat with them.<< 

Because they thought Gentiles were "unclean" because they ate things that JEWS were not allowed to eat. But scripture nowhere supports this. 

>>Even in Joseph's time, the Egyptians and Hebrews could not eat together, Genesis 43:32.<< 

Um, I am not sure what you were intending to quote, but that verse does not seem to speak to what we are talking about. 

>>The three children would not defile themselves with the king's meat, Daniel 1:8.<< 

First there are SEVERAL things going on in this passage, and it is not exactly about a Messianic Jew going over to a Gentile's house for a chicken dinner. 

>>They might not come into the house of a Gentile, for they looked upon it to be ceremonially polluted. Thus Jews look upon the Gentiles scornfully in contempt.<< 

True, and they were in sin when they did so. 

<<<<You said: I will note that this is one of the MILDER versions of this error that I have read over the years. It is an error fueled by a misunderstanding of the PURPOSES and SUBJECTS of the Law of Moses. No Gentile was ever subject to the Law of Moses per se, without his being adopted into the Nation of Israel, and Paul wasn't going to let it start on his watch. As recorded in Acts 15, we see that James and the Council of Jerusalem had the same opinion. Nowhere is there any credible biblical evidence that they considered abandoning Circumcision, Moses and the traditions as being anything other that walking disorderly for Jewish believers.>>>> 

>>Paul characterizes circumcision as a yoke in Acts 15:10-17. 

Actually it was Peter... 

>>He explains that no one not even their fathers could bear the yoke. It is through the grace of Jesus that they are saved, not by circumcision.<< 

Great, I'm not saved by circumcision, or not eating pork, or anything like that. None of this speaks to the point. 

>>James came into agreement with Paul and quoted a scripture that was a prophecy citing that it was being fulfilled [vs. 16-7].<< 

Perhaps already WAS in agreement??? 

>>So yes, circumcision is not required for salvation.<< 

Neither I, nor any other Messianic Jew who is theologically literate would suggest that it is, BUT that is not to say that it is not NORMATIVE obedient behavior for the Jewish Believer. It is an issue of ROLES and fulfillment of those roles. 

Oh yes, if the Dietary law (part of the So-call cerimonial law) was done away with why were the Gentiles told to abstain from eating blood? 

>>Although in my family we observed this tradition for our children. What is required, though, is the circumcision of the heart of which many of us still have not completely done. This has taken the place of the physical circumcision.<< 

There are traditions that are the traditions of men, and they may be good or bad. The important thing is NOT to confuse them with the traditions that God has commanded. 

I have no problem with lighting Shabbat Candles, but I do not let anyone say that they are commanded. They are not. OTOH, God has commanded that Jews observe certian traditions as recorded in Torah. For me, or any other Jewish Believer, to NOT do them is to walk in disorder.
 
From:  Hamilton109   2/25/2003 2:08 pm  
To:  Nlitnd1   (49 of 80)  
 
  522.49 in reply to 522.41  
 
>>>To whomever disagrees,<<< 
That would be me.... 

>>>It is interesting that we value women for everything but being one with intelligence. Its fine when we look upon a woman and think about how sexy she is. Its fine when we get all the loving we need from a woman. Its fine when we get to go home to a meal waiting with a smile. Its fine when she willingly bears our children. But God forbid she know a little bit more about the Bible than we do. God forbid we learn from a woman. God forbid a woman preach the Bible.<<< 

Interesting that you should say "God forbid" because, I am not sure that you are willing to hear that God Forbids this, or for that matter much else. 

>>>As a matter of fact I'll go a step further. An educated person realizes that he/she can learn from anyone and anything anywhere at anytime.<<< 

Learning and Authority are two different issues. 

>>>The moment/second that we think a person is dumb or underqualified<<< 

No one, not Paul nor myself is suggesting that this is so. 

>>is the moment that we do not deserve to learn. If you don't think you can learn from a woman then you my friend are not what you claim to be and you then become useless. There are many women far more qualified to be preachers than many many who are already behind the pulpit.<< 

Are you willing to be conformed to what scripture teaches? (BTW, please don't just give me that knee-jerk "that isn't what scripture teaches" because that is a second distinct question.) 

>>There is not one scripture promoting the idea that women are not to be ministers.<< 

>>In fact the opposite is clearly true.<< 

Lay it on me there trooper! 

>>A little history lesson would be good for those who think that when Paul addressed the women to be silent meant for them not to preach. It was meant for something far different.<< 

Fine, gimme your sterling iso- er, I mean exogesis. 

Perhaps you would like to spend a little time doing some compare and contrast work between the scholarship at the following websites. 

www.cbmw.org and www.cbeinternational.org 

Several years ago I did exactly that and went through both sites exhausitively. I am familiar with what the best of the best on BOTH sides of the issue say, and frankly, it is not even close. The traditional view of gender and authority simply has much more evidence behind it. 

I personally have been on both sides of this issue, and have come full circle. 

God set up his created order for a reason, and if it were up to ME I would no have an objection to the ordination of women, but it isn't up to ME, or YOU, or anyone else. We have to be faithful to the word as it is written whether we like it or not.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Hamilton109   2/25/2003 2:14 pm  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)    (50 of 80)  
 
  522.50 in reply to 522.42  
 
>>The scriptures I cited concerning women should not teach were qualified with scripture that adjoined with it. It basically said that unlearned women should not teach. However, mankind has perverted the one scripture without reviewing the other scriptures that surround it. Therefore is had been believed that all women should not teach.<< 
LOL, this is exactly wrong. I was all for the ordination of women UNTIL I read the entire context and saw his reasoning behind his statements. Up to that point I thoroughly believe the "cultural context" argument but reading the scriptures themselves I can only conclude that the "cultural context" argument is one big fat hairy rationalization. 

>>They second reason why women should not teach they cite is the fact that Eve was deceived. Truly she was deceived and tempted Adam to disobey God, but she also had not the benefit of complete instruction as Adam had. One can only guess that Adam passed on all the other instruction, but this is doubtful. This would account then for the reason that Adam was held accountable for losing our relationship to God, rather than Eve.<< 

Hello? *I* did not cite the reason, but PAUL cited this reason, and if our view of scripture is correct, he did so at the inspiration of God. 

If that is God's view, who are you to disagree with it?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Hamilton109   2/25/2003 2:16 pm  
To:  Nlitnd1   (51 of 80)  
 
  522.51 in reply to 522.44  
 
>>>You need to study the context, which very few know how to do. If you do not know context then you are wasting your time reading the Bible.<<< 
This is good advice, I suggest that you apply it to yourself, and not take accept today's flavor of the month approach to hermanutics.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Hamilton109   2/25/2003 2:23 pm  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)    (52 of 80)  
 
  522.52 in reply to 522.46  
 
>>Johhar, 
Have you read this thread? There are numerous statements of scriptural facts concerning women in the ministry.<< 

None of which really support your claims. 

>>All the scriptures you cite are really taken out of context from the other scriptures that Paul has given us.<< 

We see exactly the WHY Paul gave us for the WHAT a few verses later. Was Paul not telling us the truth about the WHY? 

Again, your reading of scripture gives us far more problems than it solves. Either Paul gave a correct reasoning for his teachings (in which case, why do you not obey them?) or he was being less than honest (in which case why to you call him an Apostle?). 

>>>If you read the scriptural facts on this thread, it addresses your remarks quite clearly.<<< 

Hardly. 

>>>It will give you a better picture of the times and the meaning of Paul's statement. It is not being presented as opinion but of scripture quote. Some of the statements should be viewed with renewed interest and then take it to the Lord for confirmation.<<< 

I am not sure that we are not reading different threads....
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Hamilton109   2/25/2003 2:29 pm  
To:  Nlitnd1   (53 of 80)  
 
  522.53 in reply to 522.47  
 
>>>The main point is the women that Paul addressed were those women and only those women. He wrote to specific women. This address is not indicated in any of the other letters that Paul wrote. It definitly was not Paul's intention to carry this statement on for all ages to come. It was a one time issue, addressed once, to a select group of people.<<< 
The only HUGEMAJOR problem with your argument is that Paul speaks of these issues in the context of the order of creation, the order of the fall, and the effect our behavior has on ANGELS.... 

Paul was not shy about giving contextual/cultural instructions, but the text here does not give you a shred of support. 

Frankly, you need to go do some homework. Those websites I provided should give you and anyone else LOTS of matterial to work with.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Nlitnd1   2/25/2003 3:34 pm  
To:  Hamilton109   (54 of 80)  
 
  522.54 in reply to 522.51  
 
Herma"nut"ics?? I guess you spelled it correctly, in my opinion. That is the problem with literal interpretation of every thing. This is why there are over 600 different "Christian" denominations. No one knows how to study properly in context. You act like Paul had a magical megaphone that broadcast his message accross the ages. When the fact is he wrote a letter to one group of people who had a specific problem. He had no idea that his letters would be memorialized for ages to come. He had no idea that his letters would become our scripture. He wrote to his contemporaries at that time, for that time, period. No different than you writing a letter to a specific person addressing a specific issue. Sorry to say the letter was not written to you Hamilton, as much as you want to keep women in subjection and under your thumb. I personally like my woman to be free, I don't have enough time in the day to keep tabs on her every moment. Besides I'm not a control freak. 
Paul taught in group settings. He taught in two way conversations. People asked questions, Paul answered. Just like Jesus did. Those new to the ideas or excited about the coming to pass of the new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah were elated. Primarily the women learning of their new found hope and revelations would ask a billion and two questions. Imagine 10, 20, 30 women trying to get all their questions answered at one time, impossible. This on top of the questions that the men would be asking. Those trying to learn more would not get fed. Paul would not be able to continue teaching or answering all the questions, which would only add to the confusion. Hence God is not the author of confusion. Paul simply drew a line in the sand, refrain from speaking in the church, wait until you get home. Why simply so that there would be "order in the court". No need to read into it and say that women are the lesser creature, or they are this lowly humble creature only used for making babies and hanging out in the kitchen. That's retarded, I just wonder where we would be today if not for the great women thinkers?? You would be quite amazed if you knew what women have contributed to our world today!! 

Furthermore much and most of these ordinances that were taught and those of which you choose to cling to were under the Law. We are completely free of the Law. The Law was abolished with the destruction of the temple. Do you follow all 613 Laws written in the Torah? Or do you just want this one Law to be in effect, let not women speak publically in the church??? There are 612 more Mr. Hamilton that you MUST follow if that is the road you choose. Have you done your daily sacrifice yet? Breaking one of these laws then means you are guilty of all the Laws and that is punishable by death. I'll have you know that we are not subject to the Law of Moses. This is what made the Law a curse, its subjection, its rule over the Israelites, they were bound to it, any deviation from it meant the death penalty. Jesus nailed the ordinances of the Law to the tree, He died that we are free from those subjections. 70AD rid any and all ties that we have with the Law. Without the temple the Law cannot be fulfilled. The temple was the only ordained location to which the daily and ritual sacrifices could be performed, no where else. This is where heaven and earth met. God left the throne room for the sweet savour of the offering made unto Him. Calvary provided the way to freedom from this way of life, 70AD established it for eternity. 

The truth shall set you free, do you think that a woman who cannot speak openly is free, sounds like bondage to me. I come that you might have life abundantly, Do you think a woman that cannot speak openly is living an abundant life?? Probably not. 

Peter quoted Joel 2:28 on the day of Pentecost, " And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and YOUR DAUGHTERS shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:" in Acts 2:17, Peter said this is that, what you are seeing today is that which the prophet Joel prophesied about. This prophecy included "daughters prophesying". Daughters ministering or preaching. Acts 2:18 "And on my servants and on my HANDMAIDENS I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:" Acts 21:9 "And the same man had four DAUGHTERS, VIRGINS, which did prophesy" All these women are probably in hell now because they prophesied or preached in the church. Or for some mysterious reason your view does not apply to these scriptures or people. Or maybe you are wrong, naw not that. 

Okay I'm off my soap box. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 2/25/2003 7:00:57 PM ET by NLITND1 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Hamilton109   2/25/2003 4:11 pm  
To:  Nlitnd1   (55 of 80)  
 
  522.55 in reply to 522.54  
 
[silly typo-flame deleted] 
>>That is the problem with literal interpretation of every thing. This is why there are over 600 different "Christian" denominations. No one knows how to study properly in context.<< 

I am not saying that some things are not cultural, I am saying don't SAY that it is cultural when the author tells you that it is not. 

Or don't you believe that Paul knew of what he spoke. 

>>You act like Paul had a magical megaphone that broadcast his message accross the ages.<< 

Um, yeah, it is called "Inspiration" and it is that which separates God's word from anything that is written by men. If you think this was the opinion of a mere man, why do you even bother to refute it? 

>>When the fact is he wrote a letter to one group of people who had a specific problem. He had no idea that his letters would be memorialized for ages to come.<< 

Did God? 

>>He had no idea that his letters would become our scripture.<< 

Didn't he?!? Then why did he take such time to differentiate that which was from the Lord "not I but the Lord" and visa versa?? 

>>He wrote to his contemporaries at that time, for that time, period.<< 

So we should not bother to read it huh? 

Please. 

>>No different than you writing a letter to a specific person addressing a specific issue.<< 

[{SLAP} right upside the head] 

I do not EVER claim that I have an inspiration from God to write his words. 

HE DID. 

Nothing I have ever written has been recognized as scripture by my contemporary spiritual authorities. 

HE DID. 

>>Sorry to say the letter was not written to you Hamilton, as much as you want to keep women in subjection and under your thumb.<< 

Yeah yeah yeah, just because I don't agree with you I hate women in any context beyond sex object and want to form a Christian Taliban movement. 

Do you believe the nonsense you are writing? 

>>I personally like my woman to be free, I don't have enough time in the day to keep tabs on her every moment. Besides I'm not a control freak.<< 

That is nice to know, I am happy for you. 

>>Paul taught in group settings. He taught in two way conversations. People asked questions, Paul answered. Just like Jesus did. Those new to the ideas or excited about the coming to pass of the new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah were elated. Primarily the women learning of their new found hope and revelations would ask a billion and two questions. Imagine 10, 20, 30 women trying to get all their questions answered at one time, impossible. This on top of the questions that the men would be asking. Those trying to learn more would not get fed. Paul would not be able to continue teaching or answering all the questions, which would only add to the confusion. Hence God is not the author of confusion. Paul simply drew a line in the sand, refrain from speaking in the church, wait until you get home. Why simply so that there would be "order in the court". No need to read into it and say that women are the lesser creature, or they are this lowly humble creature only used for making babies and hanging out in the kitchen. That's retarded, I just wonder where we would be today if not for the great women thinkers??<< 

That is not even close to what either Paul or I have said, NOR is the reasoning you give anywhere close to the reasoning Paul gives. 

Your argument rests completely on the reasoning that Paul did not give the REAL reason for his policy, but instead gave a false one. You are accusing Paul of Lying, and that is a very dangerous thing to do. 

>>You would be quite amazed if you knew what women have contributed to our world today!!<< 

I was a history major in college, but I presume that you might try and give me a history lesson now? 

>>Furthermore much and most of these ordinances that were taught and those of which you choose to cling to were under the Law. We are completely free of the Law.<< 

Yippie!! That means I can go out and commit adultry and take drugs and get drunk!! Right? 

>>The Law was abolished with the destruction of the temple.<< 

Chapter and verse Please? 

>>Do you follow all 613 Laws written in the Torah? Or do you just want this one Law to be in effect,<< 

Ironically, that is exactly what you compatriot is doing, picking and choosing. 

For myself as a Messianic Jew, I am seeking to observe as much of the 613 as I can, given that the Temple is destroyed, etc. 

>>let not women speak publically in the church??? There are 612 more Mr. Hamilton that you MUST follow if that is the road you choose.<< 

>>Have you done your daily sacrifice yet? Breaking one of these laws then means you are guilty of all the Laws and that is punishable by death.<< 

So you, who treat God's Law with contempt are somehow superior? 

Besides, the Temple had been destroyed before, and all of the believers KNEW that the Temple would be destroyed long before it was. 

Of course, you would know that if you had been following the thread. 

>>I'll have you know that we are not subject to the Law of Moses.<< 

If you are not Jewish you are not... 

>>This is what made the Law a curse, its subjection, its rule over the Israelites, they were bound to it, any deviation from it meant the death penalty.<< 

It is SIN that is the Curse, PAUL never said that the LAW was a curse and he specifically anticipated your error. 

[anti-nomian rant snipped] 

Do a little study on the words lawless and lawlessness. Tell me what you find. I will bet that you will see some pretty unflattering stuff there -- if you actually do it.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Nlitnd1   2/25/2003 5:57 pm  
To:  Hamilton109   (56 of 80)  
 
  522.56 in reply to 522.55  
 
You sure do have a lot of anger within you. I hope venting at this forum helps with whatever it is you are dealing with. No, I am not a psychiatrist, so you can't use that one. 
The fact is AD 70 lined up with the words of Jesus that all would be fulfilled. He said not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law prior to heaven and earth passing away, then all would be fulfilled. You claim to be a messianic Jew. What then have you studied about the understanding of heaven and earth to a first century Jew?? Was not the temple that which was considered heaven and earth?? The difference between the last temple and the prior temples is that the destruction of the prior temples also had prophecies declaring a rebuild. The last temple does not come with a physical rebuild prophecy. For the prophecies were fulfilled when Paul said "know ye not that ye are the temple of God?" The physical temple was replaced with a spiritual temple. A temple in which mankind can come and go as He pleases and worship freely as they please. Without the restrictions and the ordinances that only condemned. The prior destructions also preceded the death of the Messiah, it was required that a physical temple be built because of sin, therefore the requirement of animal sacrifice. After Jesus there is absolutely no need for a temple and animal sacrifice. Therefore God destroyed it, and it has been in ruins ever since. I doubt no matter what man tries that it will ever be built again. The only thing that will come out of any attempts to rebuild the temple will be WW3 due to its location in proximity to the dome of the rock. 

The last destruction was a utter destruction, an anhilation. The prophet Daniel prophesied that the Messiah would cause the oblation to cease. In the Hebrew "cease" in this particular passage means to cease from existance, to anhilate. Its a done deal, its over forever. The previous times when the oblation stopped were temporary. Such as that of Antiochus Epiphanes, Daniel speaks of him setting up his own makeshift sacrificial system, causing the daily sacrifice to temporarily stop. Studying this in the original Hebrew shows a definite difference in the language used in the two seperate passages. All the disciples and all the apostles claimed they were living in the last days, it was the last days of that system under the Law. The passing of the Law happened with the passing of the heavens and the earth. You out of anyone should know this and understand it even better than I do, I would think anyways. Those that look for the physical reality of fulfillment are looking for the same reasons that put Jesus on the cross. He came NOT for physical rejuvination but a new creature in a new Jerusalem, a temple NOT made with hands. That will not change, we will not go back to bulls and sheep offerings. Jesus died once in the end of the world for sins, the last and final sacrifice. He accomplished and fulfilled All that He came to do. Rebuilding a physical temple will be an abomination to God and a slap in the face for the redemption given to mankind. 

Question? How do you know that you are a member of the tribe of Judah? I mean with the utter destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Over 1.5 million Jews slaughtered in Jerusalem alone. Not to include the slaughter that took place in the cities throughout Judea. Then with the war over the diaspora and those sold into slavery and those taken for trophies. Here we are 1933 years later and you know for a fact you are of the tribe of Judah, that is quite remarkably stupifyingly incredibly dumbfoundingly fascinating to say the least. So what are you a Christian or a Jew?? Todays "Jews" practice that which is written in the Talmud and the Kabbalah. In particular the Talmud or oral tradition far supercedes the Bible, it is Judaism's standard. A far cry from the religion of the Hebrew children. Paul said if anyone was worthy of recognition due to his Israelitness it was he, yet he counted that dung. There is no difference between Jew and Greek. I don't go around saying I am a messianic Gentile, sounds sort a retarded actually. So what is the clingyness (probably not a word) with this Judaism?? I just don't get it! So are you a Sephardic Jew or a Ashkenazic Jew? Most don't know this but a little study from Jewish sources will quickly point out that up to 80% of all claiming to be Jews are Ashkenazic Jews. Most American Jews are Ashkenazic Jews which are basically European emigrants. Europeans who up to several centuries ago to modern times converted to Judaism. Not natural blood born Jews, converts. Regular folk like every other person on earth who decided one day that they wanted to be a Jew and get the credit for it.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Hamilton109   2/26/2003 12:26 pm  
To:  Nlitnd1   (57 of 80)  
 
  522.57 in reply to 522.56  
 
>>>You sure do have a lot of anger within you. I hope venting at this forum helps with whatever it is you are dealing with. No, I am not a psychiatrist, so you can't use that one. <<< 
I don't suffer nonsense kindly, for it is not a kindness to you or anyone reading this list for me not to pin your ears back when you engage in slandering apostles. 

But perhaps you would rather hear what Peter says about you, and make no mistake about it -- he is. 

2Pe 3:15 And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 
2Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 

I hope that "unto their own destruction" bit hits home. You need to be REAL careful about what you say about the apostles, and for that matter, what God inspired them to write. 

Having read over your rant on the Temple, Messianic Judaism, et al, I want you to know that you have just enough knowledge to be dangerous, and that little drift into Anti-Semitism is telling. 

You are dismissed.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Nlitnd1   2/27/2003 9:37 am  
To:  Hamilton109   (58 of 80)  
 
  522.58 in reply to 522.57  
 
It sure is easy for you to throw out anti-slogans the second your buttons are pushed. Can't stand up and answer simple questions, instead call names and accusations. No where in my posts am I being spiteful. Simple logical questions. 
You can't set me straight, therefore I must deduct that I am correct. My questioning is no different than someone asking "why do you think you are a Christian." Your name calling and attitude stinks, you reek of rot to the core of your inner being, you have zero love. Everyone here on this forum knows you Hamilton by your lack of fruit, you fight everyone on every thread. All of your posts spew bitterness towards the innocent. The fig tree still has no figs, nor will it ever. The fact is I teach Biblical truth, truth that only comes from prudent study, years of study. Pure unadulterated truth, unbiased, straight from the mouth of God. Anyone reading the word of God in truth and honesty knows that I am correct. The temple is and only is within the true born again Christian. It doesn't matter what your genetics are, it does not matter your disposition. The true Israel is the new creature, not a religion or a nation or a race. Paul understood this very clearly Galations 6:15-16. If I am anti-nominian and anti-semitic, because I teach the Bible in truth, then what about the word of God. How many times did Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel call the house of Judah and the house of Israel a whore, harlot adulterous woman?? How many times did John the Baptist and Jesus call the Jews a generation of vipers, whose father was the devil?? You dare to call me anti-semitic, read the Bible. I barely even scratched the surface.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Hamilton109   2/27/2003 9:48 am  
To:  Nlitnd1   (59 of 80)  
 
  522.59 in reply to 522.58  
 
First, I love good logical discussions, but I do not have the time to answer every post at all times, neither do I feel the need to argue with every barking dog on the street. 
Your comments about Jews is one that is very common in anti-Semitic Cirlces, because the Jews of Europe are not REAL Jews.... 

The part they do not always say outloud is that since they are not REAL Jews, they are FAKE Jews and therefor anyone who opposes them is not subject to the cursing that God promised on those who cursed the children of Abraham. 

What you have written leads me to strongly suspect that you motives are mixed at BEST and that trying to correct all of your messed up theology would be a huge waste of time. The last thing I need in my life now is another "time-vampire."
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  JOHHAR   2/27/2003 10:30 am  
To:  Hamilton109   (60 of 80)  
 
  522.60 in reply to 522.59  
 
>trying to correct all of your messed up theology would be a huge waste of time. <

Amen to that :)

John

Gospel for Asia
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  Nlitnd1   2/27/2003 12:00 pm  
To:  Hamilton109   (61 of 80)  
 
  522.61 in reply to 522.59  
 
The part that you do not say out loud is that Christianity is not the true religion and that Christians are not God's people. If you want to be God's chosen then one should convert to Judaism. You essentially say that Christianity is a fraud. The point is it needs to be one or the other. The Christians of the Bible were Jews and the children of Abraham, they left one way of life to join another, to follow Christ. Today it is taught that there are two seperate paths, two seperate programs. There was one program then, why the change? Its one or the other, Christianity or Judaism? Can't be two. One body, one baptism, one spirit, one faith, one God.  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Hamilton109   3/3/2003 11:27 am  
To:  Nlitnd1   (62 of 80)  
 
  522.62 in reply to 522.61  
 
>>The part that you do not say out loud is that Christianity is not the true religion and that Christians are not God's people.<< 
Well, since you are misinformed about so many other things, why should I be surprised that you are misinformed about Messianic Judaism? 

I believe that Christianity, particularly as practiced by most conservative Protestants is about as good and true as any human theology can be. My beef with them is that they expect Jews who become believers to cease being Jews. This is certainly not what Paul or James taught. 

For a Jewish believer to live as a Gentile is spiritual cross-dressing, and that is not good. 

>>If you want to be God's chosen then one should convert to Judaism.<< 

No Gentile, in either the new or old testament, was required to become a Jew in order to woship the God of Abraham. Please note that this was the whole point of the Court of the Gentiles-- it was a place where Godfearing Gentiles could worship AS GENTILES. 

>>You essentially say that Christianity is a fraud. The point is it needs to be one or the other.<< 

Here is where you are exactly and *profoundly* incorrect. Go read Isaiah 66 ten times, Acts 21 ten times and then Acts 28 ten times and MAYBE you will start to get it. 

Jew is not the opposite of Christian, it is Gentile. 

The opposite of Christian is not Jew, it is unbeliever. 

Paul considered himself to be BOTH "Christian" and Jew. 

>>The Christians of the Bible were Jews and the children of Abraham, they left one way of life to join another, to follow Christ.<< 

This is an opinion devoid of Biblical evidence. 

>>Today it is taught that there are two seperate paths, two seperate programs. There was one program then, why the change?<< 

Just to be clear I do not, nor does any Messianic Jew advocate "Two Covenant Theology" where Jesus is the Messiah for the Gentiles, but not the Jews. 

>>Its one or the other, Christianity or Judaism? Can't be two. One body, one baptism, one spirit, one faith, one God.<< 

We are ONE body, but many parts. Jew and Greek, Slave and Free, Male and Female. 

Of course that is where we came in... recognizing that while we are all saved exactly the same way, through the blood of Messiah (Gal.3:28), we have different roles that are defined Biblically (both new and old testiment) for us to follow. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 3/3/2003 2:33:21 PM ET by HAMILTON109 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Nlitnd1   3/3/2003 11:39 am  
To:  Hamilton109   (63 of 80)  
 
  522.63 in reply to 522.62  
 
>>Of course that is where we came in... recognizing that while we are all saved exactly the same way, through the blood of Messiah (Gal.3:28), we have different roles that are defined Biblically (both new and old testiment) for us to follow.<< 
Do you mean the blood of Jesus? 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Hamilton109   3/3/2003 11:46 am  
To:  Nlitnd1   (64 of 80)  
 
  522.64 in reply to 522.63  
 
Yes. 
Jesus, Yeshua in Hebrew. 

Messiah in Hebrew, Christ in Greek. 

All are one.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Nlitnd1   3/3/2003 11:52 am  
To:  Hamilton109   (65 of 80)  
 
  522.65 in reply to 522.64  
 
We agree on something how cool is that! :) 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 3/3/2003 2:53:32 PM ET by NLITND1 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Hamilton109   3/11/2003 12:03 pm  
To:  Nlitnd1   (66 of 80)  
 
  522.66 in reply to 522.56  
 
[snipped] 
>>>...So are you a Sephardic Jew or a Ashkenazic Jew? Most don't know this but a little study from Jewish sources will quickly point out that up to 80% of all claiming to be Jews are Ashkenazic Jews. Most American Jews are Ashkenazic Jews which are basically European emigrants. Europeans who up to several centuries ago to modern times converted to Judaism. Not natural blood born Jews, converts. Regular folk like every other person on earth who decided one day that they wanted to be a Jew and get the credit for it.<<< 

I hope that you were not intending to be anti-Semitic, and having this belief does not necessarily mean that you are, and so I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt. 

Recent genetic advances have specifically linked Jews together. Yes there have always been converts, but that is not to say that these people were being dishonest, they were just marrying into the people. God scattered us everywhere, and it was unavoidable that we would intermarry with the local populations, that is why European Jews look European, why Ethiopian Jews look Ethiopian, why Jews from India look Indian. God scattered us everywhere, and the DNA tells. 

Go to the following site and have a little fun following the links. 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/familylemba.html 

I would be interested in hearing what you think after you read this stuff.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Nlitnd1   3/11/2003 2:25 pm  
To:  Hamilton109   (67 of 80)  
 
  522.67 in reply to 522.66  
 
Hi, 
I read a few of them, things like that I find rather interesting. I had actually interacted with a group of black Jews, who felt that all Jews originated from black Jews, including Jesus. They quoted a few scriptures which they believed pointed in that direction. I don't have a problem with Jesus being black or any other race for that matter, I only had a problem with the context in which they were striving to interpret the passages they chose. Like you said they were scattered everywhere, so I don't think that there is any real way to say all Jews were black, white etc. Actually there are some that teach they were all white, the perfect Arian race thing. 

My question was more on the lines of logistics rather than skeptisism. There seems to me to be an awful lot of Jews and very few Levites, Benjaminites, etc. For example the article pointed out that the DNA seemed to tie in with the Jewish priesthood. There was no Jewish priesthood, there was a Levitical priesthood. So the article should have read that the DNA seemed to line up with that of the Levitical priesthood. That was my question how does every Jew know that they tie in with the tribe of Judah versus the 11 other tribes? Only those of the tribe of Judah were Jews. Yet today it seems more collective, at one point the seperation the dividing wall between tribes ceased to exist and now all regardless are Jews. That's the part I don't understand. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Hamilton109   3/11/2003 2:35 pm  
To:  Nlitnd1   (68 of 80)  
 
  522.68 in reply to 522.67  
 
>>My question was more on the lines of logistics rather than skeptisism. There seems to me to be an awful lot of Jews and very few Levites, Benjaminites, etc. For example the article pointed out that the DNA seemed to tie in with the Jewish priesthood. There was no Jewish priesthood, there was a Levitical priesthood.<< 
Strictly speaking, the Cohenim (Priests in Hebrew) were only a portion of the Levites that descended from Aaron. Other Levites had tasks like running the cities of refuge, etc. Strictly speaking you are both being a little inexact, but not in a large way. (Sort of like saying the word "sunset" is not exact.) 

>>So the article should have read that the DNA seemed to line up with that of the Levitical priesthood. That was my question how does every Jew know that they tie in with the tribe of Judah versus the 11 other tribes? Only those of the tribe of Judah were Jews. Yet today it seems more collective, at one point the seperation the dividing wall between tribes ceased to exist and now all regardless are Jews. That's the part I don't understand<< 

This is another "sunset"-type inexactness that no one really knows about. I have NO idea what tribe I am from, but someday there may be a method for me to know. The main obsticle would be the cheif Rabbis in Israel who consider testing bones from ancient graves for DNA samples, grave desecration. 

If that can be overcome, there is no reason that I couldn't know what tribe I am from in the near future.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  sparrow40   6/1/2003 6:08 pm  
To:  Alex_Anatole (AlexAnatole) unread  (69 of 80)  
 
  522.69 in reply to 522.9  
 
Is the Holy Spirit any less then He is because He abides in a woman and not in a man???? If it is from Jesus and the Holy Spirit then should it matter which sex he is in? And please tell me exactly what kind of "authority" over a man are we talking about? Examples please. It's beginning to sound a little like saying men can not be corrected by a woman. This sounds familiar to saying that the Pope can't be corrected by any lay person. Neither sounds like it is from God but from man. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  sparrow40   6/1/2003 6:50 pm  
To:  ALL   (70 of 80)  
 
  522.70 in reply to 522.68  
 
If you were dying of thirst and someone bought you water would you refuse to accept it if it were brought by a woman rather then a man? Likewise if you were thirsting for the word of God would you seriously refuse it cause a woman brought it to you and not a man? How about a child? The heavens declare the glory of God why not a woman? Can you imagine saying to God "Hey God, I wasn't going to accept your word to me even when I desparately needed it all because it was delivered to me by a woman or child or a jew or even unknowingly by an unbeliever"?? 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)     6/1/2003 8:19 pm  
To:  sparrow40   (71 of 80)  
 
  522.71 in reply to 522.69  
 
Thank you for opening the window to air out this smell of anti-woman on this thread!  Its is refreshing to see that there is someone here with a sound mind who loves the sisters / daughters of Christ and realizes that God intended to use them for delivering His teaching, His word, and His exhortations. Amen Sparrow40! ~Minister Falcon 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 1/2/2004 6:18:06 PM ET by Minister Falcon (OSMFALCON) 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  8320JOHN   6/3/2003 8:28 am  
To:  KAY113 unread  (72 of 80)  
 
  522.72 in reply to 522.1  
 
They can't...very simple. It is perversion. 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  8320JOHN   6/3/2003 8:30 am  
To:  Alex_Anatole (AlexAnatole) unread  (73 of 80)  
 
  522.73 in reply to 522.7  
 
Deaconess was merely a helper in the work of the Lord...never an appointed office in the hierarchy, nor was she the husband of one wife. :)- ALL the offices in the NT Body of Christ were male and that was the instructions to the infant church...instructions which many have violated...to their soon coming distress. 
Regards,
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  sparrow40   6/4/2003 5:32 am  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)    (74 of 80)  
 
  522.74 in reply to 522.71  
 
you are welcome Falcon!(((((((Falcon)))))))) 
Why doesn't everyone concern themselves over things that make them a better christian, have a closer relationship to God or really illustrates Jesus's love to another person?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)     6/4/2003 12:08 pm  
To:  sparrow40   (75 of 80)  
 
  522.75 in reply to 522.74  
 
This should answer your question:

Ecclesiastes 3:18
I said in my heart, "Concerning the condition of the sons of men, God tests them, that they may see that they themselves are like animals." 


Man manifests evil by thought, word, and deed.  If God did not manifest man, that is test him, man would not confess, repent, and be reformed. When man comes against his brethren by holding back the anointing that resides in that brethren, be it male or female, he comes against God, Himself.  It is a tragedy to think that the devil has blinded some brethren into thinking that it is ok to malign the work of the Lord just because it is in the counterpart to man. ~Minister Falcon

  

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  sparrow40   6/7/2003 6:30 pm  
To:  Minister Falcon (OSMFalcon)    (76 of 80)  
 
  522.76 in reply to 522.75  
 
TY I don't think I ever noticed that scripture before. Sparrow 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


Message 77 of 80 was Deleted    



  From:  Strings17   7/4/2003 8:01 am  
To:  KAY113 unread  (78 of 80)  
 
  522.78 in reply to 522.1  
 
The modern church cares little about what the bible says,the scripture quoted here makes it plain but the modern church will argue what the meaning of "is" is until Jesus returns.The bible is also clear about how men are to treat women,but again that does not matter most women today in and out of the church judge a mans behaviour not on biblical principles but on modern feminist principles,ie the more like a woman he is the better.The man of the bible is neither wanted or respected by a whole lot of women today both in and out of the church. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


Message 79 of 80 was Deleted    



   From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/4/2003 11:30 am  
To:  ALL   (80 of 80)  
 
  522.80 in reply to 522.78  
 
The preceding post was deleted for violating the forum rule of presenting Non-Christian material as Godly or Christian material.

 

The poster was locked out of the forum. This is a necessary requirement in order to run a Reliable Resource Based Forum.

 

When unbelievers of any type post information (even accidentally) that can be confused by the new or casual visitor, as being Christian material or as being endorsed by this forum it has to be removed.

 

This is in fulfillment of this forums Starting Charter and agreement with the Christian community and other Christian forums.

 

This is a Christian Forum for Christian Discussion. I do let some non-Christian discussion take place, when it is identified as non-Christian in nature on some limited Topics but it is not permissible to blend.

 

This is a moderated forum and it is moderated to maintain the Christian content.

 

Thank you.

 

God Bless you,
David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
