Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health?

 

 

 

 

 

 

My reply in BROWN.

 

Sincerely,

 

John Knight

aekennedy <aekennedy@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

 

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:21 PM

Subject: Re: [Israelites] Context Importance


 

Dear Arnold,

Please see my reply in green, or view it at http://www.christianparty.net/aektorah.htm

Sincerely,

 

John Knight

 

aekennedy <aekennedy@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

MY COMMENTS IN RED CAPITALS - ARNOLD.

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 10:34 AM

Subject: [Israelites] Re: [jacobisrael] Context Importance


 

 

Dear Arnold,

 

This reply below in blue is in the third party because it's going to be posted on the christianparty.net web site at http://fathersmanifesto.net/aektorah.htm

 

Please see my comments in blue at that site if the formatting doesn't translate with Yahoo (which I'm sure it won't).

 

Sincerely,

 

 

John Knight

 

 

 

Dear John, I am starting a new string here that follows that about women being silent in the assembly.

 

CONTEXT.

Dear John,  You say, “I understand what you asked for, and the purpose of the analogy was to provide a "context" for why God's Law is this way and how it applies to today's world”, but I do not think you fully do.  When I have been talking about context, I have been talking about the actual context confined in the verses themselves. We just cannot provide an extraneous context in the way you do because doing that is changing the context in which the passages were written, and thus the end result is not what you think that it is.  Your list of translations is meaningless as a means of establishing an already presumed context.  I will start from scratch to try to show you what I mean.

 

Most of us will have heard about a person who is supposed to have stuck a pin in a Bible and is supposed to have read, “Judas went and hanged himself”, and then stuck in the pin again and read, “Go thou and do likewise”.  This might sound a bit corny, but in sermons and in writings this activity is a reality that is ongoing.  Yes, it does happen. And of course, the consequences may as unreasonable. You may not like me saying this, but I believe this is what you are doing.

 

Let us together examine the context of two passages that involve the role of women in the assembly.

1 Cor 14:34-35  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.

 

1 Tim 2:9-11  In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;  But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp   authority over the man (husband), 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. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

 

Now John, you start with a context presumption that amounts to, “See, women are not even to speak in the assembly”, the Bible clearly says this”.  But is it clear? It only seems to be clear because something has been taken out of context!   So let us do a bit of digging for treasure!

 In both verses the subject is “women” and both contain the word “learn”.  The two phrases are, “if they will learn anything” and “let the women learn” In both the word “learn” is the same Greek word “man-than'-o” which is about understanding as well as learning.  So obviously women can both learn and understand.

But is it about all women?  In both verses the word for “women” is “goo-nay” (or “wife”).  Young’s concordance indicates that the word is translated 92 times as “wife” and 129 times as “woman” as you correctly point out.  So which is right?  Which is right is determined by context, as we shall see.  Emails that insist this word means “women” (in general) rather that “wives” simply because it is translated as “women” more times than it is translated as “wives”.  This is the sort of poor logic we can do without.

The word for “husband” and “man” in both verses is “an-aur” which means “husband”.  It is actually translated as “husband” in one verse, but not in the other, but the context of this is shown in the Adam and Eve relationship mentioned in the second verse.   It is in a husband-wife relationship context only.  Those with a little knowledge of language know that the word for “man” is NOT the generic term “anthropos”.  So the passages do not involve men in general; they involve husbands.

Thus, in both verses Scripture refine the “women” concerned down married women with husbands. We can see this in the second verse where it talks about the wife being saved in childbirth.  A single woman does not properly have a husband to have children with.  There is no evidence that these two passages refer to single women, even in a future potential manner. There is no evidence they apply to widows.

 It’s not clear why Arnold is so intent on excluding whores [read: single women], virgins, and widows from this verse even though all translators agree that it applies to all women, but let’s indulge him for a moment.  However, we do need for him  to eventually answer this question.

VERY SIMPLY, I AM NOT PREPARED TO CHANGE OR ADD TO THE CONTEXT AS YOU ARE WANT TO DO.  THE CONTEXT IS ONLY HUSBANDS AND WIVES, AND THAT ONLY!.

You have not a shred of evidence that Paul intended to exclude whores, virgins, or widows from the following verse, Arnold.  You also failed, once again, to inform us why you believe Paul would want to exclude any women from this statement.  You also ignore, once again, that whether or not you're correct, the end result is almost the same--no woman should teach or have authority over a man, nor speak in an "ekklesia".

NOT WOMEN IN GENERAL FROM THIS CONTEXT!

 

Arnold, even if you were correct that "gune" means ONLY "wife" (which no translator agrees with you), you keep missing the KEY point that that Ray made that an Israelite woman who has sex with an Israelite man IS his "wife" UNLESS her father prohibits it.

 

This verse applies to all women (wives, virgins, widows, and whores), and all men (husbands, sons, brothers, and fathers).

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

 

Please note before we progress on, that at present we are looking at only two verses without letting our thoughts to be influenced by different verses in a different context.  (This is what you usually do).

 Now that we have looked at some things in common in these verses, we can consider some of the differences.  The major difference is found in the word “silence” which is one single word in English, but they are two different words with different meanings in the Greek. This effectively makes a context change in the second passage in regard to married women opening their mouths or not in public meetings. 

 

In the 1 Corinthian 14 passage, the word translated as “silence” is Strongs 4601 “see-gah-o” to which he assigns the meaning as being, “to keep silence, hold one's peace, to be kept in silence, be concealed”.

Other examples of the use of this word are found as highlighted in the following:

 

Luke 9:36  And when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept it close, and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen.

Luke 20:26  And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace

Act 12:17  But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison.

Act 15:12  Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

1 Cor. 14:28  But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

1 Cor. 14:29  Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.   If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.

Rom 16:25  Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began.

 

What do we see in these verses?  Well, the major translation is “held their peace”.   The words “held” and “peace” are the same word “sigao”. When we go back to the original verse about women being silent in the churches or assemblies, the verb ‘keep silence” is present in tense, and “to speak” is also present in tense.  Overall, the thrust of this verse is about being silent in certain conditions or situations.  We will come back to this after looking at the second verse.

 

            1 Tim 2:9-11  In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls,             or costly array;  But           that(which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

            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.  Notwithstanding she shall be saved in                     childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and        holiness with sobriety.

 

The key phrase we are considering is “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection”.  Here the word “silence” is quite a different word to “silence” as found in the 1 Cor. 14:34 passage.  The word is  Strongs 2271, (hay-soo-khee'-ah) to which Strong assigns the meaning as being “stillness, that is, desistance from bustle or language: - quietness”.  It is the feminine form of Strongs 2272 meaning “still (undisturbed, undisturbing): - peaceable, quiet”.  As we did with the other 1st Corinthians’ verse, we can look at how this word is translated in other places, that is, we can look at other places where we find the word in Greek.

 

            2 Thess 3:11  For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.  Now them that are such we command             and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

This time we have only one or two verses we can look at comparative translations. Strong gives the following information for “silence” in this passage:

(1)     quietness

(2)     description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others.

(3)      

Note that is a noun.  This feminine noun originates from Strongs 2272, whereas in the 1 Cor. 14 passage the word “silence” in “keep silence” is a verb.  Now we can look at Strongs 2722 passages.

 

            1 Tim 2:2  For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

 

            1 Peter 3:3  Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;  But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

 

Although our translators were inconsistent in the way they translated words, we can easily see the difference between “silence” as in the first passage and “silence” as in the second passage.  The first is about wives not speaking in certain circumstances, whereas the second is about the attitude of wives towards their husbands, in their speech.  An important point here is that in both passages, is that both are in the context of a woman and her husband.  Any extension to women in general is changing the context and thus has no validity.  To do this is totally misleading.

Arnold may be correct and all the other translators and concordances wrong, but this may be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

TRANSLATORS MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE WRONG SINCE WIVES ARE ALWAYS "WOMEN".

Which ignores your own argument that this applies only to wives.  If even one translator had agreed with you, they would have translated this word "gune" as "wives", not "women".  Every one of the following ten translations considered "gune" to mean women, not wives, and you have yet to produce even one translation where it says "wives":

WHY WOULD THEY WHEN WIVES ARE ALWAYS WOMEN?  ALL YOUR VERSE QUOTING MEANS NOTHING.  YOU THINK YOU WILL BE HEARD BY THE ABUNDANCE OF WORDS.  THE "MAN" IS ALWAYS "ANER" = "HUSBAND".  WHERE DO YOU INVENT THE PLURAL FROM?  YOU ARE STILL DODGING THE CONTEXT ISSUE IN TEN VERSIONS.

 

Don't get stupid on us here, Arnold.  You're claiming that this verse applies ONLY to wives, and the translators say it means "women", which INCLUDES wives, AND widows, AND virgins, AND whores.

 

Furthermore, the word "aner" [#435] from which "husbands" was translated is translated as "men" 156 times and as "husband" only 50 times.

 

AV - man 156, husband 50, sir 6, fellow 1, not tr 2; 215

 

Furthermore, it's also translated as "sir" and "fellow", all of which dispute your assertion that "THE 'MAN' IS ALWAYS 'ANER' = 'HUSBAND'".

 

Just because the word is singular does NOT even begin to imply that this verse applies to only ONE person.  It applies to ALL Israelite men, and ALL Israelite women.

 

NLT - 1Ti 2:12 - I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly.
New Living Translation � 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust
NKJV - 1Ti 2:12 - And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
New King James Version � 1982 Thomas Nelson
NASB - 1Ti 2:12 - But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
New American Standard Bible � 1995 Lockman Foundation
RSV - 1Ti 2:12 - I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.
Revised Standard Version � 1947, 1952.
Webster - 1Ti 2:12 - But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Noah Webster Version 1833 Info
Young - 1Ti 2:12 - and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness,
Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info
Darby - 1Ti 2:12 - but I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man, but to be in quietness;
J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info
ASV - 1Ti 2:12 - But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.
American Standard Version 1901 Info
HNV - 1Ti 2:12 - But I don't permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness.
Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info
Vulgate - 1Ti 2:12 - docere autem mulieri non permitto neque dominari in virum sed esse in silentio
Jerome's Latin Vulgate 405 A.D. Info

 

 

In the light of these different words for “silence” we can re-appraise the application of these two verses.  We will read the first verse again,

            1 Cor 14:34-35  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.  

 

"Asking their husbands at home" shows it is confined to the husband-wife context.  Here, as has been pointed out, the context is that of husbands and wives in the assemblies.  Historically, husbands and wives sat on opposite sides of the meeting place, and Paul prohibited wives from calling out to their husbands to ask questions, but to wait until they were at home to do it.  This passage is prefixed with “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints” and thus we see that it would be shameful for wives to so “speak” in the church situation because this would be confusing and disturbing to the speaker as well as to all others there. The verse is absolutely only in the context of a husband and his wife.

 Arnold has been asked to provide the verse which illustrates this unusual seating arrangement, and it’s fairly certain he will  not be able to provide it.  It’s key to his argument because he can now claim that with today’s “modern” seating arrangement in churches, it’s no longer necessary for women to be silent.

I POINTED OUT THAT THIS WAS HISTORICAL.  NOTE THAT THE SAME SEPARATION OF MEN FROM WOMEN STILL CARRIES ON IN JEWISH SYNAGOGUES TODAY. POSSIBLY TODAY'S SEATING ARRANGEMENT IS WRONG!.   I SAID EXACTLY NOTHING ABOUT TODAY'S MODERN CHURCH SEATING ARRANGEMENTS.  I AM NOT CLAIMING A THING OUTSIDE OF THE GIVEN CONTEXT.  ALL THAT IS YOUR IDEA.  IT IS YOUR IDEA TO TRY TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF "SIGAO" TOO.  WHAT DOES "HELD THEIR PEACE" SIGNIFY TO YOU?

First of all, Arnold--WHAT HAS THE JEWISH SEATING ARRANGEMENT GOT TO DO WITH THE ISRAELITE SEATING ARRANGEMENT?  You don't seem to comprehend even yet that there is nothing more opposite from each other than jews and Israelites, than the Talmud and the Torah.

 

Second of all, it is YOU who insists that I confine my comments to Scripture, but now here you are expecting me to accept a non-Scriptural (and absurd) statement as a fact of life.

 

Until you produce the Scripture, and I don't mean a Talmudic reference, your point is null and void.

OH YES IT HAS MEANING, ESPECIALLY IF THE PARTICULAR JEWS WERE ISRAELITES.  HAVE YOU NEVER REFERRED TO HISTORICAL SOURCES?  I THINK I CAN RECALL YOU EVEN QUOTING JOSEPHUS!!

 

There are NO jews today who are Israelites, who are descendants of the Israelites, nor whose very own writings even imply that they're descendants of the Israelites.  Most jew writings claim that most jews are Ashkenazis or Khazars, neither of whom are even Semites [read: sons of Shem], much less Hebrews [read: sons of Eber], nor Israelites [read: sons of Jacob].

 

And, no, I do not quote Josephus, and in fact have wasted much time having to correct the LIES written by the LIAR jew [though I repeat myself] Joesphus which have been posted to this very forum which completely contradict Scripture.  Neither Josephus nor your jew sources are valid on an Israelite forum and never will be.

 

If you cannot produce an Israelite source for your claim that men and women were ever segregated from each other in an "ekklesia", then your claim is not accepted.

 

AS ALSO SAITH THE LAW”.

We have here the phrase, “as also saith the Law”.  Some men say this means that all women are to be subject to all men, but they cannot produce any place in the Law of God where this is said.  Even in the first mention in:

            Gen 3:16  Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

- this is confined to a wife being subject to her (own) husband. It shows the order God has established. This order is exactly the same as what we find in the New Testament.

            Ephesians 5:22   “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord”.  

There is nothing said about wives being subject to other men’s’ husbands.   Peter puts it this way:

            1 Peter 3:6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. 

The question is not whether or not wives should be “subject to other men’s’ husbands”.  The question is why Arnold continues to insist that women should teach men, have authority over men, or speak in an “ekklesia

WHERE HAVE I INSISTED THAT WOMEN SHOULD TEACH MEN?  I SAID THAT WIVES SHOULD NOT TEACH HUSBANDS.  TRY READING WHAT WAS WRITTEN JOHN.. YOUR QUESTION IS DELIBEREATLY TRYING TO TWIST THIS TO YOUR OUT-OF-CONTEXT VIEW.

 

Will you please produce just one translation which agrees with you that this verse is confined only to wives? If you don't do this simple thing, and then defend why that translator disagrees with all the rest, this point too is null and void.

THE POINT IS THAT YOU CANNOT PRODUCE ONE PASSAGE OR VERSION WITH YOUR SUPPOSED CONTEXT.  YOU SHOW ME WHERE "ANER" DOES NOT MEAN "HUSBAND".  IF YOU CANNOT THEN IT IS YOU THAT IS NULL AND VOID.  ARE YOU SUGGESTION THAT "WOMEN" SHOULD NOT ASK THEIR HUSBANDS "AT HOME"?  HOW COULD SUCH A "WOMAN" NOT BE A "WIFE".  OR ARE YOU ADVOCATING WIFE SWAPPING TO COVER THE FIELD!!

 

As pointed out before, "aner" appears more as "men" than as "husbands, plus Strong's defines it as "any male".  This means that women should ask their "men" at home, which could be sons, OR fathers, OR brothers--or even husbands:

 

1) with reference to sex

a) of a male

b) of a husband

c) of a betrothed or future husband

2) with reference to age, and to distinguish an adult man from a boy

3) any male

4) used generically of a group of both men and women

In addition, husbands have a particular obligation befire God which brothers, fathers, and sons do not have:

Num 5:14 And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled:

 

 

 

“Amazement” means “terror”.  This is not to be the result of a wife being terrorized!  Then Peter continues:

            1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that  Your prayers be not hindered.

 

Finally Peter instructs us in the next verse to have the same attitude towards every believer:

             1 Peter 7:8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

 

Asking husbands questions is where wives are required to be silent in the assembly and this limitation only is what is determined by the context.

 

I missed this gross error before.  Arnold, it says for women to ask their men AT HOME, not in the assembly!!!  You've got this exactly backwards:

 

1Cr 14:35 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.

 

Thus Paul details the objective of the exercise which is to maintain quietness and order an assembly.

Correction.  An “ekklesia” is defined as any assembly of Israelites, any place, any time

NOT TRUE JOHN.  THIS SEEMS A CORRECTION TO YOU BECAUSE IT IS ONE THAT EXISTS ONLY IN YOUR MIND.  YOUR DEFINITION IS FAULTY..  HAVE A LOOK AT THE SAME WORD TRANSLATED AS "ASSEMBLY" AND SEE IT IS USED OF A PUBLIC MEETING IN EPHESUS.  ALSO, IN THE PATTERN OF THE OLD TESTAMENT THERE ARE TWO PARALLEL BUT DIFFERENT WORDS, "KAHAL" AND "EDAH" WITH DIFFERING COMPOSITION OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED.

 

Let's stick with the following Strong's definition of "ekklesia", which includes "assembly of the Israelites", and is not restricted to your faulty notion that this definition "exists only in [my] mind":

YES WE CAN STICK WITH STRONGS.   CANNOT YOU READ WHAT STRONG'S 1), 1a) AND 1c) READS?     -OR NEXT TIME AROUND ARE YOU GOING TO CHANGE YOUR TUNE AND SAY STRONG IS WRONG!  YOUR SUPPOSED LIMITATION DOES STILL EXIST JUST IN YOUR MIND.  WHO THEN HAS THE "FAULTY NOTION"? 

 

You claimed "your definition is faulty", when my definition is exactly 1b) below.  Do we now agree that "ekklesia" also includes "the assembly of the Israelites"??

 

1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly

a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating .

b) the assembly of the Israelites

c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously

d) in a Christian sense

1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting

2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake

3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body

4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth

5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven
 

 

Now we can compare the second passage and see if it means that women should not speak in the assembly. Let us read the verses again.

            1 Tim 2:9-11  In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or                    pearls, or costly array;  But    (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

            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.   Notwithstanding she shall be saved in                         childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

 

The essence of this passage can be seen in the word “silence”.  We have seen that it carries the sense of “stillness, desistance from bustle or language, quietness, still, undisturbed, undisturbing, peaceable, and quiet”.  It is about a wife’s attitude, behavior, manner of attire and her relationship with her (own) husband.  This is about the manner of speaking and her deportment, rather than not speaking at all.

Except that the use of the word “ekklesia” suggests that women should be silent when any number Israelites might be present.

WHERE EVER DO YOU GET THIS SUGGESTION FROM?  DID ANNA IN THE TEMPLE DO WRONG WHEN SHE PROPHESIED?

You have no evidence, Arnold, that Anna ever violated 1 Timothy 2:12, do you?  Yes, she's been referenced by some as a woman who was permitted to speak before an assembly or church meeting, but the following Scripture indicates that she was speaking to potential converts to Christianity personally rather than before an assembly.  Furthermore, she was an 84 year old widow, which means that she was not a "prostitute", "fornicator", "whore", nor "harlot":

(Luk 2:36) And there was Anna, a prophetess, daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher, she was much advanced in days, having lived with an husband seven years from her virginity,

(Luk 2:37) and she is a widow of about eighty-four years, who did depart not from the temple, with fasts and supplications serving, night and day,

(Luk 2:38) and she, at that hour, having come in, was confessing, likewise, to the Lord, and was speaking concerning him, to all those looking for redemption in Jerusalem.

Being a prophet or prophetess does not require one to speak before an assembly, because this could involve only "one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight".  By no means does this even imply that Anna violated the rules of the church:

Main Entry: proph�et
Pronunciation: 'pr�-f&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English prophete, from Old French, from Latin propheta, from Greek prophEtEs, from pro for + phanai to speak -- more at
FOR, BAN
Date: 12th century
1 : one who utters divinely inspired revelations; specifically often capitalized : the writer of one of the
prophetic books of the Old Testament
2 : one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight; especially : an inspired poet
3 : one who foretells future events :
PREDICTOR
4 : an effective or leading spokesman for a cause, doctrine, or group
5 Christian Science a : a spiritual seer b : disappearance of material sense before the conscious facts of spiritual Truth
- proph�et�hood  /-"hud/ noun

YOU ARE REALLY STRUGGLING JOHN.  SHE WAS A PROPHET BUT SHE DID OTHER THINGS SUCH AS FASTING, SUPPLICATING AND "SPEAKING" - YES, "SPEAKING".

Why did you quote this verse, Arnold?  To try to prove that Anna had authority over or taught a man, or spoke before an assembly?

You have no evidence that she was "speaking" before an assembly, do you?  You're also presuming that she taught men or had authority over men, but you can not find the verse where she did, can you?

Why did you quote this verse?

 

 

The latter part of this quotation has reference to Eve being deceived.  This provides an indication as to why women are not to teach husbands, and the indication is that women are more easily deceived than men.  We can all see how many cults were started by women.  The woman said: “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat”.  Adam received the fruit from the hand of his wife; he knew he was transgressing, he was not deceived; however, she led the way, and in consequence of this she was subjected to the domination of her husband: “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”- Gen. 3:16.  In God’s order He has subjected the wife, expressly, to the government of her husband.  This husband/wife context continues to the end of this 1 Timothy chapter where we read about the wife being saved in childbirth “if they continue in faith and charity”.  This shows that the context is still about the husband and wife relationship where a wife is not to teach her husband. Thus it says nothing here about any other woman usurping authority over other woman’s' husband. Note here that we are talking about this one verse only.

 

In group email discussions I have pointed out some of these factors, and have found some refusal to accept the context of these two passages.  One email read, “I know what the Bible says, and what I have written about my views stand...Here, you too have gone afield, and stretched the entire issue....wordsmithing again”.  "Wordsmithing" must mean "changing what I have said"!  This speaks volumes as to how some Identity leaders refuse to consider these verses in their context, saying that context and word examination is word-smithing.  It is a typical position where a person can become bound by the words of their mouths.

 Wordsmithing” might be an appropriate title if we only knew what Arnold was attempted to smith.  Perhaps when we know exactly what he wants to smith, we’d all agree that “wordsmithing” is exactly what he did here.

AGAIN, WHEN YOU TRY TO MANIPULATED A CONTEXT YOU ARE WORDSMITHING, ARE YOU NOT?  SO IT IS NOT ME, IS IT?

 

I must admit, Arnold, that you do a great job of studying the context, vowel points, tense, sentence structure, etc., of both Hebrew and Greek writings to glean their real meaning and point out the errors in many translations.  I agree with most of what you write.

 

Even though very few agree with what you're writing here, your track record suggests that we need to listen more closely to what you're writing so we can flush out what it is you're attempting to prove.

 

But in this instance, I must also admit that your insults, character assassination, protecting a "man" who's slandered members of this forum, all suggest that you're wordsmithing here in a futile attempt to protect your "religious convictions".

KINDLY SHOW ME ANY WORD-MEANINGS I HAVE CHANGED, OR ANY CONTEXT I HAVE VIOLATED.

 

This is too funny for words, Arnold.  This entire post is littered with your wordmandering, and now you ask me to show you where?  I will oblige by highlighting all the places where you've wordsmithed in red, though I doubt if you'll ever agree that it's wordsmithing.

 

 

There have been some emails about whether the word “women” includes foreign women. This shows how we can wander away from context into fruitless discussions.  Foreign women would not be permitted in Israelite assemblies.  And, whatever could it have to do with the husbands and wives context?

Similarly I have been asked, “In which context would it be acceptable for a woman to have authority over a man?"   Now see how this is a loaded question to try to extend the context of 1 Cor. 14:34 from that of husbands and wives.  We will come to look at the answer to this question from a differing context.

However, this will have to wait for a different post, because Arnold has yet to address this question completely.

AGAIN, YOU ARE VIEWING THIS APART FROM THE CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE.

Again you're avoiding a direct answer to a simple question.

Emails have told me how wrong I am and that it is “clearly written” that all females must never ever take authority over males.  I asked some simple questions about this, such as:

Is there an age or other limit on the following:

            Eph. 6:1  Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.  Honour thy father and mother;  (which   is the first commandment with promise;)   That it may             be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

 Which ignores the chain of command in the family where the wife reports to her husband in the same way that the church reports to Jesus.

SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT THIS VERSE ABOUT CHILDREN OBEYING PARENTS IS WRONG!  CANNOT YOU READ?  THE CONTEXT IS ABOUT CHILDREN OBEYING PARENTS.  WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TO CHANGE IT TO WIVES AND HUSBANDS.  AGAIN JOHN, IT IS YOU PERCEIVED NOTIONS THAT MAKES YOU BLIND TO CONTEXT.

 

Wow.  Perhaps this is your most revealing statement.  What kind of an Israelite would believe that "parents" aren't also husbands and wives?

 

This might be wrong, and you need to correct it if it is, but it appears that you believe that most (if not all) "parents" are NOT husbands and wives?

 

Whew.  How low can we go?

 

Since you didn't reply to this point, can we assume that you still believe that referring to someone's parents as "married to each other" is "changing the context", Arnold?

 

            Prov. 15:20, "A wise son maketh a glad father: but a foolish man despiseth his mother"

Which says nothing about a woman having authority over a MAN.

DID YOU NOT SEE WHAT I SAID ABOUT AGE LIMITS?  THE CONTEXT HERE IS ABOUT CHILDREN AND PARENTS AND YOU BRING IN AN IMPOSED DIFFERENT CONTEXT ABOUT WOMEN HAVING AUTHORITY OVER A MAN.  YOU STILL HAVE NOT GRASPED ANYTHING ABOUT CONTEXT AND CANNOT SEE BEYOND YOUR PRECONCEPTIONS.

 

Ah.  So now it's ok to note that children have parents?  Can we also presume that it's ok to note that those parents are usually husbands and wives?

 

Would you please be specific about what your point is here?  Why did you quote this verse?

 

            Prov 23:22 Hearken unto thy father that begat thee, and despise not thy mother when she is old.

Ditto.

 

Note the important distinction between the way sons are to treat their mother and their fathers in these two verses:

 

Father: 

  1. Maketh a glad father.

  2. Hearken unto.

Mother:

  1. Despise not

  2. Despise not when she is old

 

Hearken:

H8085

sha^ma?

shaw-mah'

A primitive root; to hear intelligently (often with implication of attention, obedience, etc.;

 

 

            Prov 31:1 The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him.

 Ironically, one of the things that king Lemuel’s mother taught him was: Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.

 

ARE YOU SAYING THAT KING LEMUEL'S MOTHER DID NOT TEACH HIM?  AGAIN YOU COME BACK WITH A CHANGE IN CONTEXT!  WHAT EVER DOES A KING GIVING HIS STRENGH TO PROSITIUTES HAVE TO DO WITH A MOTHER TEACHING A CHILD? 

 

Are you suggesting that Lemuel's father had nothing to do with teaching Lemuel?  Are you suggesting that Lemuel's mother usurped the authority of Lemuel's father in teaching Lemuel, or do you believe she had authority from his father to do so?

 

WHAT ARE WE TOLD?  IT IS, "THE PROPHECY THAT HIS MOTHER TAUGHT HIM". I AM SUGGESTING NOTHING AS YOU ARE.

 

Context, Arnold.  What about the chain of command in the family which you appear to have agreed with in the past, but now you seem to have forgotten it.  Did you disagree or not understand that the father is the head of the household and if Lemuel's mother taught him anything, it was with permission from his father (assuming you agree that his parents were married?)?  Under Israelite law, a mother has authority over her son only through the father.

 

the prophecy that his mother taught him.

What these Identity brothers have done is to change the words to, “authority over the man" from "authority over the husband".  They have not done their homework and determined that the word for “man” is “aner” or “husband” and is not men in general.

 

It is appropriate here to raise another issue about men and woman.  In 1 Co 12:7,” But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal”, some might ask, “What about the women?”  The word for “man” here is Strongs 1538 “hekastos” which is used in and all-encompassing way inclusive of women. At Pentecost the women were present, were they not?  As soon as we mix up words, such as the different words for “man”, e.g. “anthropos”, “aner” and “hekastos” we are inventing new contexts and thus are effectively adding to the Word of God.  Sadly, there are Identity leaders who do that and who just do not want to know about their error.

 And there were women present when Jesus chose the Twelve Disciples, so why would Arnold ignore that Jesus didn’t choose a single woman?

When we come to 1 Tim. 2:12, “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence”, as has been shown the word for “man” here is “aner” = husband.  But this is not acceptable to so many both in Identity and in some denominational churches. That is, they will not accept the “it is written”.  There are differing words for “teach” but “didasko” here, according to Strongs 1321 is:

1.  to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them,

2.  to deliver didactic discourses

3.  to be a teacher

4.  to discharge the office of a teacher,

5.  to conduct one's self as a teacher

6.  to teach one

7.  to impart instruction

8.  to instill doctrine into one the thing taught or enjoined

9.  to explain or expound a thing.

These all refer to the relationship between a husband and a wife because this is the sole context.

 

This does not mean from a common-sense viewpoint that, as wives think differently from husbands; their input is needed in both structural and spiritual decisions.  Women have needs and the husband has to love his wife as he loves his own body, and therefore the husband must consider his wife always.  But there is no place for role reversals within this context.

 

Does the president of IBM “consider his wife always” when he’s making major corporate decisions to keep IBM alive?  Does a judge in a murder trial “consider his wife always” when he finds a man guilty of muder?  Does a truck driver spend his entire day “considering his wife always”?

The answer is "no", because sound judicial and business and practical decisions MUST be made by a man, not by a committee.

WHAT EVER DOES A HOME SITUATION HAVE TO DO WITH COMMERCE?  AGAIN, YOU ARE TRYING TO RESPOND WITH A DIFFERENT CONTEXT BECAUSE OF PRECONCEIVED FIXATION.

 

It was you, Arnold, who used the term "consider his wife always".   You didn't confine this to a "home situation".  Can we at least agree that you do not mean "always" in this statement?

 

Silence is golden?  So we agree?

 

 

Let us see some things women did outside of the husband-wife relationship.

1.  The witness of a woman moved a city (John 4:30)

2.  Women carried the first message from the tomb.

3.  Women hosted prayer meetings (Acts 12:12

4.  Women were the first hearers of the gospel in Athens (Acts 16:13)

5.  Women received special mention and honour (Phil. 4:3)

6.  Older women to teach the younger (Titus 2:3)

7.  Women to have the right to choose a husband (I Cor 7:2)

This verse says nothing about a woman choosing a husband, and it’s well known from Scripture that it’s her father who has that right “

REALLY!  HAVE A LOOK AT "HAVE" IN STRONGS AND NOTE THE VERB IS ACTIVE.  WHERE IS THIS "WELL KNOWN" IN SCRIPTURE?  WATCH YOUR CONTEXTS WELL HERE JOHN!

 

 

By Israelite law, Arnold, it's the father who makes that decision, not the woman:

 

Exd 22:16  And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

 

Exd 22:17  If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

 

THAT JOHN IS A DIFFERENT CONTEXT!!

 

No, Arnold, this is PRECISELY the context under which many if not most marriages begin, and it's incredibly germaine to the entire discussion here.  You can't parse up God's Word so you get to toss out the PRECISE process by which Israelite marriages are created.

8.  A married woman can sanctify her unsaved husband (I Cor 7:13

But she doesn't gain authority over him, nor teach him.

9.  A woman (as well as men) can care for widows (I Tim 5:16)


There are many differences between men and women, right from conception. Today these differences are commonly ignored by unbelievers and by believers who are conforming to this world.

Under Mosaic Law, ritual cleansing after childbirth was different being a total of forty days for a male child, and eighty days for a female child (Lev. 12:2-5).  This too is all in the context of marriage.  In the Levitical order, women could have no priestly roles. When the temple worship was established, there was the Court of the women established.  At the time of Jesus, we find Anna prophesying in the temple.  She was not keeping “silence” there in the not -speaking sense, was she?  And likewise, today women can do the same.  But a wife cannot become a bishop or an elder in an assembly because she cannot qualify as being the “husband of one wife”.

 

The matter of Deborah as a judge of Israel has been raised in emails.  It is claimed that she usurped authority over men. This issue of course was raised by men who refuse the husband/wife context limitation of what we have examined so far.  Of Deborah we read:

            Judges 4:4  And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah                 and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.

It is the God of Israel who appoints and anoints the prophets of Israel.  Why did the Children of Israel come to her for judgment?  It is because God-given authority is recognized by God’s people.

            1 Sam 3:20  And all Israel from Dan even to Beersheba knew that Samuel was established to be a prophet of the LORD.

The next chapter of Judges tells us that all the leaders of all the tribes of Israel supported Deborah who said she “arose as a mother in Israel”.  What does “arose” mean? Strongs 09695 gives this as “Stood  up 240, arise 211, raise 47, establish 27, stand 27, perform 25, confirm 9, again 5, set 5, stablish 3, surely 3, continue 3, sure 2, abide 1, accomplish 1,

She then instructed Barak,”Lead thy captivity captive, thou son of Abinoam”.  Was this not taking authority over a man and instructing him? But this man was not her husband.

 This is not at all what this verse says:

Jdg 5:12 Awake, awake, Deborah: awake, awake, utter a song: arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity captive, thou son of Abinoam.

Note that it was the LORD who ordered Deborah to “awake”, and it was the LORD, not Deborah, who ordered Barak to “lead thy captivity captive”.

     THE FIRST VERSE OF THE CHAPTER SAYS THAT IT WAS DEBORAH WHO WAS DOING THE SPEAKING.

 

Was Deborah then speaking to herself?  Did Deborah say to herself "Awake, awake, Deborah"?

NO DEBORAH WAS TO AWAKE AND UTTER A SONG. THEN WE ARE TOLD WHAT SHE SANG.

 

We have a judge and a prophetess who had to wake herself up by talking to herself?

 

Silence is golden?   Here you are such a stickler for tense, vowel points, and context, yet you ignore that this reference to Deborah awakening was in the third person?  Deborah was not singing herself awake, Arnold.  The sentence just prior to this verse, in Judges 5:11 is "then the people of the Lord shall go down to the gates", which is followed by this song in quotes.  Did Deborah write this song?  No. The Lord God of Israel did Judges 5:5.  Did Deborah sing this song?  No.  The "people of the Lord" did.  Is singing this song tantamount to "instructed Barak" as you say?  No.  It's only a song.  Did the Prince of Isachar, under whose command Barak was, sing him a song, or order him to war Judges 5:15 ?

 

 

 

"TORAH” MISUSE.

JOHN I AM NOT GOING TO DISCUSS TORAH ANY MORE UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT RECKONING YOURSELF DEAD UNTO SIN MEANS.... AND YOU DO IT.  IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THERE IS NO POINT.  SO I REPEAT, "DEAD MEN CANNOT SIN" AND  ONLY "DEAD" MEN ARE RIGHTEOUS.  THE LAW IS STILL IN PLACE UNCHANGED FOR OTHERS.

AS PAUL AGREES" Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

 

JOHN, I SAID ONCE THAT I SUSPECTED THAT YOU MUST HAVE, OR HAVE HAD, MATRIMONIAL PROBLEMS. IF YOU HAD RECKONED YOURSELF "DEAD UNTO SIN", WOULD YOU HAVE HAD THE PROBLEMS?  YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT YOU STILL LOOK UPON WOMEN TO LUST AFTER THEM.... REMEMBER WHEN YOU SAID YOU THOUGHT JESUS MADE IT TOO TOUGH?  "DEAD" MEN CANNOT SO LUST!!  SAYING THIS HERE DOES NOT APPLY ONLY TO YOU, BUT TO ALL READERS IN THE SAME POSITION.  I MAKE NO APOLOGY!

ARNOLD KENNEDY.

 

 

You can keep knocking yourself out with ad hominems and slurs, but as noted before, you won't change the Word of God one tittle.  All you're proving by such language is that you already realize that your argument is weak.  It's a great debate tactic, following up a weak point with a confusing and misleading ad hominem, but let's stick to the facts anyway.  

 

First, since you have yet to define when the word "nomos" is a reference to the Torah, and when it's NOT, we're going to do this for you:

 

http://fathersmanifesto.net/nomos.htm

 

Second, it would be depressing to consider how much you've changed my original post around, but then maybe it's exhilirating to now have such insight into how and why you've managed to change around what Paul wrote so much.  Let's compare what I originally wrote to what you heard:

 

 

Here's my take on how you interpret this, Arnold.  You believe that because Jesus raised the bar on what's required to "enter into the kingdom of heaven", that Israelites are no longer under an obligation to uphold God's Law, because Jesus raised the bar too high.  How can a man not commit adultery when Jesus said that adultery is just looking at a woman--ergo, no problem, nobody can uphold this, so adultery laws are done away with, eh?

 

This is the exact opposite of what true Israelites believe, though, to whom Jesus simply emphasized the importance of upholding God's Law.  It doesn't change one tittle of God's Law.  It simply makes it more important than ever (and more difficult than ever) for Israelites to uphold it.

 

vs

"YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT YOU STILL LOOK UPON WOMEN TO LUST AFTER THEM"

 

This wasn't Ancient Hebrew written millennia ago, translated into Aramaic, then into ancient Greek, then into modern Greek, then into KJV English, then into modern English (as Paul's writings were).  This was modern English which you managed to completely veverse the meaning of in just a few days.  I said that you seemed to have the attitude that Jesus made God's Law too tough, followed up with the disclaimer that this is contrary to what "true Israelites believe" [which implicitly includes my belief], only to have you claim that this is what I believ.

 

Ironically, if I were to tell you that you're so far off the mark that it isn't funny, you'd then claim that "you hate women".

 

 

So far we have only viewed one type of context abuse.  There are other context misuses that involve the wrong meanings placed upon words.  One of these words is “The Law” or “The Torah”.  The word “torah” is loosely and commonly described as being the five first books of the Bible. 

In English usage, the phrase “The Law” represents a summation of many differing kinds of laws, some of which may bear no relationship to other kinds of laws.  For instance we have taxation laws that may have no relationship to legal torts.  We have maritime law that may have no reference to divorce laws. We have a car driving code that bears no relationship to the laws about flying aircraft.  Thus we can see that “the Law” (as a whole) has many components.

Likewise it is the same with “the torah”.  The “torah” comprises “statutes”, “judgments”, “ordinances”, “commandments”, “precepts”, “charges”, and so on. Any one component is not the same as the others.  It is the sum of all of them which is the “torah”.  But then there is another division into moral law, civil law and religious law.  Religious law is not the same as moral law.  Civil law is not the same as moral or religious law.

 

So then, when we read in the New Testament any reference to “The Law”, the word  nomos” is used in a similar way  as “torah” is.   “Nomos” is translates as “law” 195 times in the KJV.   

How we know what component of the total “nomos” is being spoken about is determined by the context.  Let me illustrate.

 

We will consider one particular context that gives great difficulty to some people.  This is:

            Matthew 5:17  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. for verily I say unto you, Till heaven and                 earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

There are those that say every jot and tittle of the “Torah” is still in place in its original form.  This of course would have to include the law of sacrifices Jesus has already satisfied, so this is not still in place, is it?.  This view would have to ignore what we read in:

            Heb 7:12  For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

A change is a change from the original.

 And here’s where Arnold admits that it was Paul who he THINKS had the authority to change God’s Law.

            THEN WHY ARE YOU NOT MAKING BURNT OFFERINGS? 

            NO, IT WAS NOT PAUL WHO MADE THE CHANGE.  IT WAS THE CHANGE IN THE PRIESTHOOD THAT NECESSITATED THE CHANGE.  YOU ARE SPEAKING AS IF JESUS DID NOT BECOME ISRAEL'S HIGH PRIEST.  YOU MIGHT WELL HAVE ASKED WHO JESUS IS WHO THOUGHT HE HAD AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE LAW.  DID YOU NOT READ WHERE JESUS SAID SO OFTEN, "BUT I SAY UNTO YOU"?

"But I say unto you" does not modify one whit of "But heaven and earth will come to an end before the smallest tittle of The Torah may be dropped out. Luke 16:17 [red letters]". 

"But I say unto you" does not modify one whit of "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you, Deuteronomy 4:2"

 

Nor does it change the following:

No Israelite may eat any fat or any blood; this is a rule to be kept forever by all Israelites wherever they live, Leviticus 3:17

This law will never change. I am the LORD! Leviticus 7:36 [CEV]

"a statute forever throughout their generations". Leviticus 7:36 [KJV]

For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed [read: destroyed]. Malachi 3:6

 

 

 

Paul had NO such authority—AND HE DID NO SUCH THING! 

 

THEN YOU ARE SAYING JESUS HAD NO SUCH AUTHORITY!!!!!!!!!!  YOU JUST HAVE NOT GRASPED THIS SUBJECT AT ALL, HAVE YOU?. 

 

Not only did Jesus NOT have such authority, but He OBEYED every tit and tittle of the Torah, didn't he?

 

And He WARNED you to, also.

 

Arnold is misrepresenting or misunderstanding what Paul wrote in order to arrive at this conclusion.

 

DO YOU STILL BELIEVE THIS? 

 

No, Arnold, I do not "believe this".  I KNOW this.

So we can look for context within this “Sermon On The Mount”.  This commences with the beatitudes, the first being, “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”. The whole sermon is about attitudes, human relationships, and interactions with God.  These give the context and Jesus said at the end, “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock”-(Matt. 7:24).

Jesus used the words, “These things”!  What is different between “these things” and the “Torah”?  What then about “every jot and tittle” about?  This is every jot and tittle of the present context or whatever context is being in place!

 

Jesus said He came not to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill. So what is “the law and the prophets” in regard to attitudes and relationships?   Jesus tells us:

            Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law (nomos) and the prophets.

 

            Matt 22:36  Master, which is the great commandment in the law?  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.   On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

(Remember the email saying that “hang” always means being hung with a rope around the neck). 

 “The law” is the Torah [read: the first five books of the Holy Bible], and “the prophets” are the rest of the books—and Arnold Knows it.

What we have to note here is that the word for "law" in these passages is not "nomos";  it is "entole" - (Strongs 1785).  This is the same word as is used in:

            Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

The word “nomos” as it relates to “torah” is not found here.  So it does not say, “Blessed are they that do his torah”, does it?

Correct.  Commandments are not THE Torah.  But they ARE part and parcel OF the Torah.  The Torah is made up of statutes, judgements, commandments, “my voice”, “my charge”, and “my laws”:

Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. Gen 26:5

Did Jesus change the Law?  In one sense He did; He made it into a matter of the heart.  He made it tougher.  He said a thought was the same as having done the action.   Jesus quoted “Torah” passages and then qualified them. He showed what “fulfilled” means. Listen to the “Ye have heard” and the “But I say unto you” in the following verses.

Many judeochristians like Arnold believe that the Torah is a smorgasbord where "Christians" or Israelites can pick and choose the laws they like, toss out the ones they don't like, unilaterally demand that we accept their choices, then name call us with things like "you and your friends quote Paul out of context almost all the time, in the fashion of the illustration of sticking a pin in the Bible that I mentioned in the introduction", and "you are creating a non-existing conflict", and "determined, dogmatic (and "pig headed" as we say here in New Zealand)".

Does Arnold like the law against murder.  Sure, so we're gonna keep that one.  But does Arnold like the law against sodomy.  Nope, not at all, so he simply tosses it out and we must go along with him, otherwise he's got tons of more labels to pin on us.

UNTIL YOU TAKE A TUMBLE ABOUT OUR GREAT HIGH PRIEST AND THE CHANGE IN THE PRIESTHOOD, THERE IS NO POINT TOUCHING ON THE TORAH UNTIL YOU DO.

 

When Paul quoted Jeremiah "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah" Paul KNEW that the word was "renewed covenant", not "new covenant".

 

It was not Paul who changed it from "renewed covenant" to "new covenant", was it?

 

Was it Jesus?  No.  Was it you?  Perhaps.  Was it the "translators", or the "church", or the "jews"?  Probably all of them, plus some.

 

            Matt 5:21  Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto                             you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in                        danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

 

            Matt 5:31  It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:     But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

 

            Matt 5:33  Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:   But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

 

            Matt 5:43  Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.  But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Jesus said, “But I say unto you” fifteen times in that form.

 

When we read the “Torah” without this change Jesus made, we are “in the letter”.  This  “kills” we are told.  We must now read and do the Law in the “fulfilled” form.  This is the context in which we must read Moses and the Prophets, as Jesus said:

 

      John 6:63      It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Arnold knows by now that it's Paul himself who reminded us that “the spirit” is the House of Israel, and “the flesh” is Ishmael [and his descendants].

HOW WOULD, "THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU" REFER TO ISHMAEL AND HIS DESCENDANTS?   ANSWER THIS PLEASE!

 

Man, you never grasped a word that's been written on this forum about who "spirit" is, have you?  Ishmaelites are NOT spirit, only Israelites are.  Ishmaelites are flesh.

 

This simple sentence tells you that only Israelites quickeneth [read: are given life], that "the words" [read: the Torah] ARE spirit and ARE life, and that Ishmaelites are NOT.

 

Simple.

 

You're building a "religion" on a whole pile of misconceptions about who's spirit and who's flesh.

 

 

And as Paul said,

      Romans 7:6  But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

 

Now John, when Paul says, “We are delivered from the Law”, he is not saying that the Law is deleted; he is saying that it is to be obeyed in the “fulfilled” form. This is the context.   Here we find the essence of all the supposed conflict between Paul and Jesus.  You and your friends are viewing the Apostle Paul in "the oldness of the letter" and not in "newness of spirit" as qualified by the words of Jesus.  Thus you are creating a non-existing conflict.  Not only that, you and your friends quote Paul out of context almost all the time, in the fashion of the illustration of sticking a pin in the Bible that I mentioned in the introduction.

 

Because you have been so determined, dogmatic (and "pig headed" as we say here in New Zealand), I realize that it will be very difficult to wrap your mind about this.  It was hard for me too at one time, but God came through.  May He come through for you too.

In  God's Love,   Arnold Kennedy.

 

 

 

TRAITOR McCain

jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law

f.ck Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition

 

Hit Counter

 

Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party