My reply in BROWN.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
There is nothing said about wives being subject to other mens 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 mens husbands. The
question is why
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:
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:
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"??
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 wifes 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?
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
- prophï¿½etï¿½hood /-"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 Gods 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 womans' 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.
might be an appropriate title if we only knew what
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. 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
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.
Note the important distinction between the way sons are to treat their mother and their fathers in these two verses:
Prov 31:1 The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him.
Ironically, one of the things that king Lemuels 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.
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 )
2. Women carried the first message from the tomb.
3. Women hosted prayer meetings (Acts )
4. Women were the first hearers of the gospel in
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 its well known from Scripture that its 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!
8. A married woman can sanctify her unsaved husband (I Cor
9. A woman (as well as men) can care for widows (I Tim )
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
Judges 4:4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged
It is the God of Israel who appoints and
anoints the prophets of
1 Sam And all
The next chapter of Judges tells us that all the leaders of all
the tribes of
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 ?
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!
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:
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:
"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 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 heres where
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
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.
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.
You're building a "religion" on a whole pile of misconceptions about who's spirit and who's flesh.