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?

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

“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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

            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.

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

Ditto.

            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.

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.

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 “

1Cr 7:2

Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

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

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”.

 

"TORAH” MISUSE.

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 “nomosis 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.

 

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

 

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

 

 

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.

 

            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].

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