From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>>

From: "steve saxton" <sksaxton@sg23.com>
>  Paul made it an issue. One of many that he dealt
> with in his letters to the Corinthians. They were probably the most messed
> up church in the new testament.Remember, we're reading other people's mail.
>  don't treat scripture like a second class
> citizen. Read Psalm 119. David had a love affair with God's word.

We're not talking OT - we're talking about reading other people's mail.
And even the OT - remember the big conference they had in Acts about
whether the Gentiles should follow the law and circumcision and all the
rest of it - and they sent brothers back to Antioch with a letter.
They were still figuring things out.  Could they have been wrong about
other stuff?  You bet.
And remember - that was a totally different matrix, era, whatever you
want to call it.  Societal and cultural things vary from place to place, from
age to age.  You want a mennonite church?  I remember one meeting
at "the new church home" - we apparently, somehow, sat brothers on one
side and sisters on the other.  The only brothers on the sisters side were
those in the back with their wives.
Stewart said (looking at the brothers on one side and the sis on the other),
"Congratulations, you have a Mennonite fellowship."  (No offense to the
Mennonites...)
anyway, I digress.  Points Paul made were pertinent to them there then.
Women have come a long way baby.  And quite often - they are the
voice of practicality - wisdom.  They're more down to earth - and I have
heard of churches in the house church movement - when they share -
- five sisters first.  Because they are personal about their relationships
with Jesus.  Us brother, well we have the "teaching gene" and we tend
to pontificate and be dry and boring.  Oh, we might drive and solve an
issue - sisters supply the heart.  That's what I've read and that's what
I've seen.  Yes, there's the emotional sister that rambles on now and then
too - but don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
Sisters are very important.  (seems stupid to say that - but it seems it had
to be said)There was a movie recently where the line was "That woman's a woman!"
Because they were acting Shakespeare - and actors weren't allowed to be
women.  Men played the women's parts because only men could be actors.
And women as recently as this century used a surname or alias to get their
works published or looked at.  Hear about that Jazz musician who when they
buried him found out "he" was a women.  They wouldn't let women play jazz
back then so she had to be a man.  And on it goes.  Anyone for the good old days?
> The law of
> the Lord, the commandments of the Lord, the word. May we learn to love it
> like that. Remember, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus said he
> loves me who keeps my word.
Let's keep His word and show kindness to the "least of these my brethren".
And be careful when reading other people's mail.  When I have some more
time - I got something I want to say about that conference in Jerusalem.
=================================================================
From: lori <lledonne@ncx.com>Tom,
Other peoples' mail??  I don't see it that way.  God made sure it was here
for us.  Jesus told us in Revelations, he who has an ear, let him hear what
the Spirit says to the churches.  Or something like that.  (Forgive me, I
just don't feel like taking the time to look it up right now.)
=================================================================
Brother Tom has a great point methinks. We are reading someone else's letters.
Those letters were and are for the edification of the Body of Christ. Most of the letters
written right here are much of the same, letters to edify the brothers and sisters.
Some may be admitted agnostics, atheists, and I think someone said we have a witch
among us (correct me if I am mistaken please, but tis my last knowledge of pagan).
They are here to be edified as are we, and the King said he would not cast us out.
Bless the Holy Holy Holy wonderful Name of Jesus.

I can't wait to read COBU mail each and every day, because there are definitely
many pearls of great price that bless my heart. Thank God for the debates and
varied discussions. I thank God that we can disagree and often come about
in agreement and in turn all learn something new in the process.

I have to wonder how many similar groups are there on the Internet like ours.
Could there be EXMOONS, EXKRISHNAS, EXJWS, EXJOHNSMITHS, all
under other names of course. There has to be, right. Could you imagine if we
had just one other group that escaped a cult in our list? Total mayhem no
doubt.

On the debate about women speaking in church, or being subservient, I have
only muddied the waters a slight bit, but I guess my 2 cents is coming. Our
pastor recently gave his wife the pulpit, and told her she was preaching the
other day. I missed out on that service due to a knee injury but heard the
newz from my family. I have been to churches where the entire congregation
were women, with exception to their pastor, and then I walk in the door and
make two men.  There are times that I have made comment on the letters of
Paul, and I'd make a comment that they were letters directed at particular
persons during a specified time in history, and the events may or may not
hold true to or toward present day attitudes. Just using my own understanding
(and acknowledging the Word..."There is a way that seems right to a man....")
and my own common sense along with some understanding of the literal
understanding of the Word, in our present society, there is no difference.
Women may speak in the church, they may hold office over men and women,
they may teach whatever God leads them to teach. My God says he is no
respecter of persons.

Flame ON and Happy Big Bird Day
 Raynard Merritt  n8vzl@qsl.net
And Jesus said to them, "This is my commandment, that you love one another."
==============================================================================
Tom, Well, I finally heard a new one="reading other people's mail". So then, let
me get this right, 1 Cor. and 2 Cor. and Galatians and Ephesians and the
other letters don't apply to us now because they were all written to "them".
Is that what you are saying? Forget the verse that says "All scripture is
given by inspiration of God and is suitable for teaching..."I guess that
means "all" excluding the letters. And do you also believe that Jesus wasn't
speaking to us today when He gave John Revelation because He gave messages
specifically for those seven churches? But wait, I just looked at 1
Cor.1:1-you know, the salutation? And Paul said it was not only  to the
church of God in Corinth but to "all those everywhere who call on the name
of the Lord Jesus Christ-their Lord and ours". >" We're not talking OT"-Do
you mean that Paul and the other Apostles didn't love God's Word as
passionately as David? Tom , they didn't have the New Testament yet. God was
using them to speak it and act it into existence. They referenced everything
by quoting from the OT , just like Jesus did all over the Gospels. "They
were still figuring things out.  Could they have been wrong about other
stuff? You bet!" Tom, Paul and Barnabus were on the right side of the "law
and circumcision" issue that sent them to Jerusalem not the wrong side as
you contend. Those that wanted to put the Gentiles under those requirements
were in the wrong. You are not going to nail Paul on any of this as being in
the wrong about anything.
Again I appeal to you to quit attacking God's Word because there are things
in it you don't fully understand.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
===================
Brother Steve
I don't want to begin to take sides or
that any of us should, but I have to look at the letters of
Paul as a means to correct and edify the church at that time.
We at present day may use much of what is spoken in Paul's
directions, and may be edified within them. I especially love
Phillipians, Ephesians, and Galations.

A simple search using the word "write" in both OT and NT.
I was looking for the times God spoke to the prophets to
write what was spoken to them.

I can find no such instance of a command towards Paul, Peter, nor John except
Revelations which I stated in a post this morning that I accept Revelations as scripture.
Further as I contemplate what I have spoken (written) and look at John's letters I stand
somewhat hesitant due to the powerful words spoken by John found in my search.

I don't however see brother Tom as attacking the Word of God, by his stating
...."We are reading someone else's mail"...I rather see it as a point well taken.
 
 

1John.2
[1] My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
[7] Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.
[8] Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.
[12] I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.
[13] I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exod.17
[14] And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.
Exod.34
[1] And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.
[27] And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
Num.5
[23] And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:
Deut.10
[2] And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark.
Deut.17
[18] And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
Deut.27
[3] And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law, when thou art passed over, that thou mayest go in unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, a land that floweth with milk and honey; as the LORD God of thy fathers hath promised thee.
[8] And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly.
Deut.31
[19] Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach it the children of Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel.
Isa.8
[1] Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz.
Isa.30
[8] Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:
Jer.30
[2] Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book.
Jer.31
[33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer.36
[2] Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day.
[17] And they asked Baruch, saying, Tell us now, How didst thou write all these words at his mouth?
[28] Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.
Ezek.43
[11] And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.
Hab.2
[2] And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2Cor.13
[2] I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present, the second time; and being absent now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other, that, if I come again, I will not spare:
[10] Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the power which the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction.
The first occurrance from God in the NT that I have found.
Rev.1
[11] Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
[19] Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
Rev.14
[13] And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.
Rev.19
[9] And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.
Rev.21
[5] And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
======================================================
Ray,
I believe that God being no respecter of persons has to do with all of us being sinners in His sight. He will save not only Jews but Gentiles as well. It doen't apply to the order He has set up for women and men regarding teaching in His church.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
=========================================================
Ray,
The whole bible is scripture, period.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scripture,
Steve
=================================================================
Regarding your comment that Paul's letters were just his opinion: Please
consider that the Apostle Peter wrote that the Apostle Paul's "...letters
contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and
unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own
destruction" (2 Pet. 3:16). In this Scripture, Peter equated Paul's
writings with "the other Scriptures." It is also true that Scriptures may
be misunderstood and misapplied, and I'll address that below, but first
things first.
 

No I disagree, and let us take a look at 2Peter 3:16 and see exactly why I disagree.

15: And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation.
 So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according
to the wisdom given him,

16: speaking of this as he does in all his letters.
There are some things in them hard to understand,
which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own
destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

It does not relate Paul's letters here as
"The other scriptures"
The word "Them" modifies letters in the first sentence
of V 16, the word "As" in the last part "as they do the other scriptures"
does not point towards said letters, but rather for instance the OT
as speaking about "the other scriptures". I hate to say it dear brother
but it appears you might be doing a bit of twisting yourself.

In Jesus Name

Raynard
================================================================
From: BigMac55@ix.netcom.comOn>

>  does not point towards said letters, but rather for instance the OT
>  as speaking about "the other scriptures". I hate to say it dear>brother
>  but it appears you might be doing a bit of twisting yourself.

This illustrates the problem quite nicely and I do not choose to
weigh in here as to whether Paul's admonition to the churches is
scripture or not.
There is more than enough fuel for everyone's fire. So therefore
each of us by definition chooses the interpretation that seems right
to us. Or.......are you telling me that you ever believed you were
inspired to take a position and abandoned it because another brother
convinced he was more correctly inspired. Truly there are people who
seem to obviously twist scripture to their own destruction and yet
God will be the judge. Our Lord is surely capable enough to work
His good pleasure through each of us uniquely.
Those things that need to be clear are really clear.
Who could justify hating? No way! The over-riding concept
is Love, Love, Love!Pretty clear.Love God, Love Neighbor.
Nobody can say here, I don't think He means love. I think He
means hate. Can't happen. The really important basic stuff is
like this and the rest calls for personal responsibility.
The rules thing didn't work for the Pharisees and certainly
won't work for us and yet we want this flawed system because
we think it eliminates the "guesswork". What it really does
is encroach on the freedom to which we were set free.
================================================================
From: Robert San Pascual <bsp15@juno.com>
I read your post three or four times because I want to understand what
you wrote. Please tell me if the following is what you meant:
"speaking of this as he (Paul) does in all his letters. There are some
things in them (Paul's letters) hard to understand, which the ignorant
and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other
scriptures (the OT and others)."
If the above is what you meant, then Peter is still equating Paul's
letters with what was regarded as "scriptures," that is, the Old
Testament and perhaps some documents which would later become part of the
NT. If I have misrepresented you, please clarify for me. I wouldn't want
to twist either the Scripture or your words :-)
In Christ,
Bob San Pascual
===================================================================
From: Tom Pierron <tpierron@Op.Net>>

From: "steve saxton" <sksaxton@sg23.com>>
>  they didn't have the New Testament yet. God was
> using them to speak it and act it into existence.They referenced everything
> by quoting from the OT , just like Jesus did all over the Gospels. "They
> were still figuring things out.

Sorry, I can't get across what I'd like to get across.
As for referencing - Paul would say "It says somewhere..."
and then misquote it.  Find where he quoted it right.
But it's the message and the spirit that he's trying to
get across and I think that's great.  I just can't get across
exactly what I'm trying to say.  We don't disagree as much
as you feel.  More background is necessary.
===================================================
Raynard Merritt wrote:

I don't however see brother Tom as attacking the Word of God, by his stating...."We are reading someone else's mail"...I rather see it as a point well taken. To be specific - I was simply quoting ML.
=========================================================================
>From: "steve saxton" <sksaxton@sg23.com>
 But later on we read that Paul commended that  same Mark and asked that Mark be
>brought to him to help him.
I didn't realize this.  Thanks for pointing it out.
>Also, could you please go into a little more detail about " that woman in
>the leaden ephah
>> in the OT that is wickedness". That doesn't ring a bell with me.

Zech 5: 5-11  Then the angel who talked with me came forward and said to me,"Lift your eyes, and see what this is that goes forth."  And I said, "What is it?"  He said, "This is the ephah that goes forth."  And he said, "This is their iniquity in all the land."  And behold, the leaden cover was lifted, and there was a woman sitting in the ephah!  And he said, "This is wickedness."  And he thrust her back into the ephah , and thrust down the leaden weight upon its mouth.   Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and behold, two women coming forward!  The wind was in their wings;  they had wings like the wings of a stork, and they lifted up the ephah between earth and heaven.  Then I said to the angel who talked with me, "Where are they taking the ephah?"  He said to me, "To the land of Shinar, to build a house for it;  and when this is prepared, they will set the ephah down there on its base."
>>Totally loses me.
==================================================================================
Brother Robert,
Was the question directed towards me, or the original post?
If it was directed to me, then I do see the point as
if he is referring to Paul's words as scriptural, but "the other
scriptures" I don't think is being construed as Paul's words.
Just referring to the other scriptures gives the light that
Paul's words are considered by Peter to be such.

So to answer you, no you have not misquoted me, but I think,
no I know I have wronged another by stating my brother has
twisted the scripture. Forgive me brother and now I have forgotten
who it was...Steve perhaps?
Ray
====================================
From: Robert San Pascual <bsp15@juno.com>

I forgive you, my brother!
Bob San Pascual
===============================================

From: Chris Gauci <goodlucknow@mindspring.com>

I must say I'm surprised this all works out so well!   I'm impressed with the diversity
of points of view, and the willingness to consider  what everyone else
is saying.  I have a question for those of us who consider "Everything
in the Bible is equally scripture". Is the table of contents scripture
too?  May I respectfully suggest that you consider your answer and it's
implications very carefully before deciding.

MY TOE'S IN THE WATER
Chris
PS  Thanks for the"welcomes" and the very kind e-mails
===============================================================
 Close
From: "Sohm Ving" <ving3@hotmail.com>

Troublemaker----I knew it----coming in here with that smart stuff----
Lol...kidding here....I know the next questions Chris G.  When the Devil
speaks..is it scripture...?...And when Paul says "Whether or not I baptized
anyone beyond that I do not know.." Is the Holy Spirit loosing his memory
in 1 Cor 1?

So what yer saying is that the Bible contains God's word right?

mm
==============================================================
Well have you taken a look at the RC bible lately? It has a few more books than the RSV, AV, and the
KJV and a few others. How do we consider them, especially considering the RC was once what was
accepted as "The Church"?

Ray
==========================================================
From: Symmetor@aol.com

     I would just like to say that this controversy as well as all others
touching the 'authority' of Scripture flow from the presupposition that
Scripture is first, or that it is to be judged as 'authoritative' only as far
as it is credible as something holding first place. It is not Scripture that
is first; it is the Spirit Who is first, and then Scripture. Scripture does
not reveal the Spirit; the Spirit reveals the Scripture, and reveals the
spirituality (the figurativity) of it in the process. Figurativity is
independent of both science and history. Science and history are altogether
figurative in their own spheres, and constitute parallel 'books' which in no
way undermine Scriptural truth.
     The RC's have been the most zealous in history about trying to erect a
bulwark of religious authority here in the world, which has bequeathed to us
all that frozen distortion of things known as the Christian religion. For
them it is the clergy who are first, and then the Scriptures. They are only a
little more foolish than those who think that Scripture is first, and then
all else. I hold that it is the Spirit Who is first, and all else will be
controversial unless He is.                      - Neil
===================================================================================
From: Symmetor@aol.com

BigMac55@ix.netcom.com writes:
<<  No more dear brother than it
 would justify any thoughtless speaking up that any brother
 might care to indulge in for self-agrandizement(I think I
 just butchered the spelling on that) or any other less than noble motivation.>>

Uh, dear nobly motivated brother Rick, uh, you seem to imply that I was
on the offensive instead of on the defensive in the indicated exchange.
===========================================================
From: Symmetor@aol.com

BigMac55@ix.netcom.com writes:
<< So in SOME cases it IS OK?
 OUCH a chink in the armor. >>

     In some cases it is imperative! And why do you ask mischievously, as
though I or as though Paul, to whom I think I rightly defer for wisdom about
how men and women are to conduct themselves in the household of God, were
oppressing anyone? You 'new men' who fancy yourselves wiser than Paul can
parade your pretended heroics before these bald indiscreets who pretend to
Christian womanhood, if you wish. I hold that the imperishable jewel of a
gentle and quiet spirit is very precious in God's sight, not just in Paul's.
You marshmallows who hold to something else, something 'new' (how
titillating!), make me want to puke my guts up.
===========================================================

From: BigMac55@ix.netcom.com

>>>>>>From: Symmetor@aol.com
>>>>>>You marshmallows who hold to something else, something 'new' (how
>>>>>>titillating!), make me want to puke my guts up.

Just might be something in there that needs to come out......
I suppose we could indulge in name calling, etc., but I fail to see where
that would benefit anyone. I just think you have a bizarre image or fantasy
image in your mind that doesn't exist in reality. Either these quiet
sisters exist in reality or they are your picture of how it should be and
you refuse to accept anything else. If a sister is a quiet and gentle spirit
and a helpmate and you value her highly even as the Lord values her, then
great. But...if you married a strong capable woman and now you changed your
mind and you want her to be something that God didn't make her to be, because
it is easier and fits your needs,,,I say who's the marshmallow?
===================================================================
     Why don't you proceed to the next step, which is the justification of
the dogs for what they insist is God's handiwork in them?
                       - Neil
======================================================================
Gee Neil,
To do that, I would have to accept you as the ultimate authority in terms
of what comes where and which step is what and what constitutes kindness and
humility, etc.,etc......I don't think so Bro.........
Let me see if I have your position clear.....
Are you saying that recognizing that there are intelligent women who have
something to
offer to the church, other than "whispering" in their husbands ears is akin to
someone saying,"I practice an abominable sin because God put the desire within
me..so therefore it is not wrong?"Seems like a stretch, but if you say so...Rick
======================================================================
     Your words are the stretch. And I know your ploy. Backboneless mush can
afford to be defiant, since it cannot be any more degraded. And an
intelligent woman would have nothing to do with whispering in your ear; you
need to be shouted at by men.
=========================================================
I think somebody didn't get seconds yesterday.
Grouchy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Backboneless mush,,,funny..I don't remember having that with my turkey.
Also, seems like we're back to agree with Neil or else..Maybe its just me.
=============================================================
From: Symmetor@aol.com

BigMac55@ix.netcom.com writes:<< Maybe its just me. >>

     No, it's you and all the others whose disagreeability with God has
necessarily rendered them mush, in fellowship with other mush.
=====================================================================
Like I said, to disagree with you Neil is, apparently in your opinion,
to disagree with God Himself or else it would be unlikely that you
would pronounce such sweeping judgments.
I propose that your hostility about this issue come from your own
present difficulties and some feeling that anyone who lines up in any
way that appears to support your opposition, is an attack against you.
Like the "friend of my enemy is my enemy" kind of deal.
I think it's good for you to get it out. Come on, blast me, you'll
feel better and I'm used to it. (After all I'm the mushy, whimpy
guy married to the pushy, domineering woman) :-)
================================================================
Nails for breakfast again?You gotta put milk on them, and soften them up!
It may be mush but at least it's palatable and palpable as "learning
of Me - for I am meek and humble; and you will find rest for your souls."
===========================================================
All 27 books bound neatly together as one volume did not happen suddenly.
No one person or even one church council suddenly decided that these 27
books, no more and no less, comprised the documents of the Christian faith.
The collecting and sifting process was a long and complicated one.  It lasted
for a period of three and a half centuries, from AD 49, when Paul wrote his
first letter, to AD 397, when formal sanction was given at the Council of
Carthage to the canon of the New Testament as we have it today.
There is the Apocrypha, the Septuagint, Vulgate and the Pseudepigrapha.
(taken from a book)
Tom
=====================================================
Posted by Neil: >     Why don't you proceed to the next step, which is the justification of
>the dogs for what they insist is God's handiwork in them?
 

Carol's response:  For the record.  I am a dog owner.  I have 3 pure bred AKC Cocker Spaniels.  And yes, I have seen God's handiwork in them.  Especially when the older one had 9 puppies (1 didn't survive), when we gave her biscuits to snack on, she would hide them for her puppies rather than eat them herself.  I found that fascinating.  Many people won't treat their children that good.
 

and by the way Neil... what on earth do dogs have to do with Women speaking?  You really are out in left field.  Perhaps you are driving your wife and children to Stewart, maybe if you lightened up a bit and were a bit less haughty they would be more inclined to spend their time with you rather than the cult.  Guess you are making that cult look pretty good to them.
=========================================================
 I hold that it is the Spirit Who is first, and all else will be
controversial unless He is.
 

                      - Neil

Amen brother Neil, and all extremely well said.
Thanks
 ============================================
Points of Disagreement
 If Paul's
letters are not scriptural and authoritative, then we can ignore what he
said in 1 Timothy. If they are, then let's listen for God's voice.

In Christ,
Bob San Pascual

I have been the one most vehemently suggesting Paul's word's were words
to uplift the beginning churches, and was the edify them, but can and do edify
us. I have questioned validity of being scriptural, but in support of brother
Tom whom has quoted Martin Luther paraphrased albeit....

...we are reading someone else's mail....

On the other hand I sure hate to question Peter or Paul, and especially he that
walked on the same dirt as the Master side by side.

Over all I think it has been quite an entertaining debate, and I for one
have seen more light on the subject than I may have previously. One really
great thing is to go back in later months and read your original posts from MM's
WebPages and see just how our thoughts remain the same and or change as we
debate and discuss among ourselves. I know I gave changed my thought a few
times.
 ==========================================================
     Why don't you proceed to the next step, which is the justification of
the dogs for what they insist is God's handiwork in them?
 

                       - Neil

I may disagree with a good deal of what you speak Brother, but I do
love how you serve it.

Raynard
==================================================
Brother Tom,
I agree we probably are in agreement on more than we disagree.  However, I
have a question about the following you wrote:
> As for referencing - Paul would say "It says somewhere..."
> and then misquote it.  Find where he quoted it right.
Say what? Please splain that at me again.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
===============================================
Brother Neil,
You may be right about the force of  my words. And yet couldn't one just as
easily include the name of Stewart in Paul's powerful broadside in Gal.1:6-9
for preaching another gospel? What is worse Neil, saying ST raped scripture
or having Paul say you are eternally condemned?
I fully agree with the rest of your comments.Yours in Christ,Sola Scriptura,
Steve
========================================================
Brother Ray,
Very good question. Have you ever read "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell? It is a great resource on how the bible was put together, how which books were determined to be scripture and which were not and the reasons why. There is much much more also about the OT prophecies and their fulfillment etc. I highly recommend it.
Yours in Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
===================================================
From: Chris Gauci <goodlucknow@mindspring.com>>

   I have a question for those of us who consider "Everything
 in the Bible is equally scripture". Is the table of contents scripture
 too?  May I respectfully suggest that you consider your answer and it's
 implications very carefully before deciding.
 
 To my original question I would also like to ask if those Section pages that read "The Old Testament" and "The New Testament" are equally scripture.
 I seems to me that as far as Jesus and his disciples were concerned the only "new  testament" they had was a new "deal" or new agreement they had with God.
The idea of a new cannon called "The new Testament" was the Idea of people a loooong time later.   Of course different letters and wrings were
read in synagogues and other places where christians gathered, but it was a grassroots very local matter. There was alot of diversity and alot of
 different christian schools of thought. And it wasn't as clear and distinct as you'd suspect (at least speaking for myself ) .  It wasn't like "the heretics"
doomed to hell and damnation  on one side and the straight thinking clear headed bilble believing orthodox christians on the
other. It was far more complicated than that. Just as a small example take the well respected early teacher of the church ORIGEN (Older brothers:
 remember him?), he was a disciple of Clement .  Origen himself taught re-incarnation,that may seem weird enough but what's even weirder is that no one
during his time seemed to think of him as anything but a good teacher.

I'm sure that like most teachers some agreed with him and followed him, and some disagreed with him, BUT THERE WAS NO MOVEMENT TO REMOVE HIM FROM THE CHURCH. This was, (I have come to believe) the real atmosphere among the early christians. This is why there was so much trouble (real dangerous watch
your neck trouble),when the Roman Empire sanctioned the Church.  All kinds of christians began vying for power, denouncing each other as"false  brethren".
There were always huge arguments and differences of opinion among christians, but now it was clear that The Empire would accept  as a state sanctioned religion ONLY ONE KIND OF CHRISTIANITY, so the fighting  began.  The fact is that the winners write history, and in this case those that found favor with Rome were those who decided the canon and those who decided what the "Real  Christianity" was. Anyone and everyone else was basically run out of town (they wish, actually they were often killed for
their "godless heresies").>> <<
>  Well have you taken a look at the RC bible lately? It has a few more books
> than the RSV, AV, and the KJV and a few others. How do we consider them,
> especially considering the RC was once what was accepted as "The Church"?
>   >>
      Yes, it's interesting how that all happened. Actually the RC version is the version of the OT that the early christians used. That may seem  strange but
it's true. During the time of Jesus all of the "civilized" world of the Roman empire used Greek. Greek culture, literature and language was adapted by the Romans  and all the
peoples in the empire in a similar way that England's language and culture has been adopted by America and indeed most of the civilized world today. So most Jews both in Judea and scattered throughout the empire did not speak Hebrew.{Believe it or not Hebrew was actually a dead language until the modern State of Israel revived it through a dedicated effort so that Jews from around the world who came there to live would have one language instead of the Jewish/German language Yiddish and the  Jewish/Spanish language Ladino.} Hebrew
was only a religious language like Latin is for Catholics (or was, until Vatican 2)or like Sanskrit is for Hindus. Jews spoke the local language of the area (in
Judea that was Aramaic) and almost all of them who had any education at all spoke Greek.

Now, you may be surprised to know that it is NOT the common belief of Jews that the whole OT is equally scripture.  This I first learned when I was a kid in
High school with a bible in my hand and a big red button on my shirt.  My Jewish friends would regularly talk to their rabbi about all the verses I showed them when I witnessed to them.
It was then that I learned that Jews believe that only the Torah (The 5 books of Moses) was given directly to them by God, and only when a prophet says "THUS SAYS THE LORD" is The Lord actually talking (thusly). There is actually a hierarchy in the Tanakh (this is the actual name of the Hebrew scriptures for Jews, not OT) .  The Torah
(the law), Nebiim (Prophets), Ketubim (writings). Jews did not and do no take the writings in the same way they take The Torah. The writings are: psalms, proverbs, job, etc. If the
reason I'm mentioning all this isn't clear yet please bear with me. There came a point in time when it was decided to make translation (The first ever ) of the scriptures into Greek for all Jews everywhere to read. The legend ( I can't recall if I read it in Josephus or Eusebius or both) is that 70 Rabbis went into separate rooms and all came out with identical versions! In any case this OT was called the Septuagint and it included all the "apocrypha". It is not clear how many of the newer books were originally written in Hebrew . This was the OT used by
Christians also  and as the world (and the Jews in it) stopped speaking Greek, the world (and the Jews in it) stopped reading the Greek OT.  By this point the existing Hebrew scriptures were different in two ways 1) the apocrypha was missing 2) the order of the books is different.  The fact that practically all early christians knew greek (NT is in greek) and most didn't know Hebrew is pretty much a slam dunk that the Septuagint was their OT.  In fact way later in the Jewish community there  was and is discussion about if the septuagint "reflected christian influence" , the main reason being that it puts the prophets at the end so that they seem to anticipate the Gospels that follow in the Christian bible.  This is by no means an agreed on point , and I'm not convinced but it is interesting that the protestants kept the septuagint order of the OT books even though they ditched the apocrypha. Another thing is that certain key scriptures for christians only work well in the greek texts, take for instance Psalms 22:16 in the Christian bibles it relies on the greek version and it sounds very much like Jesus. But in a Jewish bible that simply translates the hebrew as we have it today it says "like a lion my hands and feet". You can say that doesn't make sense but that is actually what it says in hebrew. In the greek it says "they've pierced my hands and feet".  So if the protestants say the want the OT as it is in the hebrew without apocrypha) why do the continue to rely on the greek OT?
Because it is really the  Greek OT that was used by the NT writers..
>     I would just like to say that this controversy as well as all others
> touching the 'authority' of Scripture flow from the presupposition that
> Scripture is first, or that it is to be judged as 'authoritative' only as far
> as it is credible as something holding first place. It is not Scripture that
> is first; it is the Spirit Who is first, and then Scripture. Scripture does
> not reveal the Spirit; the Spirit reveals the Scripture, and reveals the
> spirituality (the figurativity) of it in the process. Figurativity is
> independent of both science and history. Science and history are altogether
> figurative in their own spheres, and constitute parallel 'books' which in no
> way undermine Scriptural truth.
>      The RC's have been the most zealous in history about trying to erect a
> bulwark of religious authority here in the world, which has bequeathed to us
> all that frozen distortion of things known as the Christian religion. For
> them it is the clergy who are first, and then the Scriptures. They are only a
> little more foolish than those who think that Scripture is first, and then
> all else. I hold that it is the Spirit Who is first, and all else will be
> controversial unless He is.>>>                       - Neil>
> I would definitely agree that it is Spirit which is the real authority.  This is really the main point.  I would not however say that those who consider
Church authority as the source of truth to be any worse off than  those who consider scripture to be the source of truth. IN both cases you can
say that it really comes down to trusting church authority on the one hand and yourself on the other hand. What I mean is that those who simply
say they believe the Bible and refuse to look into who exactly it was who put the table of contents together and who decided what stays in and what doesn't
are actually putting there faith in a Church Council whether they admit it to themselves or not.  They are trusting certain "Clergy" as you put
it. At least the RC's are clear that that's what they're doing!  The problem is if someone says they don't  trust in the findings of church
 councils but they only trust in the Bible then I don't think that they're really looking at what they're saying.  Now if someone should say "I believe
that the Spirit moved the Church council that established the canon " that's absolutely fine ,but don't say that the Bible   teaches that. Because
there is Nowhere in the Bible where Jesus predicts or tells us that there will be a council that will decide a canon of new testament books that we all should
study and follow if we want to know him. If someone  decides on their own authority to believe that those Clergymen ( in charge of deciding who
is in and who is out )were led by the Spirit then remember IT IS THEY WHO DECIDED IT,  they shouldn't claim any authority higher than that.
I am no a practicing RC at all so please don't get the wrong idea, but there is alot of  smug superiority and RC bashing (just generally not you in particular Neil)
that really doesn't acknowledge our common human condition, that of having to trust in authorities outside ourselves if we do not recognize our own Spiritual resources ourselves.  Actually my own sense is that the books of the bible were inspired by God the way that a woman or a flower inspires a poet. People who directly and immediately had their own unique
 experience of Spirit were moved to write it or speak it , or in the case of Jesus just plain Be it.  But in all the writings I am aware that Spirit had to
use a finite limited human body and mind, one that was always conditioned by it's own culture and time and each of the authors were of
different capacities and different levels of clarity.  Where does this leave us if  all the writers and their scriptures are not all perfect and clear
 instruments of the divine? In the same place we always were; having to trust Spirit.  Sometimes it seems that it would be easier if it were all  simply there
spelled out clearly  in scripture, in my own life I have found it is not. My understanding is that truth is really another word for reality
and reality doesn't take place in books, even  good (or Holy ) ones. As you're reading this, stop a moment and look around you, be aware of your surroundings
and you own body and breathing. This is Life direct and immediate: It's the only place where any prophet ever met God. In fact for me
Jesus is life itself, and life itself is Jesus, for real.
Scriptures are useful as inspiration but it is my opinion that they shouldn't rule our life. I know this is very different for some, but I actually think this
is in line with the new covenant.  Anyway  I spoke my mind and
I hope you didn't find it boring . It's really late and I'm tired. YOUR BROTHER
, CHRIS
============================================================
From: Symmetor@aol.com
Dear Chris:
     This is the most faithful and well-written account of history and the
issues of authority among Christians that I might have hoped to have read
anywhere, let alone here in the informality of the Onelist. Thanks for this
excellent piece.                    - Neil
========================================================
From: BigMac55@ix.netcom.com>

>     Just as I thought; a round contempt for men because no one of them has
>been the 'right' man in particular. That's why 'the pastoral authority' you
>'fall under' is the one that affords you the most cover in your contempt for
>the natural authority of the men who love you.
And whose pastoral authority do you submit to, pray tell Oh ancient one?
I bet there aren't any right "men".
Do not preach, thus they preach, one should not preach of such things.
====================================================
That is all I ever suggested. Have an open mind, that in the case it not
be as simple as it appears(Pauls word on the matter), that you would
be open to see that.
====================================================
> Brother Tom,
> I agree we probably are in agreement on more than we disagree.  However, I
> have a question about the following you wrote:
> > As for referencing - Paul would say "It says somewhere..."
> > and then misquote it.  Find where he quoted it right.
> Say what? Please splain that at me again.
Paul would say things "off the cuff" and change the
wording - which is fine with me - it's the spirit of the
message he was getting at.
==========================================
Let me give you a hint: The Jews -- some of them anyway -- do not consider the
Bible to be "God's word" To them, "God's word" was the "10 commandments"
brought down by Moses from the mountain.
If you think about it a minute, it makes sense. Assuming it really happened,
the 10 commandments are the only words God himself directly scribbled down. All
else was written by the men of the time. And before someone brings up the
"inspired by God" bit, let me say that "inspiration" in and of itself means
little with regards to accuracy and validity. While in Paris, at the Louvre, I
saw many great works of art "inspired by God". I was stunned at the level of
expression and emotion and passion that went into these great works. You could
even say that these works "touched my soul", were I to believe in such a thing.
But would I throw away everything I have lived and worked for to build my
entire life around these inspirations? Absolutely not. I recognize them for
what they are, and marvel in awe and wonder, but I would not "follow them", per
se. I think most of the Bible has to be seen in the same vein -- the writers
wrote what was on their "hearts", inspired by what their sense of God was back
in their day -- but also laced with their own frailties, their own prejudices,
their own humanity. They cannot be taken as the "literal word of God", nor
would you want to anyway.
Perhaps a better approach would be to view them as you would writers of today.
You read what they wrote, you get a sense of where they were, and you draw your
own conclusions and thoughts from it. You wouldn't take it literally word for
word. You would read it, ponder about it, chat about it with your friends, see
if it has any relevance to your life at all or not, etc. Why should the Bible
be treated any differently?-Fred
=======================================================
We're not talking OT - we're talking about reading other people's mail.
And even the OT - remember the big conference they had in Acts about
whether the Gentiles should follow the law and circumcision and all >the
rest of it - and they sent brothers back to Antioch with a >letter. They
were still figuring things out.  Could they have been >wrong about other
stuff?  You bet.
 
If I disagreed with an apostle, it would take a lot of pride for me to say
he was wrong (the same for Watchman Nee), I would assume that it was me with
the blind spot...

    And remember - that was a totally different matrix, era, whatever you
want to call it.  Societal and cultural things vary from place to >place,
from age to age.
 
Again, society and culture aren't as important as the Word of God, and Jesus
authority, the rule was the same throughout the whole OT.
Anyways, the western culture is heading for 3rd world status eventually
unless something happens to change things...  ML
===================================================
Lori,
I think you are closer to the mark by saying we need them both. I don't believe it is an either/or situation regarding the Spirit and scripture. You can't separate either of them. That's like trying to decide who is more important, God or Jesus. They don't work independently of each other. And you can't have one with out the other. Remember, the Word always was.(Word was with God-in the beginning)So was the Spirit."Let us make man in our image" ."My father will send the Spirit of Truth...".
That is one reason why scripture is so important because God's word is truth and sheds light on what men say and do. The way we recognize error is to test it against the Word illuminated by the Spirit.There is grave danger when one says "I have the Spirit, I don't need the Word" or vice versa.
The Word is living and active.Made so by the Spirit of God.
Yours in  Christ,
Sola Scriptura,
Steve
======================================================
Dear Steve,
I assume you would agree (maybe I shouldn't) that there are still a >few
things in God's word that you don't understand? So then, is any >position
you take, which might have a degree of "errancy" an attack >on God"s word
and should I now exhort you to stop that attack. At >least until such time
as you agree with me and then
obviously understand it?
 

It seems to me you are putting your own ideas ahead of God's Word.
Jesus is the Word made flesh.  Leaving out the Word is leaving out Jesus.
Some things are hard to understand but we are dealing with things directly
said.  You can't have christianity without Jesus.
That's why Steve wrote what he wrote.
ML
===========================================================