So what have we learned?

[Hugh McBryde]

who sent noah?, who sent abraham?, who sent moses?"

God, the LORD our God, sent them all. In Noah's day and Abraham's, there was no priesthood. In Moses day the Levites were set apart and from them God drew his priests. This authority structure was declared to be good by God.

the god who never changes, thats who. how did He lose His right to annoint/send in the new testament?"

He didn't. There are two things I would like to point out. One is that he delegated that authority, which is not the same as giving it up. The second is that while I am a cessationist, I have never implied that I am a permanent cessationist. You bring me a man called directly as Paul, I will apply scriptural tests to that calling. I will still point out that even JESUS submitted (his baptism by John) and Paul submitted to EARTHLY authorities. They are the authorities that the LORD did in fact set up.

we need some clear scripture that states that He has given up this right, not assumptions built on assumptions"

Are you telling me that I have the above facts wrong? Please do so and then I'll do the chapter and verse thingy. It's exhausting to debate with someone who says "prove it" at every turn. I am assuming you know your scripture. If the above assertions I make regarding the Levitical priesthood and Christ and Paul are NOT true, please say so. If not, let's not play this game.

of course, the teachings did not just appear out of thin air. they had no "transfer growth" of mature believers as exists nowdays."

I don't know what you mean by "transfer growth." It would be dangerous for me to assume that I do.

you cannot just assume a doctrine based upon circumstances."

I can pretty much get there with exclusively similar examples. God appoints. Men then appoint through the generations once God has established. Did God come and anoint each King of Judah as the generations passed? Use Joash as an example. There is no such anointing, it has already been done and the authority is passed from man to man as their obligation to God. God expects us to act faithfully between generations.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Just as a footnote to my post on the previous page. When God "sends" Moses in the Burning Bush episode, Exodus 3:9, the Septuagint renders the Hebrew for "Send" as "ἀποστείλω." So Paul, and the writers of the New Testament, were well aware that the word used by translators to Greek to render what the LORD said to Moses to go get the People out of Egypt. It reads like this:

Come now therefore, and I will send (ἀποστείλω) thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt."

That's pretty much the way Paul and Luke would have learned what the word meant, as a version of the Hebrew verb "שָׁלַח (shalach)."

 

[steve]

God, the LORD our God, sent them all. In Noah's day and Abraham's, there was no priesthood. In Moses day the Levites were set apart and from them God drew his priests. This authority structure was declared to be good by God.

He had a leadership structure that was not vested with all authority. unless you can show me that the judges that ruled israel were apointed by the priests.

I will still point out that even JESUS submitted (his baptism by John) and Paul submitted to EARTHLY authorities. They are the authorities that the LORD did in fact set up

john was an authority? i thought that your point was that the priests were the authority. did i miss where they gave john his authority? i did not get the impression that the priests thought that he had any authority.

i am not interested in an endless disputation here. i think that i have shown that the doctrine is not iron-clad, but i do not imagine that you agree.
one warning though; this doctrine is most fiercely defended by those in power, or seeking to be in power.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Steve, John the Baptist was a Levite.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Steve, the point of mentioning that John the Baptist was a Levite, and then subsequently not speaking to the rest of your points, is that you haven't done your homework. I can address every point brought by every commenter, or I can deal with only the ones that do their homework. I, like you, can be quite busy.

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth."

John is their son. The authority I was speaking to was that of the priesthood, established by the LORD.

Since you did not attend to this basic detail, I'm really not going to engage you on every point. Debating someone who simply throws things up against the wall to see what will stick, is an endless pursuit. I won't do it.

 

[NeoPatriarch]

Well this thread failed.

I was hoping for a broader focus and greater participation.

While "church" is a great topic, I wanted to explore the principles that led us all to shared conclusions about marriage and family.

For example: A narrative is not a command.

Didn't we all learn that? Adam and Eve does not prove monogamy. Right ? What else can we apply this principal too?

What else have you learned?

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

For example: A narrative is not a command.

Didn't we all learn that? Adam and Eve does not prove monogamy. Right ? What else can we apply this principal too?

It can be applied to Tithing. When this principle is removed there is no basis for tithing in which exactly 10% of money is given to Gentile Pastors.

It can be applied to if it is permissible to marry people from other religions. I.E. Solomon argument starts to become limited.

When I realized this one thing I started to question most of the Sermons I heard. This is used as a principle (in the incorrect way) in most sermons I have heard.

In fact this principle is so commonly needed that it is too exhaustive to go through examples it would be like listing examples of gravity.

I wonder if the heart of the matter is that people's bad attitude toward the Word of God, results in them deciding what they want before reading the Word of God and then using bad principles to come to the conclusion they want? Principles that they do not use when they honestly want to know the truth about something.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

A narrative is not a command."

Repeated unmodified example, without rebuke or discouragement accompanied with example/no positive example of an alternative, kinda is. Ecclesiastical authority is given to human leadership at Sinai. It's never been shown to me that it was taken back as well. Those human beings are accountable, but nevertheless.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

A narrative is not a command."

Repeated unmodified example, without rebuke or discouragement accompanied with example/no positive example of an alternative, kinda is. Ecclesiastical authority is given to human leadership at Sinai. It's never been shown to me that it was taken back as well. Those human beings are accountable, but nevertheless.

?? :?:

When was that (Levitical) ecclesiastical authority transferred to say for instance John Calvin? Or a local neighborhood non-denominational preacher?

The authority to collect tithes is generally based on one's birth-parent not one's spiritual parent alone. Although I do not know if that is what you are talking about, indicated by the, "?? :?: "

The ecclesiatical authority (if any) given to Gentiles would have most likely come from Jesus and Paul and Jesus'es disciples not Moses.

Any Mosaic Ecclesiastical authority would be perhaps passed on to the Messianic Jews.

Either way John Calvin would not get it unless he could trace himself to have genetic Jewish origins, because he would not have the NT ecclesiastical authority..... unless God specifically and specially gave it to him as the first one on the chain or someone else before him, but since he was not an accepted part of the Roman Catholic Church.....

Not that the Roman Catholic Church has the authority anymore anyway on account of....

 

[Hugh McBryde]

The ecclesiatical authority (if any) given to Gentiles would have most likely come from Jesus and Paul and Jesus'es disciples not Moses."

I thought I had already made this clear. The point of the Levitical priesthood is simple. At that demarcation point, God elects to speak through human beings.

After that we have zero indication of "self actualizing" worship groups unless I missed something, which you are free to point out. That's what Romans 10 is all about.

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!"

I am saying that beginning with the Priesthood in Sinai, God deals with us, ecclesiastically, through PEOPLE.

 

[Anonymous]

Hugh,
I am not prepared to enter this discussion fully armed, but this perspective is extremely stringent and not sufficienty documented as to God's intent.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Odd, so say the opponents of Polygyny.