Does a husbands authority wax and wane?

[FollowingHim]

The Talmud, the Babylonian preface is a despicable obfuscation he should be ashamed of

I should add that the word "Babylonian" is correct. As I understand it, there are two Talmuds, the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud, each compiled by Jews in those locations, and both in 4-500AD. So the Babylonian Talmud was composed in Babylon - just not in the ancient Babylonian empire, but by Jews living in Babylon in more recent times. This is not an obfuscation in any way, it is the correct title of the document. As the Babylonian Talmud is more widely used, it is commonly referred to just as the Talmud for simplicity, but both names refer to the same document.

 

[rockfox]

Your stance would pervert judgement for the victim in the hope of preserving marriages through manipulation rather than truth.

It seems like the baby is being thrown out with the bath water. Our job is not to build fences like the Pharisees but to judge accurately and righteously on each and every occasion.

Where ever did I advocate manipulation? I'm advocating not speaking where God was silent because a) that's wrong and b) doing so will destroy peoples lives, many more than would be saved. Yes it causes feel-bads; I don't care. Yes it means we have to tell women 'no' and that's a huge sin today; I don't care. Doing as you advocate would be a net negative.

I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water, I'm explaining possible reasons why God never allowed divorce in these cases.

rescue a couple who has been living in her non-running car in the dead of winter, starving but yet he reeks of alcohol.

Instead of trying to destroy marriages, we should seek to help people in tough situations, people who are suffering hard economic times, addictions and the like. One can blame the man for being a drunk, or one can understand that men turn to substance abuse to cope with trying times (such as an inability to secure employment). The solution to addiction isn't further destroying their life via divorce, it is to help them with their problems. Socially isolating a man suffering from addiction is more likely to drive him to suicide than soberness.

But it is hard to do this if you can't have empathy for men but instead blame them for everything. It's hard to do this if ones modes operandi is to never tell women no.

 

[rockfox]

I’ll only go over one of these offices. That will help. An apostle is a pastors pastor. Even pastors need a nurturerer, a guide, someone they can trust to talk about things. In the Southern Baptist’s for example, my hometown pastor became the president of the Missouri convention. He would advise, guide and counsel the other pastors as they built their churches. He was a pastors pastor. The Baptist’s don’t call them an apostle, but my pastor filled the biblical office of apostle without being called that. Welcome to 21st century church. New names for old offices. Probably why many of us have been drawn to this site. Get back to original intent.

No, that is exactly the corruption that led to the catholic church. An apostle is what we now call a missionary. He will act like a pastor's pastor, a mentor to those whose churches he establishes. But he's not a pastor's pastor. It's not a hierarchy nor a form of super-local church organization.

Pastor's have someone the can look to to talk about things: first, the mentor's they'd have anyway if they weren't a pastor and second, their fellow pastors in the local church. Ya, what you speak of is needed in the one man pastorate of the American church; but the New Testement organization of things had multiple elders (the true Biblical title) shepherding (i.e. pastoring, the verb from which we got the title pastor) the believers in a given location.

 

[steve]

Ya, what you speak of is needed in the one man pastorate of the American church; but the New Testement organization of things had multiple elders (the true Biblical title) shepherding (i.e. pastoring, the verb from which we got the title pastor) the believers in a given location.

Yes, the present system of pastors leading the assembly seems to be a leftover from the catholic system. The early church was much more member-driven, with elders managing the “services” as far as I can tell. Paul is never recorded as having appointed pastors, always elders.

 

[Phillip]

An apostle is what we now call a missionary. He will act like a pastor's pastor, a mentor to those whose churches he establishes. But he's not a pastor's pastor. It's not a hierarchy nor a form of super-local church organization.

He will act like a pastors pastor but he’s not a pastors pastor? You know the old saying, if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck...

I saw a video recently sent to me me from someone on this site. Your point of hierarchy is well put. The point of the video presentation was to have all five offices working in the local body of believers. It was a very well put argument for level leadership instead of hierarchy.

You mentioned an apostle being a missionary. If I recall correctly, Paul traveled as a missionary. Peter , primarily stayed and led the local body. Both men were apostles, both had different assignments from God. Both showed and taught by example. I don’t have any problem with you saying apostles are now called a missionary. Verbiage changes with time. But I’ll stick with the ‘an apostle is a pastors pastor’ analogy. Simplistic? Yes. But simple to understand.

 

[Cap]

One thing you said forces me to ask, do you believe that Jesus performed miracles, signs, and wonders by the power of The Holy Spirit or by his own power as God in human flesh?

I think you are getting mixed up in the trinty concepts.

 

[Cap]

Where ever did I advocate manipulation? I'm advocating not speaking where God was silent because a) that's wrong and b) doing so will destroy peoples lives, many more than would be saved. Yes it causes feel-bads; I don't care. Yes it means we have to tell women 'no' and that's a huge sin today; I don't care. Doing as you advocate would be a net negative.

I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water, I'm explaining possible reasons why God never allowed divorce in these cases.



Instead of trying to destroy marriages, we should seek to help people in tough situations, people who are suffering hard economic times, addictions and the like. One can blame the man for being a drunk, or one can understand that men turn to substance abuse to cope with trying times (such as an inability to secure employment). The solution to addiction isn't further destroying their life via divorce, it is to help them with their problems. Socially isolating a man suffering from addiction is more likely to drive him to suicide than soberness.

But it is hard to do this if you can't have empathy for men but instead blame them for everything. It's hard to do this if ones modes operandi is to never tell women no.

And what about the victim?

 

[Cap]

This isn't what anyone is really saying. Again anytime we talk about whether a woman can leave her husband it's assumed that we mean with the freedom to remarry. Obviously she is allowed to leave for any reason as long as she doesn't remarry.

What gives you the right to condemn a group of people because of the failures of society. I think you have an issue with compassion.

 

[Cap]

@rustywest4 , @Joleneakamama , @Mage Hi guys, I have a lot of respect for you Rusty and while I frequently butt heads with you Jolene I have never doubted your intellectual rigor. Mage I have like many of your posts and I have been impressed by you. But all three of you liked this statement by @Verifyveritas76 and I don't think you did enough research before you did. Like many things @Verifyveritas76 says this one was not vetted enough before he decided it made him sound smart. The Talmud, the Babylonian preface is a despicable obfuscation he should be ashamed of, wasn't even started until 40 years after Christ's death. It was allegedly based on "oral tradition" but given what we know about the Jew's superb use of the written word we can pretty much discount that claim. If it wasn't written down before A.D. 70 it didn't exist in the Jewish culture. And it certainly wasn't the product of the Old Testament Hebrews living in the captivity as the frequent use of the phrase "Babylonian Talmud" would imply. Here there by dragons folks and I hope you'll be careful.

Hey I liked @Verifyveritas76 post too and you didn't mention me in your list of people you respect. Pretty sure it's because your trying to build your support base and I just don't find your argument, about anything, whether it is valid or not to be something I respect. So we are even.

(This is not really a serious post so it probably should be removed)

 

[Mage]

Hey @ZecAustin this is why I gave it a like.

For the record, I do not consider Jewish commentary to be inspired, rather a historical record and in the case of the BT, a historical legal record.

I agree.
The BT is not inspired by the Holy Spirit and is a historical legal record.

It’s literally the equivalent of someone 2300 years from now, examining the Federalist papers to better understand the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

I think this is a fair point in so far as the Federalist Papers provide a group of peoples understanding of an authoritative document and the BT provides a group of peoples understanding of God's Law.
The BT is not authoritative.

The Babylonian Talmud predates the Pharisees by hundreds of years and is the oldest record I’m aware of outside of the Bible of Jewish culture from Jewish sources.

I took this as the oral record. Which yes the oral traditions would predate the Pharisees.

In fact, I do not recall any place in the BT that would qualify as something Christ corrected in the Scriptures.

This is a bold statement and I hesitate to agree with this.
I have read a fair amount of the Talmud but not all of it. While the parts I have read were not directly addressed by Christ there may be other parts that were that I have missed.

I am also not a fan of the Pharisees or their attempts to edit scripture or their historical revisionism or any other method they used to attempt to disprove the divinity and import of Christ

I agree.

an attempt to discredit the BT based upon a Pharisaical Bias is the height of folly as the Pharisees did most of their traditions about 300 years later and their anti - Christ revisionism about 5-600 years later.

A bit harsh but I took this to mean that the oral traditions predate Christ and if taking the BT as a faithful writing of those oral traditions then the BT is valuable in so far as providing insight into other peoples understanding of God's law. To simply toss it out because of the Pharisaical Bias would be unwise, and that as a tool for learning what a different group of peoples understanding of God's Law is some may find the BT helpful.
If it can be shown that the BT is not the faithful recordings of the oral traditions and is simply an attempt to discredit Christ then yes it should be tossed out. I haven't come across any sources yet that show this to be the case though. Again I may have missed something.

I hesitated to expand on the original post further because I don't have enough evidence to prove one way or another about how accurately and faithfully the oral traditions were written down and I have no strong opinions on the BT. But I find it fascinating and insightful and a useful tool for understanding the culture.

If taking the BT as a written document of oral tradition then I think @Verifyveritas76 made some good point.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Start with the scripture;

Ephesians 4:
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the me

I’ll only go over one of these offices. That will help. An apostle is a pastors pastor. Even pastors need a nurturerer, a guide, someone they can trust to talk about things. In the Southern Baptist’s for example, my hometown pastor became the president of the Missouri convention. He would advise, guide and counsel the other pastors as they built their churches. He was a pastors pastor. The Baptist’s don’t call them an apostle, but my pastor filled the biblical office of apostle without being called that. Welcome to 21st century church. New names for old offices. Probably why many of us have been drawn to this site. Get back to original intent.

As for charismatics, they are currently using the Bible referenced names. The other four offices are still being used as well. Maybe these offices are not being used with power and might, but that’s where the annointing comes in. In the area of music, King Johosephat sent the worshippers (singers) ahead of the armies and sang and worshipped at the front of the battle. That’s a reference to me of anointed worship/singing. You can use whatever verbiage you want, I call it anointed and that term is acceptable to a whole gob of people. There are many references of using music/singing throughout scripture. They left singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Ephesians 5:19.

I drive a car, an automobile, a GMC, a Yukon etc. you can call it by many names, but it’s my personal transport. It gets me where I’m going.

I have no problem with those scriptures or others that deal with the topic. We do have Apostles. Their words are echoing through the ages, and we can refresh ourselves with their teaching/doctrine any time we open the Bible. Also, we have prophets and their prophecies extend to the end of time. They are written down in the Word of God.


There are qualifications for Apostles and prophets in scripture and i have never met anyone who can meet the requirements, nor has anyone given me an example of a person alive today who can meet those requirements.


There is a big difference between an apostle, as in a “sent one”, like a missionary and an Apostle who sits in the office of the Apostles. The I believe apostles, who generally go by the term missionary, exist. The second one? no way.


Can you give me a living example of someone who has fulfilled the Biblical requirements laid out for Apostles or prophets?

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I think you are getting mixed up in the trinty concepts.

So, back to my question, which is it?

Here’s the question again:
One thing you said forces me to ask, do you believe that Jesus performed miracles, signs, and wonders by the power of The Holy Spirit or by his own power as God in human flesh?

 

[rockfox]

He will act like a pastors pastor but he’s not a pastors pastor? You know the old saying, if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck...

I saw a video recently sent to me me from someone on this site. Your point of hierarchy is well put. The point of the video presentation was to have all five offices working in the local body of believers. It was a very well put argument for level leadership instead of hierarchy.

You mentioned an apostle being a missionary. If I recall correctly, Paul traveled as a missionary. Peter , primarily stayed and led the local body. Both men were apostles, both had different assignments from God. Both showed and taught by example. I don’t have any problem with you saying apostles are now called a missionary. Verbiage changes with time. But I’ll stick with the ‘an apostle is a pastors pastor’ analogy. Simplistic? Yes. But simple to understand.

What I'm saying is, it only superficially looks like pastor's pastor. The way it lives out and is created are entirely different.

Peter didn't travel, but he served the churches he established there.

Its about how it goes down. The Apostle establishes churches, and then serves as a mentor to them. But it dies with him. And those churches create new Apostles by sending workers into the field.

But an organization and a hierarchy of command isn't created; elder's seek mentors, they don't submit to the governance of 'apostles' who had no part of them. It's organic. That's not what we see with modern day "apostles".

There are qualifications for Apostles and prophets in scripture and i have never met anyone who can meet the requirements, nor has anyone given me an example of a person alive today who can meet those requirements.

There is a big difference between an apostle, as in a “sent one”, like a missionary and an Apostle who sits in the office of the Apostles. The I believe apostles, who generally go by the term missionary, exist. The second one? no way.

Can you give me a living example of someone who has fulfilled the Biblical requirements laid out for Apostles or prophets?

There is a big difference between an Apostle as in one of the 12, and an apostle as a sent one in Eph 4. Timothy was a case of the latter kind of apostle. These were missionaries who took the Good News to new places, who were sent by churches. We must still have them because we haven't reached "till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ". There is still many to whom the word of God must go.

 

[rockfox]

A bit harsh but I took this to mean that the oral traditions predate Christ and if taking the BT as a faithful writing of those oral traditions then the BT is valuable in so far as providing insight into other peoples understanding of God's law. To simply toss it out because of the Pharisaical Bias would be unwise,

The church couldn't go 200 years without departing from the written NT; I have little faith the synagogue of Satan could make it 500 years and accurately preserve an oral tradition. And to the extent they are accurate, the BT is the very human traditions that Christ condemned.

The Talmud is useful for understanding their historical understanding at the time of it's creation, and some reasonable time before. But I wouldn't use it to countermand anything I could establish from scripture.

 

[rockfox]

And what about the victim?

1. It is often falsely presumed that the husband is the perp.

2. Torpedoing a marriage isn't a solution to a lack of food. It's just an excuse to justify women who want to abandon their men, and to justify the men who want to marry them.

3. "God will provide, through the church or by other means. People don't sit idly by while a child of God goes wanting."

4. Far more victims will be created than saved by your solution.

As you said before in the source thread to this (as if it was an argument), you married a divorced women and would do it again; I don't expect you to be able to see that which your personal situation requires you not to.

 

[Cap]

1. It is often falsely presumed that the husband is the perp.

2. Torpedoing a marriage isn't a solution to a lack of food. It's just an excuse to justify women who want to abandon their men, and to justify the men who want to marry them.

3. "God will provide, through the church or by other means. People don't sit idly by while a child of God goes wanting."

4. Far more victims will be created than saved by your solution.

As you said before in the source thread to this (as if it was an argument), you married a divorced women and would do it again; I don't expect you to be able to see that which your personal situation requires you not to.

I believe you are calling other people blind here as well. You have no clue about my life. And you have no clue what I see from you and your statements.

 

[Phillip]

I have no problem with those scriptures or others that deal with the topic. We do have Apostles. Their words are echoing through the ages, and we can refresh ourselves with their teaching/doctrine any time we open the Bible. Also, we have prophets and their prophecies extend to the end of time. They are written down in the Word of God.


There are qualifications for Apostles and prophets in scripture and i have never met anyone who can meet the requirements, nor has anyone given me an example of a person alive today who can meet those requirements.


There is a big difference between an apostle, as in a “sent one”, like a missionary and an Apostle who sits in the office of the Apostles. The I believe apostles, who generally go by the term missionary, exist. The second one? no way.


Can you give me a living example of someone who has fulfilled the Biblical requirements laid out for Apostles or prophets?

I see ‘for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, edifying etc. those are a portion of examples of the five offices in the scripture I put on this text.

Let’s go to scripture; “Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy” (Acts 2:17–18).

If you will, can you fill me in with what you know regarding ‘Biblical requirements’ for these offices? As for me, I know a New Testament prophet is used for confirmation, edification and correction. I’d like know what your studies have revealed. In both of my posts, I quoted scripture, New Testament scripture. Thereby validating these offices. In addition, I know some people who believe Jesus came to change things around even tho he personally said in

Mathew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

But he probably said it in something other than the Kings English.

 

[FollowingHim]

As you said before in the source thread to this (as if it was an argument), you married a divorced women and would do it again; I don't expect you to be able to see that which your personal situation requires you not to.

I believe you are calling other people blind here as well. You have no clue about my life. And you have no clue what I see from you and your statements.

Our personal situation does affect how we emotionally perceive situations. It is true that someone who has been through divorce and remarriage will be more naturally inclined to accept a scriptural position that allows for that. But it is also true that someone who has NOT been in this situation may be more inclined to consider it clinically and legalistically without the compassionate tempering of experience. The key is to take account of the biases that we ourselves and those we are discussing with hold, because we all have a bias, but not make or take such statements as personal attacks, and overlook it when others do make it personal.

 

[Phillip]

What I'm saying is, it only superficially looks like pastor's pastor. The way it lives out and is created are entirely different.

Peter didn't travel, but he served the churches he established there.

Its about how it goes down. The Apostle establishes churches, and then serves as a mentor to them. But it dies with him. And those churches create new Apostles by sending workers into the field.

But an organization and a hierarchy of command isn't created; elder's seek mentors, they don't submit to the governance of 'apostles' who had no part of them. It's organic. That's not what we see with modern day "apostles".



There is a big difference between an Apostle as in one of the 12, and an apostle as a sent one in Eph 4. Timothy was a case of the latter kind of apostle. These were missionaries who took the Good News to new places, who were sent by churches. We must still have them because we haven't reached "till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ". There is still many to whom the word of God must go.

If I read this right, You and I aren’t that far apart. However, I believe those offices are alive a doing well. I also believe there are plenty of people preferring this offices and building their own little kingdoms. Your lack of optimism will serve you well in that you don’t just accept something without proof. The only problem that creates is that it could also hurt you. Knowing the scripture talks of it is a good thing. Not blindly following some idiot that says he’s an apostle is wise. Then you turn that around and see a true apostle or prophet and ignoring him could cause you to miss something cool God wants for you.

 

[Cap]

Our personal situation does affect how we emotionally perceive situations. It is true that someone who has been through divorce and remarriage will be more naturally inclined to accept a scriptural position that allows for that. But it is also true that someone who has NOT been in this situation may be more inclined to consider it clinically and legalistically without the compassionate tempering of experience. The key is to take account of the biases that we ourselves and those we are discussing with hold, because we all have a bias, but not make or take such statements as personal attacks, and overlook it when others do make it personal.

I believe this is completely accurate, and holds value with all discussions not having to do with salvation. Each persons life and relationship with God is colored by the world He places them in. I enjoy hearing the views of others to help me try and understand the world they live in. No life is better than the next, they are all different and if I understand something more it would be that God places individuals of different worlds together so that they can learn from each other. Ones life experience is a valued attribute to their relationship with God. It's when we start saying someone is wrong that things go bad. Sure there maybe technical errors that can be corrected with love and the reason we are not islands, but to try and force someone into ones belief is never going to work. Especially here, since most that participate here are not in a grade school of faith.