How to understand Paul

[Wingnut]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Since my name was mentioned: 

Heaven itself - all of it - IS the "true Sanctuary".  Which means that the Father's throne IS within that Sanctuary.  I DO believe that Jesus ascended to the Most Holy Place of "heaven itself".  The Father's presence is what makes it "most holy".  Obviously Jesus is seated within the Father's presence.  "He has entered the presence behind the veil" (Hebrews 6:19 and 9:24).  Having said this, I also believe the two apartments represent successive activities - carried out by Jesus.

When the text says that Jesus ascended to the "right hand of the Father" and "sits at the right hand of God" - it is telling us about Christ's authority, NOT necessarily where He is stationed at all times.  Jesus authority - prior to His incarnation as a human being, was SECOND to His Father's.  This authority was returned to Him after He returned to Heaven.

The Tabernacle tent represents "heaven itself".  The courtyard represents this earth.  Jesus died on this earth.  Sinners will finally die - on this earth. 

Heaven is one "place".  It is not divided into two separate apartments.  Jesus WAS "the veil".  The two apartments - in my opinion - represent successive activities - carried out by Jesus - our High Priest.  John "saw" Jesus walking among the 7 golden candlesticks.  That's first apartment.  And that's years after Jesus ascended back to Heaven. 

The activities of the "first apartment" include offering our prayers, intercession, filling us with His spirit - being with us and in us, feeding us (both temporally and spiritually)

The activity of the Most Holy Place is the judgment of Daniel 7.  Jesus will come before the Heavenly court (and the throne of God) and will be judged "worthy" to receive dominion and the kingdom.  NOTICE:  Only Jesus and Satan are judged here.  Jesus is proclaimed worthy to receive dominion (of earth). Therefore Satan's kingdom will be taken from him, and destroyed forever.

I do NOT BELIEVE this final judgment scene has taken place YET.  I certainly do NOT believe it took place back in 1844.  Daniel 7:1-2 says "the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; UNTIL until the ancient of days came, AND judgment was given in favor of the saints of the Most High, and [UNTIL] the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom." (ASV) 

The saints did NOT possess the kingdom back in 1844.  The saints will be given the kingdom - through the person of Christ - WHEN the judgment sits.  The little horn on the Beast makes war with the saints for 3.5 years leading up to the judgment in Heaven.  Jesus will be given the kingdom, and it is understood by the Court that He will share His kingdom with those He claims for His own.  

Adventist believe this judgment BEGAN back in 1844, and the saints will be given the kingdom at the conclusion of this judgment.  I can't agree.  The events of the DAY of Atonement all took place on ONE DAY.  Just like Passover and Pentecost.  Why should be believe this judgment will be strung out over 175+ years?  Jesus knows His own sheep.  He knows His friends and His enemies.  He doesn't need 175+ years to determine which humans will share His dominion.  When Jesus receives the kingdom, He will IMMEDIATELY return for His own. 

Adventists have a heavenly sanctuary fetish which nobody else in the Christian world subscribes to, and which I refuse to feed, since I cannot think of a scripture describing this heavenly sanctuary.  Those supposed scriptures in Heb 4, 8, 9 supposedly referring to a heavenly sanctuary, I had a brief look at, and in 5 seconds reached a conclusion that there is no sanctuary/tabernacle in heaven.  The earthly tabernacle was made on a pattern which Moses was shown.  It does not say it was patterned on a heavenly one.  I really hate tabernacle discussions, but if anyone has evidence for a heavenly one, from the Bible, please present it.

 

You say the tabernacle is heaven itself.  Why?  Heaven is heaven.  Who calls heaven a sanctuary/tabernacle?

Look at the verse below and the quotes I added.

Hebrews 8:2

A minister of the "sanctuary", and of the true "tabernacle", which the Lord pitched, and not man.

That's what Paul meant.  It's Paul and his analogies again.  Heaven is like a sanctuary, not THERE IS A SANCTUARY.

[8thdaypriest]

3 hours ago, Wingnut said:

We are not under the OT.

Paul said there was neither male nor female, then tells females to be silent and learn with all subjection, like they were little, stupid children.

And you find it "radical" for husbands and wives to love each other and share their bodies with each other.

This is how sad Christian culture has come to.

 

Didn't say I found it radical.  Said people of Paul's day would have found it "radical".

[8thdaypriest]

Wingnut,

Your words are greatly disrespectful!

[Wingnut]

7 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Wingnut,

Your words are greatly disrespectful!

Then to you I apologise.

Which words  

[joeb]

3 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Wingnut said:  "Nothing in Heaven needs to be cleansed"

I would disagree there Wingnut.  God's reputation needed to be restored in the eyes of His created sentient beings.  Satan fomented a war against God, by spewing LIES about Him.  God had to convince created beings that He is just, and His way is the only way - to life eternal.  He allowed us to learn these things through experience.   Allowing Satan to play out his hand, was the only way to reveal his character as a liar and murderer.  At the judgment scene of Daniel 7:9-10, the court will finally declare that all the evidence is in.  Christ will be declared "worthy" and God will be absolved of any "wrong".  His reputation will be declared CLEAN. 

 

God's reputation is not His character.  And, reputation is something that is held in the mind of the beholder.  Thus, God's reputation here on earth is far worse than it is anywhere else in the universe.   Even those in heaven and the rest of the unfallen universe that held some doubt about God due to the devil's sophistry didn't rebel or sin in having that doubt because they didn't act on it.  Thus, I see nothing in this context that needs to be cleansed in heaven.   

[joeb]

As to understanding Paul, I would say read all of his writings before trying to understand any one point.  I would also say do not read our present day preconceptions into Paul.  Understand his background and education first, and then look at his writings from his perspectives not ours.

[Wingnut]

Rachel, nothing you said was radical, so I apologise.

What I was thinking of as being sad about Christian culture is how Paul encourages men to domineer their wives and children - like we need any encouragement.  I have seen this happen.  The fruit of this is bad.  Paul tells women to shut up and be in subjection.  Christ never said this.  Paul's words that there is neither male nor female ring hollow.  He calls women the weaker vessel.  The whole of 1 Pet 3 can be twisted to subjugate women.  Paul  chooses the example of Sarah calling Ab "lord".  What about the time the Lord told Ab to listen to Sarah?  And when Ab tells Sarah to deny being his wife - should one listen to such stupid husbandly advice.

 

I have been in subjection to many bosses.  If one does not want to listen to their nonsense one just says "Cheers" and leaves.

Its harder in marriage to do that.  But if men do not come up to scratch, women should be encouraged to fill that leadership vacuum.

Many marriages are like being trapped in a cult, under an abusive Christian cult leader.  Paul encourages this hierarchical blind obedience.

[Robert]

2 hours ago, Wingnut said:

Paul tells women to shut up and be in subjection.  Christ never said this.

Paul was picked by God the Father and Jesus, personally.  So if you have a problem with Paul you have a problem with God.

Really, your problem is you hate Paul because I have a feeling he exposes something in your life.  Perhaps your self-righteousness???

[doug yowell]

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Kevin H said:

Paul has been very hard to read, because as we read his words we are usually reading into them the ideas of the church synagogue split of 135 AD,

Paul was sometimes hard to read long before 135. Even Peter had to think long and hard to get some of his explanations. 

[doug yowell]

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Robert said:

 

Does this mean Paul put Timothy "back under bondage"?

 

Timothy was not 8 days old so it's highly unlikely that Paul put Timothy anywhere except in the front of the cross. It was Timothy's choice to be circumcised even if he was only half Jewish. 

[doug yowell]

8 hours ago, Wingnut said:

.

Folks love to quote scriptures from Paul.  Invariably these quotes ignore the context or storyline.  
Any quote from Paul, out of context, can be made to say almost anything... 

...Paul said there was neither male nor female, then tells females to be silent and learn with all subjection, like they were little, stupid children. .

Many marriages are like being trapped in a cult, under an abusive Christian cult leader.  Paul encourages this hierarchical blind obedience.

What I was thinking of as being sad about Christian culture is how Paul encourages men to domineer their wives and children - like we need any encouragement.  I have seen this happen.  The fruit of this is bad.  Paul tells women to shut up and be in subjection.  Christ never said this.  Paul's words that there is neither male nor female ring hollow.

How to understand Paul? Now that's really bizarre! 

[doug yowell]

3 hours ago, Wingnut said:

 The whole of 1 Pet 3 can be twisted to subjugate women.  Paul  chooses the example of Sarah calling Ab "lord".

So Peter never asked anyone to call their husband "Lord"?  Would calling Jesus "Lord" be "subjugating" one's self in a bad way? Is this Paul, and this Peter the same guys who taught the true gospel?  

[8thdaypriest]

17 hours ago, Wingnut said:

Then to you I apologise.

Which words  

Not towards me.  Disrespectful of Paul, criticizing his writing style and choice of examples.  I don't feel it's our place to criticize Paul.  We should simply TRY - with the help of Jesus - to understand what Paul said.  Jesus CHOSE Paul.  Jesus knew what his style was like.

[Wingnut]

33 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Not towards me.  Disrespectful of Paul, criticizing his writing style and choice of examples.  I don't feel it's our place to criticize Paul.  We should simply TRY - with the help of Jesus - to understand what Paul said.  Jesus CHOSE Paul.  Jesus knew what his style was like.

Would you consider it disrespectful to analyse his writing style to see why it is confusing?

BTW I don't think much of Shakespeare either, or of painters like Picasso.

[8thdaypriest]

17 hours ago, joeb said:

God's reputation is not His character.  And, reputation is something that is held in the mind of the beholder.  Thus, God's reputation here on earth is far worse than it is anywhere else in the universe.   Even those in heaven and the rest of the unfallen universe that held some doubt about God due to the devil's sophistry didn't rebel or sin in having that doubt because they didn't act on it.  Thus, I see nothing in this context that needs to be cleansed in heaven.   

God's CHARACTER was questioned.  Just because 2/3s in Heaven remained loyal, does not mean they had no doubts.  Doubts fester.  

God wanted His character to be clearly revealed.  The incarnation and death of His only Son DID THAT for the loyal Heavenly beings.  It remained to win the hearts of as many humans as could be won, before the earth self-destructed.  God must to allow the conflict to continue until no other humans can be won for Christ during this "age". 

The judgment of Daniel 7:9-10 is the formal declaration in Heaven that this age is complete.  Every human who can be won - during this age - has been won.  Christ is formally given dominion of the earth.  With that dominion comes the right to depose Satan - who will be imprisoned for 1000 years.  With the dominion comes the RIGHT to say which humans will live within His dominion.  He knows each one of them.  It won't take Him any time to decide who they are. 

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

The ENTIRE Sanctuary - including Feast days, sacrifices, alters, structure, priests, and ceremonies WAS A PROPHECY - acted prophecy.  Israel was CHOSEN to give this prophecy to the world.  This prophecy reveals God's plan for redemption.  Jesus Christ fulfills this prophecy.  This prophecy was accurate in every detail.  Jesus was "marked for death" on the 10th day of Nissan at the "triumphal entry" into Jerusalem.  Jesus died at 3PM on Passover - fulfilling that prophecy.  The spirit was poured out on Pentecost - fulfilling that prophecy. 

Personally, I LOVE the Sanctuary.   The prophecies of the Sanctuary strengthen my faith. 

I agree that a person could come to believe in Jesus Christ through experiencing miracles around him, or within himself - without understanding the wonderful prophetic evidence from the Sanctuary.  A person could believe in Jesus without ever reading the Book of Revelation either, but folks living in the last 3.5 years - under terrible persecution, will be strengthened and comforted, knowing what's going on, and knowing that it's almost over.

I don't understand WHY you want to throw out parts of God's word to us.  You don't think He had a reason for those messages?  A good reason!

And why dummy down God's word, just 'cause most folks read at 9th grade level. 

That's the BEAUTY of God's word.  There's something there for 3rd grade readers, and there's mystery and wonder for doctorates. 

[Robert]

2 hours ago, jackson said:

Gen 1:30   And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.  1:31   And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

 

Hmm?  So it wasn't a dog eat dog world as evolution states.  There were no carnivores at creation.  

[Wingnut]

2 hours ago, Robert said:

Hmm?  So it wasn't a dog eat dog world as evolution states.  There were no carnivores at creation.  

I know you are illiterate at reading rocks, but the fossil record shows T rex was eating Triceratops long before the leaf fell off the tree, and the flower wilted.

And green herbs are the basis of all food chains, so in the general sense that God was speaking, green things made by photosynthesis have been given to every beast to eat, directly (herbivores) or indirectly (carnivores).

The Bible never says God redesigned every bird's beak after MAN's fall.  That would have been a whole new creation of everything.  But in your world of Bible magic, let's just ignore reality and believe God redesigned everything, even though we have never found a fossil of a herbivorous lion, or a herbivorous T rex.  

[Robert]

2 hours ago, Wingnut said:

I know you are illiterate at reading rocks, but the fossil record shows T rex was eating Triceratops long before the leaf fell off the tree, and the flower wilted.

Okay, you go with men's opinions and theories and I'll go with the word of God.  One leads to deception and eternal death the other to truth and eternal life.  Your choice. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6iss-xq2-E

[Robert]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

Okay, you go with men's opinions and theories and I'll go with the word of God.  One leads to deception and eternal death the other to truth and eternal life.  Your choice. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6iss-xq2-E

Then there are other very intelligent people who reject evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6ElA0--JNg

[8thdaypriest]

On 1/20/2016 at 6:27 PM, Wingnut said:

Rachel, nothing you said was radical, so I apologise.

What I was thinking of as being sad about Christian culture is how Paul encourages men to domineer their wives and children - like we need any encouragement.  I have seen this happen.  The fruit of this is bad.  Paul tells women to shut up and be in subjection.  Christ never said this.  Paul's words that there is neither male nor female ring hollow.  He calls women the weaker vessel.  The whole of 1 Pet 3 can be twisted to subjugate women.  Paul  chooses the example of Sarah calling Ab "lord".  What about the time the Lord told Ab to listen to Sarah?  And when Ab tells Sarah to deny being his wife - should one listen to such stupid husbandly advice.

 

I have been in subjection to many bosses.  If one does not want to listen to their nonsense one just says "Cheers" and leaves.

Its harder in marriage to do that.  But if men do not come up to scratch, women should be encouraged to fill that leadership vacuum.

Many marriages are like being trapped in a cult, under an abusive Christian cult leader.  Paul encourages this hierarchical blind obedience.

In the culture of Paul's day - the Greek culture - woman were given in marriage very young, most before puberty.  Wives were for producing one's OWN offspring - not for talking with.  The women were shut away from all social contact.  Men had mistresses for sexual pleasure and for talking with.  Men displayed their wealth on their mistresses, NOT on their wives.  The wives stayed home.  In the Greek society, there was a class of well educated prostitutes.  Many of these women came into the church, and were more educated than many of the men.  To allow these former prostitutes to teach and have authority in the newly formed church of Jesus, would have brought disrespect to the church.  Paul wanted them to assume a low profile. 

Greek wives on the other hand, having been shut away at their homes, were eager to socialize.  They always sat separately from the men, so you can imagine a hen party up in the balcony.  Paul may just have wanted them to be quiet, so as not to interfere with the service, or the teaching, and so they could actually learn something. 

I agree that some (so called Christian) men have used Paul's words to control and bully their wives. 

[8thdaypriest]

I have seen my large dogs - carnivores for the most part - eat leaves and grass.  They are actually particular, eating just certain ones at certain times. 

[Wingnut]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

In the culture of Paul's day - the Greek culture - woman were given in marriage very young, most before puberty.  Wives were for producing one's OWN offspring - not for talking with.  The women were shut away from all social contact.  Men had mistresses for sexual pleasure and for talking with.  Men displayed their wealth on their mistresses, NOT on their wives.  The wives stayed home.  In the Greek society, there was a class of well educated prostitutes.  Many of these women came into the church, and were more educated than many of the men.  To allow these former prostitutes to teach and have authority in the newly formed church of Jesus, would have brought disrespect to the church.  Paul wanted them to assume a low profile. 

Greek wives on the other hand, having been shut away at their homes, were eager to socialize.  They always sat separately from the men, so you can imagine a hen party up in the balcony.  Paul may just have wanted them to be quiet, so as not to interfere with the service, or the teaching, and so they could actually learn something. 

I agree that some (so called Christian) men have used Paul's words to control and bully their wives. 

What did Ellen say about women preaching?

 

[Wingnut]

2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

In the culture of Paul's day - the Greek culture - woman were given in marriage very young, most before puberty.  Wives were for producing one's OWN offspring - not for talking with.  The women were shut away from all social contact.  Men had mistresses for sexual pleasure and for talking with.  Men displayed their wealth on their mistresses, NOT on their wives.  The wives stayed home.  In the Greek society, there was a class of well educated prostitutes.  Many of these women came into the church, and were more educated than many of the men.  To allow these former prostitutes to teach and have authority in the newly formed church of Jesus, would have brought disrespect to the church.  Paul wanted them to assume a low profile. 

Greek wives on the other hand, having been shut away at their homes, were eager to socialize.  They always sat separately from the men, so you can imagine a hen party up in the balcony.  Paul may just have wanted them to be quiet, so as not to interfere with the service, or the teaching, and so they could actually learn something. 

I agree that some (so called Christian) men have used Paul's words to control and bully their wives. 

I will tell you why I disagree with your explanation Rachel.

One of the Wingnut rules of Biblical exegesis is this:  You only need whats in the Bible to understand the Bible.

Because you have to know so much external history of that time, I consider your explanation highly improbable.

If one has to know history AND the Bible, it opens a pandora's box.  Now one can never be sure what the Bible means, because it depends on my history grade.

[Wingnut]

10 minutes ago, jackson said:

Wingnut, You are doing the same thing to Moses as you have done to Paul. Whenever an inspired verse does not fit your world view you pass judgment on it as being either uninspired or misinterpreted by unenlightened people.

Gen 1:30 is clear, at Creation every living thing except man was to eat the herb of the field. But after sin man was also to include the herb of the field in his diet

Gen 3:18      Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 

Now we know by comparing scripture with scripture and not  scripture with science, as you are wont to do, that eating the herb of the field did not mean eating the herbs "second hand", for only late,r after the flood, did God  give man permission to add meat to his diet. . Obviously then, eating the herb of the field did not mean eating moving  living things second hand.

After the flood, we read in Gen  9:3        Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.  9:4    But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. 

True science and scripture are in harmony. When they are not, science (fallen man) is in error.

Here are a few pertinent quotes in the SOP that should be a warning to us not to let science trump scripture.

Sophistry of False Science.--We need to guard continually against the sophistry in regard to geology and other branches of science falsely so-called, which have not one semblance of truth. The theories of great men need to be carefully sifted of the slightest trace of infidel suggestions. One tiny seed sown by teachers in our schools, if received by the students, will raise a harvest of unbelief. The Lord has given all the brilliancy of intellect that man possesses, and it should be devoted to His service (RH March 1, 1898).

The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority,-- not one or all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord" in its support.  {GC88 595.1}

I have been warned that henceforth we shall have a constant contest. Science, so-called, and religion will be placed in opposition to each other, because finite beings do not comprehend the power and greatness of God.   Ev 593.1

Paul saw the same lack of faith in his day when he said:

1Tim 6:20     O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:   6:21      Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace [be] with thee. Amen. 

 

 

 

 

 

Jackson, who says the rocks are false science?

Are you aware of the strata being sorted as to their fossils?

Do you have an explanation for this?

Are you sure you understand what Gen 1:1-2 really are saying?

Do you say dinosaurs lived at the same time as Adam and Eve?