Stan

When Church leaders fail us...

225 posts in this topic

Thanks, Wanderer. Spelling with half a brain today

The Wanderer likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. Np. My correction came from the quarter brain I hsve left thst is in function mode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been suspicious of Kevin's “new scholarship” claims as he has never pointed to what this “new scholarship” is, or where it comes from. I have found the answers to that though, and I am going to point out what I have found.

Kevin has claimed again and again that the passage from 1Timothy 2 and 3 could not be trusted. He further said that “new scholarship” has shown that there was “translator bias” responsible for obscuring what Paul really meant to say. So, I started looking at different translations. I started out with 10 and not a single translation differed from the King James. I thought that a little suspicous as if bias occured surely other translators had seen this and put this supposed ambiguity found in the Greek into their translation. So, I expanded my search to 32 translations. Not a single one differed from what the King James says. This was making me really curious by this time so I expanded my search to all 55 Bible translations I have access to. I finally found 1 translation that said what Kevin has been alleging. He wants us to ignore the 54 translations that agree, and go with the single translation that disagrees. Huh? Can he be for real?

This Bible is called the “Open Bible” and was published in 2011. So, I did some research into this translation: who started it, who was involved in the translation team, what their purpose was in creating a new translation, etc... What I found is pretty interesting.

The project is not a translation as such. It uses as its basis a translation called the “Twentieth Century New Testament” based on the Wescott-Hort Greek manuscripts, which anyone who has paid any attention Bible translations knows has problems. 

What was the goal of this translation team? It was to create an ideologically driven translation to support the political agenda of the “council” created to guide this process. In other words, it was created to fulfill an agenda, not to follow truth wherever it led. This means there were many presuppositions put in place before the process started. 

The leader, and originator of the project is a guy named Hal Taussig. Who is this man? He is a founding member of the Jesus Seminar, a project dedicated to debunking the Bible. This project denies the virgin birth of Christ. It denies his resurrection. (The founder says Christ's body was buried and dug up and eaten by dogs.)It denies that miracles are real. It denies that Divine inspiration exists. It has it's own color-coded Bible that marks the the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels with color according to how they have classified Christ's sayings. It has 5 classes ranging from Jesus most likely or did say what the Bible says, to Jesus could not have said it. Only 20% of the sayings of Jesus are marked as very likely to have been said by Jesus. 

One of their reasonings, I should say, presuppostions, is that since miracles cannot occur Jesus could never have said anything that took place during the performance of His miracles. Thus most of His sayings have to be false. The leader of the project says Jesus was a Jewish stand-up comic.

This keeps on going and I will provide a link at the end of this that shows all of this, but I think it's very clear by this time that this so-called “scholarship” is of Satanic origin for it denies the divinity of Christ when it denies the virgin birth, denies the originator of the Bible, denies it's divine inspiration, etc.... 

This is Kevin's claim to be using “new scholarship”. The results of this so-called “scholarship” is utter blasphemy and nothing but sophistry straight from the devil. However, this is not “new”. It's been around for 250-300 years. It rose out of the French Revolution, which was at war with God, and then spread to the leadership of the German Lutheran church who embraced this philosophy fully and implemented into their church. The philosophy is called Rationalism and I will give a short summation of what the proponents of this so-called scholarship held forth. They denied miracles. They denied the virgin birth of Christ. They denied His resurrection. They denied that Divine inspiration exists. As an example of their reasoning the inspiration of Isaiah was said to be no 
different than the inspiration of Homer, although Homer was given higher marks because he wrote in Greek rather than in Hebrew.

Once again this is clearly of Satanic origin for it denies the divinity of Christ as well as the possibility of there being such a thing as Divine inspiration. For a peek at where this led the Lutheran church in Germany read Eric Metaxas' book on Deitrich Bonhoeffer. In his day, pre-World War 2, the leading Luthern theologians denied the existence of God. 

Now, to claim that the pioneers of the SDA church were involved in this is patently false. Rationalism is the reason the Loud Cry was met with so much hatred, scorn, and mockery. The pioneers of the church were called too “ignorant” to understand Rationalism. Sounds just like the cries I hear today.

Ellen White said we are to study the writings of the pioneers of the church to see how they handled all the error and sophistry they had to deal with so that we could understand what we would face in what was at Ellen White's day, the future. Well, the future is now. We see all the same sophistry being repeated all over again. 

For documentation of what I said about Rationalism you can download a booklet written by a Millerite named N.N. Whiting. He started out as a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, then became a Baptist. He was a well-educated man who was known for his skills as a linguist. The book is titled “Origin, Nature, and Influence of Neology”. You can download it from adventpioneerbooks.com, as well as quite a number of other early SDA/Millerite authors including William Miller, J.N. Andrews, John Loughborough, E.J. Waggoner, A.T. Jones, James White, etc.... It's a very good, and eyeopening read.

Here is the link to the expose on the Jesus Seminar, although what they have said over the years is public knowledge for I can remember hearing news blurbs about what they had to say as the press has faithfully reported a lot of their nonsense.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t017.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joeb: I point out that my study has been in Biblical history from those sinful schools of Atlantic Union College, The Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, and the Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies.

My studies in the languages have much to be desired.

However the translation I pointed out is what our Seventh-day Adventist leaders from Andrews University has pointed out about the text in some of the discussions and studies that the Seventh-day Adventist church has done in looking at the topic. Since this reflects comments from Seventh-day Adventist leaders who side on both sides of this issue, I thought it would be safe to share. I'm just the messenger.

phkrause and Jai Saligan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joeb, my thinking is that you have misrepsented what Kevin has actually said.

However, I will leave it to Kevin as to what he says about this as I may be wrong.

The Wanderer, rudywoofs (Pam) and Kevin H like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joeb: Sadly after the Powerscourt conferences Biblical Scholarship split into two directions; the Modernists/Peterists who believed that the Bible is only from natural origin, and only dealt with current events, maybe projecting those current events into the past and made up a history that they believe never happened. They do not believe in miracles or a personal/active God and often are atheists. This is where the "Jesus Seminars" and "Reason" that Joeb is falsely accusing me and our Seventh-day Adventist colleges of teaching.  Joeb you are trying to force all scholarship into this category and thus you can simply dismiss what I share here.

The other direction it went has been into the Fundamentalists/Dispensationalists, which was a reaction to the above but gets into the other ditch. Sadly this one has crept into our church despite Mrs. White, Willie White, A. G. Daniels, W.W. Prescott and others have been fighting it.

Our schools try to carry on the tradition of the Powerscourt conference which with Millerism was the last high point of Historisim. I do not claim any type of "New Scholarship" thus you are LYING about me. What we have are new discoveries about the ancient world where we have a better understanding of culture, geography, language. These discoveries do not need to be filtered through" the Wescott-Hort Greek manuscripts" or "Open Bible" or "Rationalism" etc. I know that we do sometimes have our professors who get a little too mixed with Modernism/Preterism and even more common get a little too mixed with "Fundamentalism" even though we tend to do a good job of avoiding "dispensationalism" But our professors and schools do try to build on the  work of the historisists scholars before us. It is the same scholarship that you can read about in the articles of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible commentary, only with information that was not yet known when the commentary was written, but the methods used in the SDABC.

Joeb, I'm sorry but you owe me and our Seventh=day Adventist schools an apology and you really should pray and ask God to forgive you of giving false witness against us.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2016 at 9:54 AM, pierrepaul said:

The Catholics have the doctrine of apostolic succession whereby only bishops can ordain priests, and thus theoretically every priest can trace his ordination from a line of ordained bishops all the way back to Peter. With our byzantine rules and regulations and our own version of "canon law", it seems we have the same sort of tradition for the SdA professional clergy - we're just missing the robes and the funny hats.

and the red shoes

Kevin H and Jai Saligan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5-10-2016 at 7:26 PM, Stan said:

It would be a huge thing to me if this was not a trivial item, and I know calling it trivial will seem insulting to some, but it is not.

 

So a conference thinks that women should be able to organize and close Churches.  that is about the only difference between a Commission Pastor and an Ordained...  for that they are willing to risk splitting the Church

 

I say leave the Unions and Conferences alone, if they grow than good, if they fail to grow the mission of the Church then they need to re evaluate. The proof will be in the pudding.

 

Not difficult to me.

Jehova Witnesses are growing ; says nothing.to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2016 at 11:06 PM, Kevin H said:

Well, for starters Paul uses those titles for women in the book of Romans. The anti-ordination people spend a lot of time trying to explain away those texts. Second it has been pointed out many times that 1 Timothy3:2, which has been translated with the translator's bias as "The husband of one wife" but that the actual Greek simply says "One man/women" meaning simply monogamist relationship not assigning the sex of the Bishop but only that the Bishop and spouse needs to be in a monogamist relationship.

The anti-ordination people do a lot of their own tap dancing around the texts they don't like, so you can't just blame us.

 

Kevin, context is to be observed here. You are flagrantly omitting it in your example.

Paul said: 

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in child-bearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety (1 Timothy – 15).

There is no gender neutrality in these verses for Paul is quite clear in contrasting the roles of women and men.

Now we go to the two verse that immediately follow and read:

This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 1 Tim 3:1-2

Taking the context of Paul's discourse here, why in the world would anyone claim that that the noun gender in the last two verses is more neutral than the first 3 verses?

Surely you must other verses more worthy of serious consideration

The Wanderer likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, jackson said:

Kevin, context is to be observed here. You are flagrantly omitting it in your example.

Paul said: 

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in child-bearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety (1 Timothy – 15).

There is no gender neutrality in these verses for Paul is quite clear in contrasting the roles of women and men.

Now we go to the two verse that immediately follow and read:

This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 1 Tim 3:1-2

Taking the context of Paul's discourse here, why in the world would anyone claim that that the noun gender in the last two verses is more neutral than the first 3 verses?

Surely you must other verses more worthy of serious consideration

3The sons of Israel cried to the LORD; for he had nine hundred iron chariots, and he oppressed the sons of Israel severely for twenty years. 4Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. 5She used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment.… Judges 4

This verse might give some clarification to God's willingness to ordain who He is willing to ordain for use in ministering. :D   :prayer:  :offtobed:

Kevin H likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the repost. for some reason it would not let me add a new post without first reposting that video. But I do hope you find it useful.

Anyway, as we are remembering the birth of Jesus during this season, we find that Shepherds came to him when he was born. Did you know that in the middle east Shepherds were 70% to 80% women?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jackson said:

Kevin, context is to be observed here. You are flagrantly omitting it in your example.

Paul said: 

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in child-bearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety (1 Timothy – 15).

There is no gender neutrality in these verses for Paul is quite clear in contrasting the roles of women and men.

Now we go to the two verse that immediately follow and read:

This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 1 Tim 3:1-2

Taking the context of Paul's discourse here, why in the world would anyone claim that that the noun gender in the last two verses is more neutral than the first 3 verses?

Surely you must other verses more worthy of serious consideration

Jackson, as I've repeated over and over, my study has been in the history and geography of the Bible. My language study has much to be desired. You are asking questions that those with better language skills than I have can deal with. I know that they have dealt with them. I have shared with you some of what I have been reading on what they point out. But again that is sharing what others have been pointing out. I think that I will talk about different historical events and cultural events where it appears that Paul is not practicing what he is apparently preaching in these verses. And since linguists show different possibilities for understanding these texts where Paul's actions would not be in contradiction, I tend to lean towards the language understanding that is in harmony with Paul's and Jesus' and Adventist Pioneer's actions and not where Paul does not practice what he preaches, and Jesus and our pioneers actions contradict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LifeHiscost said:

3The sons of Israel cried to the LORD; for he had nine hundred iron chariots, and he oppressed the sons of Israel severely for twenty years. 4Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. 5She used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment.… Judges 4

This verse might give some clarification to God's willingness to ordain who He is willing to ordain for use in ministering. :D   :prayer:  :offtobed:

The Bible tells us that Deborah was a "prophetess" but says nothing about her being "ordained" as in the sense that "ordained" is being referred to in this topic. It was not by any civil authority conferred upon her, but as a prophetess, that Deborah was kept busy on a daily basis, correcting abuses and redressing grievances. In Judges 4:4, when it says "she dwelt" it literally means , “she sat,” that is, on the judge’s seat. Her favorite place for hearing cases was under a tree between Ramah and Bethel (see also 1 Sam. 1:1). This seems to have been in the vicinity of the famous “tree of mourning,” under which Rachel’s nurse, Deborah, was buried (Gen. 35:8). This type of courtroom allowed people the freest access to her, and this is where they “came up to her for judgment.” Nothing to do here with "ordination." This text is a good example to help explain to people how the gift of prophecy can and does occur in a given church. Evidently, God had inspired Deborah, but there is no mention anywhere of Deborah being "ordained." It is also a very good passage to show what happens when church leaders DO NOT fail us.

Quote

For twenty years, the Israelites groaned under the yoke of the oppressor; then they turned from their idolatry, and with humiliation and repentance cried unto the Lord for deliverance. They did not cry in vain. There was dwelling in Israel a woman illustrious for her piety, and through her the Lord chose to deliver His people. Her name was Deborah. She was known as a prophetess, and in the absence of the usual magistrates, the people had sought to her for counsel and justice.{DG 37.2}

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

Sorry for the repost. for some reason it would not let me add a new post without first reposting that video. But I do hope you find it useful.

Anyway, as we are remembering the birth of Jesus during this season, we find that Shepherds came to him when he was born. Did you know that in the middle east Shepherds were 70% to 80% women?

It didn't take her long to start using the word  "probably."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On November 30, 2016 at 9:55 PM, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

Joeb was saying (I think) that there isn't anything in the church nowadays that can't be gotten outside of the church.  The church has become a means for displaying "correct" behavior and ideas on the one hand, and complacent minimalizing behavior on the other.  I don't think it's offered Spirit-filled fellowship and interaction for decades and decades and decades, if indeed it ever has.  Yes, there's some "feel good" congregations, with all the soft fuzzies.  But is that preparing anyone for the 2nd coming?  Is it?  Really?  .... not much.

The church isn't offering people, members nor nonmembers, *hope*.  Oh yes, a watered down hope is offered by platitudes that all Christian churches spout from the pulpit.  But people need to understand that the Hope in Christ is REAL.   Hope that this present life isn't all there is.  Hope that suffering will end with something great and spectacular beyond that.  Hope that the futility that haunts so many people's lives isn't an end to to all ends.  

And it's not just the poor or sick who need the Hope.  The church is not "grabbing" those with apparent prosperous and successful lives and showing them that the church has something to offer *them*.... 

I think God brought about the Seventh-day Adventist church as a vehicle to show the world what the early Christian church was like... how Christians were supposed to behave towards one another and towards God.  But look what it's become:  the church is now known for its infighting on something as ridiculous (yes, I said *ridiculous*) as to whether women should be ordained.  What a colossal waste of time, money, and energy.  And Satan is just absolutely delighted with the whole affair.  What better way to keep the Light of Hope away from people than by placing in the minds of the church membership a counterfeit "church issue" to contend with.  Yeah...Satan's just delighted.  The Adventist Church has lost its way.

I sometimes just want to get up on a soapbox and tell the church exactly what I think.

 

Just reviewing what Pam said above (again) in response to Joeb: May I posit that the soap box is the Word and that it is no three legged stool but a rock that will never fail. I have delivered a few sermons on the like matter in the past years, half the church shook my hand, half berated me for making people uncomfortable but both groups do nothing about it in general. :( and the Virgins continue to sleep.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanderer:  Just how many people do you find being ordained in the Bible? 

Maybe you might say that there was the laying on of hands of Barnabas and Saul. So does this mean that no other disciples were ordained? If you want to include the disciples as being ordained then you need to be open to all 82 disciples being ordained and the possibility that there were women in that group. You will have to explain away the controversy in Jesus' day about women rabbis and why Jesus allowed Mary to sit were only rabbis and rabbinical students were allowed to sit instead of making her stand with the other lay members, or join Martha in her protest against women rabbis.

As for Deborah, she was NOT just a prophet but she was a Judge. The book of Judges has 12 stories of Judges, one from each tribe and one anti-judge.  We know from Samuel that these were not the only 12 judges and the time of the judges do not add up for a nice string between Joshua and Saul.  The book is simply where a story was written about just one Judge from each tribe.  Until the Samuel Compromise the Judges combined the office of prophet (or more technical, seer), priest and king. When the people wanted a king, then Samuel separated the 3 offices where a King was never to be a priest or do any priestly functions.

It is only in Jesus where we again find the role of Judge where Prophet, Priest and King are again united.

LifeHiscost likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Many have felt, ‘Well, it doesn’t matter if we are not so particular to become thoroughly educated,’ and a lower standard of knowledge has been accepted. And now when suitable men are wanted to fill various positions of trust, they are rare; when women are wanted with well-balanced minds, with not a cheap style of education, but with an education fitting them for any position of trust, they are not easily found.” Fundamentals of Christian Education, 118.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

Wanderer:  Just how many people do you find being ordained in the Bible? 

Maybe you might say that there was the laying on of hands of Barnabas and Saul. So does this mean that no other disciples were ordained? If you want to include the disciples as being ordained then you need to be open to all 82 disciples being ordained and the possibility that there were women in that group. You will have to explain away the controversy in Jesus' day about women rabbis and why Jesus allowed Mary to sit were only rabbis and rabbinical students were allowed to sit instead of making her stand with the other lay members, or join Martha in her protest against women rabbis.

As for Deborah, she was NOT just a prophet but she was a Judge. The book of Judges has 12 stories of Judges, one from each tribe and one anti-judge.  We know from Samuel that these were not the only 12 judges and the time of the judges do not add up for a nice string between Joshua and Saul.  The book is simply where a story was written about just one Judge from each tribe.  Until the Samuel Compromise the Judges combined the office of prophet (or more technical, seer), priest and king. When the people wanted a king, then Samuel separated the 3 offices where a King was never to be a priest or do any priestly functions.

Please note that I did not say Deborah was "just a prophet." I also was not intending to comment on "the rest of the Bible" and what it says about the subject at hand. I commented, specifically in relation to the text I cited from Judges 4. And nowhere does it say that Deborah was ordained. Its really just that simple.

Einstein once said: "make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." Seems like a good "hermeneutic" to me here. :)

Jai Saligan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

“Many have felt, ‘Well, it doesn’t matter if we are not so particular to become thoroughly educated,’ and a lower standard of knowledge has been accepted. And now when suitable men are wanted to fill various positions of trust, they are rare; when women are wanted with well-balanced minds, with not a cheap style of education, but with an education fitting them for any position of trust, they are not easily found.” Fundamentals of Christian Education, 118.

This says nothing about "ordination." Its really, just that simple. Although; I suppose, it could, in some cases, include it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Please note that I did not say Deborah was "just a prophet." I also was not intending to comment on "the rest of the Bible" and what it says about the subject at hand. I commented, specifically in relation to the text I cited from Judges 4. And nowhere does it say that Deborah was ordained. Its really just that simple.

Einstein once said: "make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." Seems like a good "hermeneutic" to me here. :)

Where does it say that anyone was ordained?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kevin H said:

Where does it say that anyone was ordained?

Kevin

I appreciate your comments and opinions. Bear in mind, that I did not comment one way or the other, as in for or against "ordination" of any kind. It is unfair to try to pigeon hole someone into an opinion that they never gave. I commented on the text from Judges 4 to make the several points I made, with no intentions of offering an opinion on the subject of "ordination" except to say that the text cited supposedly "for" ordination, also does not mention the subject at all. My post was clear, and concise, and did not "suggest" anything else. This text in Judges 4 is a poor choice to "prove" ordination of any kind. Its really just that simple. Conversely, Judges 4 is an excellent way to illustrate for people how the gift of prophecy, or the spirit of prophecy can and does occur in a given church. This, and any other text should only be recognized for what it is, not for what we want to impose upon it as did LHC in the post I replied to.

Kevin H likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

Mega Footer

You can configure this content inside your ACP under Customization > Edit > Mega Footer.

Mega Footer

You can configure this content inside your ACP under Customization > Edit > Mega Footer.