Women Pastors

[alon]

Jul 22, 2016 2:14:47 GMT -8 mystic said:

Back to the original topic at hand, yesterday at our appointment Doctor B [my son's Psych] told me he is an Orthodox Rabbi and blindsided me with some info. He said Leviticus 11 was referring ONLY to the Jews so there isn't any unclean meats or any food requirements for Gentiles as far as G-d [thanks Elizabeth ] is concerned, what say you guys?

OK, that explains a lot then if he is Orthodox. Many Jews, and particularly the Orthodox do not see believers in Yeshua as being Joined to Israel. They do not think we should keep or anything they consider Jewish- or anything they think God gave to them specifically. They think we should only keep the Noachide laws, all of which are found in the Bible but which are actually enumerated in Talmud. He would believe it is sin for you to keep any of the commandments he believes were given only to the Jews perfectly. He is wrong, as both Elizabeth and kepha have pointed out.

Orthodox Jews believe and the Talmud, which is commentary on are the absolute authority. Talmud, and particularly its interpretation by certain men, are authoritative over everything else including the rest of the TNK (Old Testament). And while your Rabbi is certainly familiar with it he of course doesn't believe the New Testament holds any authority. So he wouldn't believe Rav Sha'ul's discourse on believers being grafted into the olive tree which represents Israel is true.

Before the diaspora, a person was saved by actually joining themselves to the nation of Israel; making the God of Israel their God and following the customs of the Jews. Even after the Nots'rim sect had to leave the revolt because they refused to kneel and swear Bar Kochba to be the messiah (for which they were blamed for the loss of that rebellion by the rest of Judaism)- but even then Gentiles coming into the faith were brought into a Jewish religion, worshiping in synagogues and keeping Jewish customs and especially keeping . The church, then in its formative stages and completely apart from the Nots'rim sect of Judaism was then turning the Word of God inside out, destroying the Jewishness of anyone claiming to follow their new version of Messiah Yeshua. This is where most Jews pigeon-holed all believers, including the Nots'rim. So your Orthodox friend still sees us today, even though we eschew Christian beliefs and uphold . He would believe that the only way you should follow is to convert to mainstream Judism, and he would discourage you from doing even that.

The main thing is to realize that these are his opinions based on Talmud and a very narrow interpretation of . It is not supported by the Bible and particularly not . However men have been interpreting the Word to mean what they want it to every since it was written. His is part of the Jewish thinking, and in particular Orthodox thinking that we try to overcome and put away. You as a believer in Yeshua/Jesus are grafted into Judaism and made heir to the promises given the Jews. (Romans 11). Christianity, while paying lip service to this chapter do not practice it. And Judaism discourages it. We however embrace it as truth. We are saved as it has always been by joining ourselves to the God of Jews, and therefore to His people; and we therefore keep . Cristians don't like it and Orthodox Jews hate it. But it has been so since the Exodus when Gentiles left Egypt with the Jews and believed in El Elohe Yisro'el- the God of Israel. God doesn't change, and what He expects of us does not change either.

Dan C

[alon]

Jul 28, 2016 10:31:53 GMT -8 mystic said:

A chrsitian responded to me with this:

The OT dietary law was specific for the Jews. The NT commands are for us. Notice in verse 15 of Acts 10 it says, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." God indicates He has cleansed those things which were once declared unclean.

And my reply to him is the same: "read*it*in*CONTEXT!"

Reading the entire chapter and the first part of the next chapter, God clearly tells him TWICE what God Himself was talking about.

This is the problem with Christians (and I know because I was raised a Baptist PK); but you have to keep repeating yourself to them. They have been so indoctrinated with false interpretations of scripture based on just one verse taken entirely out of context, they simply cannot take in the whole Word. They just keep focusing on bits and pieces of the Word and repeating their mantra that the Old Testament was for the Jews. Nowhere does it say that in the entire Bible! Yeshua Himself did say "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Mat 5:18). He did not say anything was now or ever was to be changed in until heaven and earth pass away. Which means nothing is or ever will be changed. If he denies that (and he will) challenge him to show you in scripture where it clearly says any part of was annulled or amended.

Those promises and curses, the instructions in , are a covenant between God and all men. There were Gentiles at Sinai when God gave the , and they all accepted it. So it was not even given to just Jews. And nowhere does it say Gentiles are not held accountable to . It does say one law for everyone:

Num 15:16 (KJV)  One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.

Everyone else were goyim, pagans, of the nations. They worshiped false gods and idols. Today we would say they are unsaved, since very few people live set apart lives like the Jews did in their own land.  

Another thing to ask your Christian friend is does he believe the Ten Commandments are still applicable? (He will say they are.) Then ask him how it is he gets to pick and choose what he will obey from . Take Shabbath; where in the Bible did God change the day of worship from Shabbath to Sunday on the pagan calendar? It's not there. This was changed by the catholic church over time until finally made law by Constantine. See, this is what is important to Christians is their traditions, all of which are perversions and heresies made by men, then taught  to and indoctrinated into others. So he does not see the lie; he thinks what he is telling you is true. But that does not change the fact that this was a lie when first made up by men (under the influence of ha'satan) and it is still a lie, no matter how many times it is retold or how many believe it. You'll have to tell him several times, walking him through it slowly for him to see it. And he may never see it. But that is not on you as long as you tried your best. It is on you however as to whether you accept the truth as it is plainly laid out in scripture.

Dan C

edit: let's talk about covenants. They cannot be changed except to be added to when all parties agree. You cannot remove any part except when the entire covenant has been completed. This is why the church says they have a "New Testament" instead of a renewed covenant. A Testament is a legal document, and legal documents can be changed. It is also why they insist on calling God's instructions "laws." They want to unilaterally make changes to what was given at Sinai to Moshe, and to do that they have to have "old laws" and a "New Testament." ... More lies: since when does man get to unilaterally change what God said?

And do you see the difference? Two points of view from which they and we interpret the Bible. Our way says the covenant our forefathers made at Sinai and the provisions added to it by God when they transgressed are binding today as they were then. From the Christian point of view, a testament can be amended by a court, so the popes and the Emperor Constantine could change whatever they wanted and that is what is binding on the Christian.

[alon]

Jul 28, 2016 11:32:55 GMT -8 kepha said:

They were not called Jews, true enough. However they were divided into the twelve tribes at that time. Recall that whenever they encamped in the wilderness they were organized by tribes.

Here's another take on whether Gentiles are subject to ; and this from

Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, a Calvinist, Orthodox Presbyterian minister and Christian Reconstructionist said in an article for the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics: "When God promulgated His moral will through the Mosaic law, how much of mankind did He consider accountable to keep that law? From Paul's standpoint the answer was obvious: "Now we know that whatever things the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped and all the world maybe brought under the judgment of God" (Romans 3:19), God declared His righteous standards to Israel, and through Israel to all the world, thereby stopping every mouth and bringing all men, Jew and Gentile alike, under judgment. "Whatever things the law says," therefore, it says to the whole of mankind. Precisely for this reason Paul could "lay to the charge both of Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.... There is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (vv. 11,23)."

That kind of puts a big exclamation point on what we've said.

Dan C

[kepha]

Let me tell you a story that made me realize that 99% of the people you talk to or try to show the truth to won't believe you.
One of our Elders from Yisra'el was at a seminar in the USA. After the seminar Elder Andrew had a discussion with some one about the per-existence of Yeshua and that Yeshua was the co-Creator with the Father, and that He came to earth many times before, but in His full Divinity, as the Messenger of YHWH and part of YHWH family. Andrew showed this man scripture after scripture to proof this and still after seeing for himself out of the Bible this guy said to Elder Andrew " I don't care what the Bible say, I will never believe Yeshua existed in the OT." and Andrews answer was "Thank you for your time" and he closed his bible and left.

When I first came to the truth my family thought I was losing the plot, as the months went by and I grew more in the truth and in the knowledge of it and living it, it now came to point where they don't ask their pastor any more if they want to know some thing from scripture they don't understand, no, they ask me. Just by living as far as possible according to the truth. And by Giving all the praise to Elohim. Hallelu Yah

[alon]

mystic's Christian friend said:

First of all, in Acts 10, Peter himself explains the vision in verse 28. This vision had nothing to do with food, but people. Second, in the OT, food regulations were for separation for various reasons, only one being health. (Science continues to prove the Bible.) During the Black Plague in Europe, a lot of the Jews were not affected by it because they followed the rules for cleanliness. As a result, they were persecuted and killed because it was thought they were putting the sickness on others. But NOW, we are not under the law, meaning what we eat doesn't determine our salvation. Don't be like the religious Pharisees, putting burdens on yourself and others because of food. Eat according to your conscience. You will find this in Romans chapter 14. Basically, in verses 22-23, it says to keep what you believe between you and God, and make sure you eat from faith, because everything that does not come from faith is sin. The Bible also tells us that God has given us all things richly to enjoy, AND that our food is sanctified by the word and prayer, AND that food should be received (eat what is set before you) with thanksgiving.

And I need to add, I just heard a message from Billye Brim. The OT was not written for the gentiles. Romans 14 also says to not put stumbling blocks in our brother's way. And verse 17 says "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."

"First of all, in Acts 10, Peter himself explains the vision in verse 28. This vision had nothing to do with food, but people."-- Absolutely correct.

"Second, in the OT, food regulations were for separation for various reasons, only one being health. (Science continues to prove the Bible.) During the Black Plague in Europe, a lot of the Jews were not affected by it because they followed the rules for cleanliness. As a result, they were persecuted and killed because it was thought they were putting the sickness on others."-- Again correct.

"But NOW, we are not under the law, meaning what we eat doesn't determine our salvation."-- The "law" never determined anyone's salvation. Salvation is and always has been by the grace of God through our trust in Him.

Eph 2:8  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Rom 4:3  For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

"Don't be like the religious Pharisees, putting burdens on yourself and others because of food. Eat according to your conscience. You will find this in Romans chapter 14. Basically, in verses 22-23, it says to keep what you believe between you and God, and make sure you eat from faith, because everything that does not come from faith is sin."-- Again, you have to read these things in context and with eyes opened and brain engaged to do more than parrot Christian dogma:

Romans 14:19-23 (NASB)  So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.  Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.  It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.  The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.  But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

Rav Sha'ul was talking about keeping peace within a brotherhood where there were many new converts at different stages of learning and accepting . And Christians somehow always miss that last verse there. If you are learning , and you are convicted about what you eat, you may doubt and rationalize and play mind games and say "but the pastor said ..." but if you doubt and eat it anyhow, you have sinned.

"The Bible also tells us that God has given us all things richly to enjoy, AND that our food is sanctified by the word and prayer, AND that food should be received (eat what is set before you) with thanksgiving."-- As has already been pointed out, all things were given, but many are either too nasty or poisonous and so we wouldn't eat them anyhow. So his argument sort of self destructs right there. And I'd like to see his scriptural reference for pork being sanctified by prayer. I'll agree that whatever we do eat we should give thanks for. But telling Elohim you are thankful for this honey-glazed pig is kind of an insult.

"Billye Brim. The OT was not written for the gentiles."-- BB doesn't know how to engage his mind past repeating Christian dogma either. Think about it- there were no Jews until the Exodus! Did Job know of and understand about God? Was his story in the "Old Testament?"? Did God give instructions to Noach on how to build a better boat? And what to put in that boat? There were no Jews on that boat ... . Did yeshua and two other malachim (meaasengers/angels) appear to Avraham? Did the two go to Sodom? There were no Jews in either Avraham's camp OR in Sodom. Let's change tack for a bit ... does Billye believe the Ten Commandments are for Christians? Does he think there are no lessons in that "OT" that Christians can learn from? Or does Billye Brim just want you to send him money- 'cause I'll tell you plainly, if that is the case he is going to tickle your ears until you say "whoopee" and write him a check! 

I won't even respond to the rest of BB's comments because I don't suffer fools or ha'satan's spokesmen gladly. And he is one or the other.

Dan C

edit: I got to thinking about it, and I might seem a bit harsh towards Billye Brim. But men like this, with his just foolish doctrine really bother me. They get a spot on TV or the net or whatever and they come across all knowledgeable. But really simple logic will destroy most of what they say; and the rest can usually be destroyed by saying "read that back to me in context!" I'm no genius, nor am I a great (or otherwise) theologian. I have to look up most of the scripture I give you all here. I know it's there somewhere, but I can't even find my Bible half the time, let alone a particular scripture. But the information is there, and these men should know it! And if I can find it and read and understand it, why can't some of these men with mega-churches and mega-audiences and mega-degrees? I've argued these things with men with Masters in Theology degrees, and have answered every question or challenge. They have yet to answer mine. And it is simply I look it up and let God argue the case for me. I try to do it by correspondence, because I want time to make sure I am accurate. But in person I simply say "Let's read that in context" and it works almost every time. So why can't they do this before getting up and telling people silly things like the Old Testament wasn't written for Gentiles? Gentiles were and are goyim, of the nations other than Yisro'el. Another term for this is "pagans." And they remain that way until they are joined to Yisro'el and worship El Elohe Yisro'el. Read Romans 11 if you don't think Gentiles are still adopted into Yisro'el/grafted into their family (I just looked that up ). That folks makes you a Jew. Because I don't care what anyone else says, who God says is a Jew IS a Jew! And if Billye isn't a Jew he isn't saved, according to Paul who spoke with the authority of God. So once again, even if he were right and the Old Testament wasn't written for Gentiles (and he isn't); but even if he was, it's either for him as an adopted Jew or he is not saved! And more bad news for Billye- to be unsaved is to be "under the law;" being Jewish actually frees you from the law because you are keeping the law and no longer under its condemnation. We try our best and grace takes care of the rest. But the law condemns him every time he eats his "Sunday" ham; because he read the law (or at least should have before lecturing others on it) and decided he knew better than God!

Sorry for the rant, but like I said men like this really get to me because they lead so many astray who are truly seeking. The other person you were talking to is simply deceived by the dogma he's been taught in church. I truly hope you can open his eyes. But Billye ... well, I think I said enough there.

[alon]

I was curious to see if I was correct, so at the risk of having to admit an error I looked up Billye Brimm. I did make one mistake; Billye is not a man. I should have known from the spelling "Billye" I suppose that it was a woman. But "she" is a minister with an extensive internet ministry and following. And she does of course ask for donations. And "she" does pastor a church in the Ozarks. She also apparently received instructions from the H-ly Sp-r-t (I find it difficult to associate any name for G-d with her) to set up an internet store. And she is still wrong and leading many people straight into damnation. She is doubly wrong because, as has been discussed, she has no business pastoring a church.

2 Peter 2:17-19 (NASB) These are springs without water and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved.  For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error,  promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved.

And if anyone thinks I am being judgemental, consider that we are commanded to judge!

Luke 17:3 (NASB)  Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.

Ephesians 5:11 (NASB)  Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them;

1 Corinthians 6:2-6 (NASB) Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts?  Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?  So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church?  I say this to your . Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren,  but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?

And Yeshua Himself said:

Matthew 5:17-20 (NASB)   “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.  For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

mystic, her righteousness doesn't even surpass yours, since you are searching for the truth. But be careful where you look for it.

Dan C

edit: I've said this here before, but since Billye would undoubtedly say "Jesus fulfilled the law, so it is no longer applicable," I'll say it again.

ful•fill‌ ‌or ‌‌ful•fil‌ (fʊlˈfɪl)
‌‌ 1. ‌ to carry out, or bring to realization, as a prophecy or promise.
‌ 2. ‌ to perform or do, as duty; obey or follow, as commands.
‌ 3. ‌ to satisfy (requirements, obligations, etc.): ‌ to fulfill a long-felt need.‌
‌ 4. ‌ to bring to an end; finish or complete, as a period of time.
‌ 5. ‌ to develop the full potential of (usu. used reflexively): ‌ to fulfill oneself in charitable work.

Christianity takes one possible definition of that word, #4, and builds their doctrine that the law was done away with on that one definition in that one verse, Mat 5:17. But, read the whole thing in context: “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." We look at this whole passage and say that definition #1 is far more likely the intended meaning; probably with connotations of defs #2 and #3 and even #5. Because when Yeshua says #4 is not the one, we tend to believe Him. And when He tells us not to teach it or there will be consequences, well, we'd as soon avoid those, and we are about obedience anyhow, so we don't teach that here.

But what of the definition of the word translated here "abolish" in the English translation of the Greek translation of that scripture?

G2647  καταλύω  kataluō  kat-al-oo'-o From G2596 and G3089; to loosen down (disintegrate), that is, (by implication) to demolish (literally or figuratively); specifically (compare G2646) to halt for the night: - destroy, dissolve, be guest, lodge, come to nought, overthrow, throw down.

So not one letter will be eradicated (abolished) from the law, according to Yeshua Himself: how do you get a doctrine that the law was done away with from that? Simple: you take the scripture out of context and mistranslate it for the ignorant for centuries, then you keep brainwashing their offspring even though they know how to read and have the Word themselves; and voila! You have your minions believing a lie! And you make sure, if you are ha'satan, that you have your Billye Brims preaching that lie to the masses. So I was correct in my judgement: she is an agent of the enemy.

I'm sorry if I seem to be flogging a dead horse here, but these kinds of teachings and this kind of teacher really get to me. I've been around them all my life, and even discerning Christians don't like them. I probably get that from my mom, a fine Christian woman who doesn't understand why I'm doing this either. But I've seen her give looks that wilted and silenced some of these people like Billye. And I am serious; you could watch them just shrink just from her glare. Being a rebellious child back then, I was amused. But now I understand. So in my defense, I come by it naturally, and I have a lot of atoning to do before Mom ...

[alon]

Just for the sake of understanding, and since that passage is a definitive one for both Christianity and Messianism, I got to looking at all the terms Yeshua used in that passage. It is kind of an eye opener:

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy (G2647) the law, (G3551) or the prophets: (G4396) I am not  come to destroy, (G2647) but to fulfil. (G4137)

 
Mat 5:18 For verily I say (G3004) unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot (G2503) or one tittle (G2762) shall in no wise pass from the law, (G3551) till all be fulfilled. (G1096)

 
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break (G3089) one of these break (G3089) commandments, (G1785) and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: (G3772) but whosoever shall do (G4160) and  teach (G1321) them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (G3772)

 
Mat 5:20 For I say (G3004) unto you, That except your righteousness (G1343) shall exceed (G4052 ...) the righteousness of the scribes (G1122) and Pharisees, (G5330) ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

destroy (G2647)  kataluō   to loosen down (disintegrate), that is, (by implication) to demolish (literally or figuratively); ..., come to nought, overthrow, throw down.

So we are not to think Yeshua came to destroy or throw down the law, or to bring it to naught.

law (G3551) nomos  ...; law (through the idea of prescriptive usage), generally (regulation), specifically (of Moses [including the volume]; also of the Gospel), or figuratively (a principle): - law.

Specifically He did not come to destroy the Law of Moshe.

prophets (G4396)  prophētēs  ... an inspired speaker; by extension a poet: - prophet.

The only prophets at the time Yeshua said this were Himself (to whom He did not appear to refer) and those of the "Old Testament," to wit, the TNK; a.k.a. Jewish guys who spoke with the authority of YHVH.

fulfil (G4137) plēroō  ... (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), ... accomplish, ..., (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.

So Yeshua apparently came to fill an office which would make complete many of the things foretold by those Jewish guys (the ones with God's authority).

say (G3004) legō  ...; properly to “lay” forth, that is, (figuratively) relate (in words [usually of systematic or set discourse; ...; by implication to mean: ..., put forth, say (-ing, on), shew, speak, tell, ...

And Yeshua liad this forth clearly for us to understand.

jot (G2503) iōta  Of Hebrew origin (the tenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet); “..., put (figuratively) for a very small part of anything: - jot.

Ouch ... what part of the law are you resisting? A small mitzvah is still a mitzvah. And yes, I still have areas I need to work (a lot) on too; so no accusations here, just saying what is said.

tittle (G2762) keraia  ...; something horn like, that is, (specifically) the apex of a Hebrew letter (figuratively the least particle): - tittle.

Not even one of those little marks on some letters can be removed. We'd say "obey it to the letter."

fulfilled. (G1096) ginomai  ...; to cause to be (“gen” -erate), that is, (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literally, figuratively, intensively, etc.): - arise be assembled, be (come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, be done, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, ...

Caused to be, brought to pass, to come to pass? Sounds kina the opposite of wiping it out.

break (G3089) luō  ...; to “loosen” (literally or figuratively): - break (up), destroy, dissolve, (un-) loose, melt, put off. 

But we can destroy a/the law, bringing it to naught in our own lives and in others, simply by disobeying and teaching others to do the same. And why would anyone who claims the name of God want to bring what He said to naught? The simple answer is they are not who or what they claim to be.

commandments (G1785) entolē  ...; injunction, that is, an authoritative prescription: - commandment, precept.

Back to something said with authority. The only commandments at the time this was said by Immanuel, God With Us, were those in the TNK; and in particular those in His .

heaven (G3772) ouranos  ... (as the abode of God); by implication happiness, power, eternity; ...

Wow ... this is going to effect our eternity ... why then rush to agree with those who say "Oh, those don't apply to us. Let's just not do them 'cause we got grace anyhow"? Grace is for unintentional sin, or sin that takes us unawares (pretty girl walks by, I look, and I sin in my heart before I know it). And that only if we repent of it (still need to work on that ...). Grace does not cover willful, intentional sinnin'. So no, they don' got no grace. Not none.

do (G4160) poieō  ...: - abide, + agree, appoint, ..., continue, ... without any delay, (would) do (-ing), execute, exercise, fulfil, gain, give, have, hold, X journeying, keep, ..., ordain, perform, ...

We will fulfill our own destiny by the things we continue to do here, now. Salvation is by grace, but actions still have consequences. And we still have free will; so while we are falling into more and more intentional sin, we are falling away from and out of the grace of Elohim. And we can do this to the point of walking away from our salvation and, like Shimshon after his haircut, God has left us and we don't even know it.

righteousness (G1343) dikaiosunē  ...; equity (of character or act); specifically (Christian) justification: - righteousness.

Justification even in Christian theology is the doctrine that God vindicates only those who repent and believe in Jesus. Repent of what? "Sin" they'd say. And where is sin defined? In and later in the besorah of Yeshua- which in no way disagreed with but rather explained it more fully. I once told a minister that almost everything Yeshua said came straight from the mishna. "Welll I'd like to see that" was his emphatic response. Open the door of the henhouse when the fox is right there, why don't you pastor?

exceed (G4052 ...) perisseuō  ...; to superabound (in quantity or quality), be in excess, be superfluous; also (transitively) to cause to superabound or excel: ... abundance, ..., be the better, ...

So we are to have righteousness in excess of even these religious Jews ... who are these super-Jews I have to out do in my walk? How can my halacha, and me raised a pagan and all, be better than theirs?

scribes (G1122) grammateus  ...; a writer, that is, (professionally) scribe or secretary: - scribe, town-clerk.

Here both the Greek translator and the Christian theologians (including Mr. Strong) show their lack of understanding. True enough a scribe is a writer. But these were also lower officials in the synagogues and the Temple. They were the equivalent of lower primary school teachers. These were men educated to do more than just take dictation.

Pharisees, (G5330) Pharisaios  ... Of Hebrew origin ...; a separatist, that is, exclusively religious; a Pharisaean, that is, Jewish sectary: - Pharisee.

And again they tell us what they did not know. The P'rushim (Pharises) were the largest sect in Yisro'el by far in the time of Yeshua. They were "the party of the people." Nowhere near "separatist" in relationship to the times, where Jews of many sects considered any other Jews to be tameh (ritually unclean) and would not associate with them. And the restrictions in place before joining some of these sects were stringent, to say the least. A P'rush just had to follow a P'rush Rabbi and believe the TNK and the Oral Tradition, and be a Jew, and they were members of the congregation. Rav Sha'ul (Paul) was a P'rush Rabbi, before and after his conversion. My knowledge has to be greater and my walk better than PUAL"S!? Say it isn't so!

It isn't, of course. I think Yeshua was speaking of the corrupt leaders in the P'rushim. And most were not, but in any large movement there will be some. And He was speaking of our heart condition vs. that of the corrupted leaders. I will never be able to keep like them boys did. And my teffilin are narrow (and I admit I don't use them most days) and my tzitzyoth are short (so I don't step on them when I stand up). They had and did all those things (but I bet they were pretty good at covering it up when they stepped on their tzitzit when standing ... it's embarrassing). But when I do use my teffilin, it gives me a sensual (touch) connection and focus to my prayers. And I do wear tzitzyoth always, though I tuck them in when it would offend (like when with my wife or if I enter a church). But I don't enter churches with idols any more. So I'm not as observant as even those corrupted leaders. An observant Jew would say I am sinning because I do not keep the mitzvoth as perfectly as they do. In fact, just because I do some things they do I've sinned in their eyes, So I'd tuck in my tzytzoth and try not to offend them if I knew one would be present. But I do not apologize for trying to keep the mitzvoth, even if it offends both Christianity an Judaism. God said it, I do it. And if I find value in the customs or traditions of either camp, I may adopt those in part or in whole.

And yes, sometimes I worry about what I do. I work out my salvation with a lot of fear and trembling, let me tell you! But my heart is to obey Hashem because He saved me out of a hateful, degenerate lifestyle. And it is true what it says, that those of us forgiven much tend to appreciate it more! I obey not for rewards here or even in the Olam Haba. The sins I piled onto Yeshua as He hung here giving Himself for me were a heavy burden to bear. I appreciate that, and want to please Him. And that is why I obey; and that is probably why Rav Sha'ul obeyed even after his conversion; and that, I think, is what Yeshua meant. God said it, and even though Rav Sha'ul said his flesh fought against it just like mine, we do our best to obey.

Dan C

 

[alon]

Mod Note: This may seem a bit disjointed, but I just cleaned up another thread which covered too many topics. This new thread is one result of that effort.

Dan C

[mystic]

If women are to be silent "in the Church" and so forbidden to become Preachers in the Church, are they allowed biblically to minister to people outside of the Church?

[alon]

Oct 4, 2020 3:24:04 GMT -8 mystic said:

If women are to be silent "in the Church" and so forbidden to become Preachers in the Church, are they allowed biblically to minister to people outside of the Church?

The issue was keeping order in shabbat services, not placing a gag order on women. They can still participate in other functions, even speaking up and giving their views. And there is a difference in being a minister, as in a preacher, and ministering to others. To minister to someone is to meet their needs, to assist, to care for them. These are things women generally excel at over men.

Dan C  

[mystic]

To clarify then it is ok for women to become Preachers just not in Shabbat services?

[alon]

Oct 5, 2020 3:22:08 GMT -8 mystic said:

To clarify then it is ok for women to become Preachers just not in Shabbat services?

No, again you must differentiate between the meanings of "minister." As I said:

"And there is a difference in being a minister, as in a preacher, and ministering to others. To minister to someone is to meet their needs, to assist, to care for them."

Women may "minister" to others, particularly to other women in many ways. There were even women prophets in the Bible- Miriam, Hulda, and several others. But to ordain them as ministers as in the sense of a preacher is to give them authority; authority which could place them over men in the services. God ordained things as He did for His own reasons. But mostly to keep order in the assemblies and in the home. Men and women are equal, but with different roles. Taking on the role of the opposite sex except where by necessity is a form of rebellion, which is said to be equal to witchcraft:

1 Samuel 15:23a For rebellion is like the sin of divination (witchcraft), and arrogance is like the wickedness of idolatry.

Dan C