McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamation

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What I see is, once again, a different hermeneutic. We approach scripture two very different ways. You say I am in effect taking a scribal, Pharisaic approach to scripture. I say you are taking a modernist, liberal approach to scripture.

"Man shall live by EVERY WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God."

I find no rational basis for rejecting scripture, as "just for them, not for us". I do not agree with this radical, liberal, unhistorical view of the Word of God.

Paul said women are to be taught to be keepers at home. YOU disagree with that..Fine. But your argument then is not with me, but Paul, and therefore God.

I know even before I make this statement, I will get the guns pointed at me again. I think I am getting used to it now.

Your argument seems to be that every word that proceeds from the mouth of God it every word written by "men of God". Why then do you think that in the book of Acts that the church council only laid upon the Gentile converts these three things?
Act 15:20 but that we write to them that they should abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Yet now you want to add more, why did not the apostles foresee these necessary things and add them to the requirements then?
Yes I think you are adding unnecessary doctrines for today in reading Paul's words as God given law and all time doctrine.
Do you still subscribe to the teaching that a man cannot grow facial hair? After all that was a doctrine place on man during the 50's and 69's by God fearing men, it must be God's law as it was preached by men of God.
This is the same thing Paul was doing addressing an issue for that day and time.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

I know even before I make this statement, I will get the guns pointed at me again. I think I am getting used to it now.

Your argument seems to be that every word that proceeds from the mouth of God it every word written by "men of God". Why then do you think that in the book of Acts that the church council only laid upon the Gentile converts these three things?
Act 15:20 but that we write to them that they should abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Yet now you want to add more, why did not the apostles foresee these necessary things and add them to the requirements then?
Yes I think you are adding unnecessary doctrines for today in reading Paul's words as God given law and all time doctrine.
Do you still subscribe to the teaching that a man cannot grow facial hair? After all that was a doctrine place on man during the 50's and 69's by God fearing men, it must be God's law as it was preached by men of God.
This is the same thing Paul was doing addressing an issue for that day and time.

GD, do you believe that Acts 15:20 is outdated and therefore not applicable to us today?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

I know even before I make this statement, I will get the guns pointed at me again. I think I am getting used to it now.

Your argument seems to be that every word that proceeds from the mouth of God it every word written by "men of God". Why then do you think that in the book of Acts that the church council only laid upon the Gentile converts these three things?
Act 15:20 but that we write to them that they should abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Yet now you want to add more, why did not the apostles foresee these necessary things and add them to the requirements then?
Yes I think you are adding unnecessary doctrines for today in reading Paul's words as God given law and all time doctrine.
Do you still subscribe to the teaching that a man cannot grow facial hair? After all that was a doctrine place on man during the 50's and 69's by God fearing men, it must be God's law as it was preached by men of God.
This is the same thing Paul was doing addressing an issue for that day and time.

So gentile Christians are free to not honour their parents, and can bear false witness?

After all, you are saying the Acts 15 council only laid three (I thought it was four?) things on gentile believers as binding and obligatory?

Ever wonder where those apostles and elders got those "three things" from?

Was Jesus wrong when he said man shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God? Or was he just flustering the debbil with divine hyperbole? Did YOU get flustered, too?

Seriously, what was Jesus saying?

Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

[Esaias]

Are we now to hear that Paul maybe wasn't... INSPIRED? Maybe not an apostle? Just giving his own opinions?

GD, how does one determine what is applicable vs not applicable? How can we know which parts of God's Word are passe and irrelevant now?

I mean, are graven images a big deal in our culture? Is the second commandment just for those ignorant neolithics back in the day (and maybe those poor ignorant savages in the deep jungle)?

Seriously, how do you determine these things?

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

GD, do you believe that Acts 15:20 is outdated and therefore not applicable to us today?

You answer that, do we have idol worshiping in our day? Do we eat animals that have been strangled without draining the blood? Abstain from fornication. Well yes we do have that today. So there fore that would apply would it not. Maybe Isaias can see the cultural difference in this. The point of Acts 15 is that They dealt with those things that were pertinent to the issues of that day in relationship to the words of Christ to "love God and love your neighbor as yourself. In so doing you fulfill all the law and prophets".

What part of that statement do we not understand, What more can you add to that or take away. How do you reconcile Paul's teaching on the veil, and women in the church against not one reference to such in all of the OT Law, nor Christ teaching, if he was not speaking to cultural admonitions such as those preachers that taught it was wrong to grow facial hair in the 50's and 60's?

[Holy Ghost HH]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Theocracy - rule by God. God is our FATHER, and we are his HOUSEHOLD. Therefore, God's system is a Patriarchy. Patriarchy means "rule by father", from Pater/Patria (father) and archos (rule, government).

Do you believe the head of the woman is the man? That a man is to rule (govern) his household?

Or do such ideas automatically make you think of tyranny and bondage?

Correct. The chain of command or hierarchy is God/Jesus- Man- Wife- Children.
Anyone find that to be wrong? If so how and why?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

You answer that, do we have idol worshiping in our day? Do we eat animals that have been strangled without draining the blood? Abstain from fornication. Well yes we do have that today. So there fore that would apply would it not. Maybe Isaias can see the cultural difference in this. The point of Acts 15 is that They dealt with those things that were pertinent to the issues of that day in relationship to the words of Christ to "love God and love your neighbor as yourself. In so doing you fulfill all the law and prophets".

What part of that statement do we not understand, What more can you add to that or take away. How do you reconcile Paul's teaching on the veil, and women in the church against not one reference to such in all of the OT Law, nor Christ teaching, if he was not speaking to cultural admonitions such as those preachers that taught it was wrong to grow facial hair in the 50's and 60's?

GD, in Acts 15:20 the items listed concern pagan practices. So, why did the apostles after their meeting on Gentiles, focus on religious practices of these Gentiles?

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

GD, in Acts 15:20 the items listed concern pagan practices. So, why did the apostles after their meeting on Gentiles, focus on religious practices of these Gentiles?

Not sure how you are getting religious practices out of what the apostles focused on in the epistles.

If what you are saying, that God gave the apostles new commandments outside of the commandments Christ gave, above and beyond the commandments God handed down to Moses, without rhyme or reason, than I would say you make God a liar.

God does not change. Every commandment under the law had a reason, that made sense. Which is why even today we still do not reject Mosaic law out right, although we are no longer under obligation to keep the law as such. Yet even in the face of the numerous laws of the OT we find nothing addressing certain things that you say are now commandments of God because they were spoken by the apostles.

What I am saying is that these things we are discussing that man wants to make a doctrine for time and eternity, do not have a rhyme or reason in today's culture, but they did in that time.
Much like not many years ago when preachers preached against facial hair on men because it identified with a faction of society that the church should not want to identify with. And by the way those brethren were right to preach that. But not today, because our culture has changed and it is no longer a reproach to wear a beard or mustache.
It was a shame for a women to run around town without a covering, (veil) or shave her head. It is no longer a shame in today's society. It was a reproach for a women to be vocal in the local gatherings in that day and time, but it is not so much today. I say not so much today because there is always the element of a women's place within the family structure, but not total silence, nor to be completely dominated by the husband.

[good samaritan]

As a husband to a wife I feel that my wife is my responsibility to lead not dominate. If we seek God's direction about who we become one with and fulfill are God given role then we will never have a problem with power struggles in the home. The man is the leader, period. We have a responsibility as husbands to be good leaders, though. Man follows Christ and the wife follows husband, essentially the wife follows Christ if she follows a godly husband.

All is conditional. Wives should not have to follow ungodliness, nor men.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Not sure how you are getting religious practices out of what the apostles focused on in the epistles.

I'm sorry GD, I didn't mention anything concerning epistles, I believe you and I are discussing the prohibitions listed in Acts 15:20? Can you explain how these items ( those listed in Acts 15:20 ) were just some sort of cultural abstinence?