Who is receiving the Spirit?

[Magenta]

Your wording was not clear, 2. How can I be "making things up" when I simply posted the Scripture. Since you cannot refute that, you are making an ad hominem attack . Which is even worse.

My wording was clear: I was speaking of Jesus having sent Mary Magdalene as the first to testify to the others, and you cannot refute that. Instead you introduce things not under discussion while outright denying what Scripture says. I said, Mary Magdalene was the first one Jesus sent to testify of His resurrection. You denied it. Mary Is Magdalene was in fact the first one sent by Jesus to testify of His resurrection.

Your tendency to bend the truth is beyond ridiculous.

 

[wattie]

It's Church of Christ so it says nothing of truth.
They do not use musical instruments in their churches because they believe 1 Corinthians 14 says not to even though the SAME GOD in the Old Testament allowed His Chosen to use tambourines, drum, harp, stringed instrument, trumpets and the lyre.

Even in Heaven we read 7 Angels had 7 trumpets (musical instrument).

Most of their doctrines are off...literally off.

Yes COC goes way off on salvation and baptism. But this article itself is mostly right on biblically

 

[wattie]

From the article:

https://godsbreath.net/2011/04/28/reject-paul-but-accept-jesus/

'By rejecting Paul’s writings, one would have to dismiss the Gospel of Luke since Luke was with Paul and agreed with Paul (Acts 16:10). Paul quoted Luke’s Gospel as Scripture (1 Tim 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7; 2 Tim 2:8). Setting aside Luke also means setting aside Luke’s book of Acts and the previously written gospel narratives that Luke mentioned in Luke 1:1–3. The gospel narratives that Luke extensively shares material with the Gospel of Matthew and shares chronology with the Gospel of Mark. This leaves only two New Testament authors, James and Jude. However, Jude closely resembles 2 Peter 2 even speaking of fulfillment of Peter’s revelation, so the one rejecting Paul and Peter could not reasonably accept Jude. James was also an apostle with Peter, associated with the Twelve, and accepted Paul (Acts 15; Gal 1:18–2:10), so someone dismissing Paul would dismiss James’s epistle.'

Nothing biblically off with this part.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Yes COC goes way off on salvation and baptism. But this article itself is mostly right on biblically

From the article:

https://godsbreath.net/2011/04/28/reject-paul-but-accept-jesus/

'By rejecting Paul’s writings, one would have to dismiss the Gospel of Luke since Luke was with Paul and agreed with Paul (Acts 16:10). Paul quoted Luke’s Gospel as Scripture (1 Tim 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7; 2 Tim 2:8). Setting aside Luke also means setting aside Luke’s book of Acts and the previously written gospel narratives that Luke mentioned in Luke 1:1–3. The gospel narratives that Luke extensively shares material with the Gospel of Matthew and shares chronology with the Gospel of Mark. This leaves only two New Testament authors, James and Jude. However, Jude closely resembles 2 Peter 2 even speaking of fulfillment of Peter’s revelation, so the one rejecting Paul and Peter could not reasonably accept Jude. James was also an apostle with Peter, associated with the Twelve, and accepted Paul (Acts 15; Gal 1:18–2:10), so someone dismissing Paul would dismiss James’s epistle.'

Nothing biblically off with this part.

1 Corinthians and Romans are letters to churches that do not involve Luke, j/s

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

From the article:

https://godsbreath.net/2011/04/28/reject-paul-but-accept-jesus/

'By rejecting Paul’s writings, one would have to dismiss the Gospel of Luke since Luke was with Paul and agreed with Paul (Acts 16:10). Paul quoted Luke’s Gospel as Scripture (1 Tim 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7; 2 Tim 2:8). Setting aside Luke also means setting aside Luke’s book of Acts and the previously written gospel narratives that Luke mentioned in Luke 1:1–3. The gospel narratives that Luke extensively shares material with the Gospel of Matthew and shares chronology with the Gospel of Mark. This leaves only two New Testament authors, James and Jude. However, Jude closely resembles 2 Peter 2 even speaking of fulfillment of Peter’s revelation, so the one rejecting Paul and Peter could not reasonably accept Jude. James was also an apostle with Peter, associated with the Twelve, and accepted Paul (Acts 15; Gal 1:18–2:10), so someone dismissing Paul would dismiss James’s epistle.'

Nothing biblically off with this part.

Paul is already defended by Peter in the Bible, so we don't really need an article that has a mixture of truth and false teaching.

2 Peter 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

17 Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position.

This passage is all we ever need. God somehow knew that some people were going to try to discredit His servant Paul and addressed it right here. God is so sweet and very cool!


🍱

 

[wattie]

Paul is already defended by Peter in the Bible, so we don't really need an article that has a mixture of truth and false teaching.

2 Peter 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

17 Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position.

This passage is all we ever need. God somehow knew that some people were going to try to discredit His servant Paul and addressed it right here. God is so sweet and cool!


🍱

Yeah that's the better way.. straight from scripture itself! Thank you.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Paul is already defended by Peter in the Bible, so we don't really need an article that has a mixture of truth and false teaching.

2 Peter 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

17 Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position.

This passage is all we ever need. God somehow knew that some people were going to try to discredit His servant Paul and addressed it right here. God is so sweet and very cool!


🍱

16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters.

Now read verses 1-14 to see the matters Peter is talking about. And you will discover that none of them include women in the church.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters.

Now read verses 1-14 to see the matters Peter is talking about. And you will discover that none of them include women in the church.

Satan has been trying to disrupt God's order since the Garden of Eden when He fooled Eve into eating the fruit without consulting God and Adam.. But you go do whatever you want. As for me I'm going to respect God's hierarchy and order. It's not only reflected in Paul's writing, it's also reflected throughout the entire Bible.


🍱

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Satan has been trying to disrupt God's order since the Garden of Eden when He fooled Eve into eating the fruit without consulting God and Adam.. But you go do whatever you want. As for me I'm going to respect God's hierarchy and order. It's not only reflected in Paul's writing, it's also reflected throughout the entire Bible.


🍱

It's not a matter of hierarchy I speak about. Man is the head of the home, marriage, family. There's no question about it. But the usage of "the Law and personal viewpoint (I DO NOT PERMIT)" is not found anywhere else in the other 64 Books of the Bible nor in any of Jesus teachings nor the Disciples about this topic. And that is not according to how everything else is mentioned throughout the Bible. This is why I discuss it.

Any time someone says or writes "I," followed by a descriptive meaning, that's personal viewpoint. And in any language it will always mean personal viewpoint.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

It's not a matter of hierarchy I speak about. Man is the head of the home, marriage, family. There's no question about it. But the usage of "the Law and personal viewpoint (I DO NOT PERMIT)" is not found anywhere else in the other 64 Books of the Bible nor in any of Jesus teachings nor the Disciples about this topic. And that is not according to how everything else is mentioned throughout the Bible. This is why I discuss it.

Any time someone says or writes "I," followed by a descriptive meaning, that's personal viewpoint. And in any language it will always mean personal viewpoint.

I really don't care. I'm just wary of you because of your dismissive view of Paul's writings as not being God-inspired. That just tells me there is something of a rebellious spirit in you that resists the Holy Spirit, if you even have Him. I will not listen to you.


🍱

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

I really don't care. I'm just wary of you because of your dismissive view of Paul's writings as not being God-inspired. That just tells me there is something of a rebellious spirit in you that resists the Holy Spirit, if you even have Him. I will not listen to you.


🍱

I preach using Paul's Inspired words to hundreds of people weekly. I lead more people to Jesus in a single year than you go to the grocery store. This is a discussion about 6 words only (the Law - I DO NOT PERMIT). Clearly you are not a Student of God because this discussion is a hot topic in most Biblical Universities. Have a nice life.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

I preach using Paul's Inspired words to hundreds of people weekly. I lead more people to Jesus in a single year than you go to the grocery store. This is a discussion about 6 words only (the Law - I DO NOT PERMIT). Clearly you are not a Student of God because this discussion is a hot topic in most Biblical Universities. Have a nice life.

Matthew 7:21-23

I Never Knew You
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

All that "work" you're doing won't impress God if you're calling into question what God inspired Paul to write, even if it's only 6 words. Because it's not really Paul writing that, it's God. He is the one moving Paul to write those things.

I don't care if feminism is trending in Bible universities. Trends don't matter to God. who is eternal Satan is using feminism to disrupt God's order, and telling women they are less because of their place in God's order. But if a woman keeps her eyes on the Lord, she will never be or feel "less" and she will be able to accomplish much just like the Proverbs 31 woman and all the other women of high esteem in the Bible.

It's just awful what Satan has done in the church. Because if you read about all the godly women in the Bible, NONE of them were hung up on this issue. That's why I refuse to engage Satan on this as well.


🍱

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Matthew 7:21-23

I Never Knew You
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

All that "work" you're doing won't impress God if you're calling into question what God inspired Paul to write, even if it's only 6 words. Because it's not really Paul writing that, it's God. He is the one moving Paul to write those things.

I don't care if feminism is trending in Bible universities. Trends don't matter to God. who is eternal Satan is using feminism to disrupt God's order, and telling women they are less because of their place in God's order. But if a woman keeps her eyes on the Lord, she will never be or feel "less" and she will be able to accomplish much just like the Proverbs 31 woman and all the other women of high esteem in the Bible.

It's just awful what Satan has done in the church. Because if you read about all the godly women in the Bible, NONE of them were hung up on this issue. That's why I refuse to engage Satan on this as well.


🍱

Jesus freed us from the Law but Paul says according to the Law women should be quiet.
Why is Paul using something to control people with that Jesus freed us from?
It's not disrespect to ask questions.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Why is Paul using something to control people with that Jesus freed us from? It's not disrespect to ask questions.

You have misunderstood Paul, and forgotten that God the Holy Spirit directed Paul to pen everything written in the epistles (which are Scripture according to Peter. When Paul said "Law" it was a reference to the whole Tanakh (OT) and he was pointing us to the Torah, which has Genesis 3:16. I have already quoted commentators who have explained this, so kindly read my posts. Indeed the Ten Commandments within the Law are still binding and a part of the New Covenant and the Law of Love.

 

[wattie]

Jesus freed us from the Law but Paul says according to the Law women should be quiet.
Why is Paul using something to control people with that Jesus freed us from?
It's not disrespect to ask questions.

Think about deeper context. Go below the surface.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

You have misunderstood Paul, and forgotten that God the Holy Spirit directed Paul to pen everything written in the epistles (which are Scripture according to Peter. When Paul said "Law" it was a reference to the whole Tanakh (OT) and he was pointing us to the Torah, which has Genesis 3:16. I have already quoted commentators who have explained this, so kindly read my posts. Indeed the Ten Commandments within the Law are still binding and a part of the New Covenant and the Law of Love.

Think about deeper context. Go below the surface.

I will give you the Biblical Universities answer to this issue using Scholars/Theologians.

Scholars and Theologians have pointed out that verses (which they did not have chapter and verse originally) in 1 Corinthians 14..

34-35 were originally a gloss written in the margin of 1 Corinthians by a non-Pauline hand but eventually inserted into the text of later manuscripts in different places (after v. 33 in some and after v. 40 in others).

And for 1 Timothy 2:12..

The view of a large majority of modern scholars of 1 Timothy is that the epistle was not written by Paul, but dates to after Paul's death and has an unknown author. As a pseudepigraphical work incorrectly attributed to Paul, the verse is often described as deutero-Pauline literature or as a pastoral epistle.


^
This is why I am discussing this the way that I am. It's just a discussion here and not an attempt to be disrespectful towards Paul. These comments and thoughts by Scholars and Theologians always were interesting to me. With this being a forum of discussion seemed like a good place to see how others viewed the issue.

 

[wattie]

I will give you the Biblical Universities answer to this issue using Scholars/Theologians.

Scholars and Theologians have pointed out that verses (which they did not have chapter and verse originally) in 1 Corinthians 14..

34-35 were originally a gloss written in the margin of 1 Corinthians by a non-Pauline hand but eventually inserted into the text of later manuscripts in different places (after v. 33 in some and after v. 40 in others).

And for 1 Timothy 2:12..

The view of a large majority of modern scholars of 1 Timothy is that the epistle was not written by Paul, but dates to after Paul's death and has an unknown author. As a pseudepigraphical work incorrectly attributed to Paul, the verse is often described as deutero-Pauline literature or as a pastoral epistle.


^
This is why I am discussing this the way that I am. It's just a discussion here and not an attempt to be disrespectful towards Paul. These comments and thoughts by Scholars and Theologians always were interesting to me. With this being a forum of discussion seemed like a good place to see how others viewed the issue.

Okay this is interesting, but my first thought is they are taking the modern biblical critics approach which is very skeptical and known to take too far a step back in saying 'this is an accurate description of what the people of these Jewish and Gentile communities claimed to believe' rather than saying God ACTUALLY spoke to these people in person and then thru the Spirit. But I'll see what the response is to this.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Okay this is interesting, but my first thought is they are taking the modern biblical critics approach which is very skeptical and known to take too far a step back in saying 'this is an accurate description of what the people of these Jewish and Gentile communities claimed to believe' rather than saying God ACTUALLY spoke to these people in person and then thru the Spirit. But I'll see what the response is to this.

Here are the reasons given for their beliefs...

Scholars/Theologians Proof about verses 34-35 (1 Corinthians 14):
The Apostolic Fathers and early Greek Church Fathers did not understand the passage to mean universal female silence in the church. It was not until the late second century that Western Church Fathers began referencing the passage to silence women and combat the heretical Montanist sect which was known for its prominent women prophets. The citations of 1 Cor 14:34-35 in the late second century coincide with the emergence of the Western text-type which relocates 1 Cor 14:34-35 several verses later to follow 14:40. This work argues that Western Church Fathers repositioned the passage in the late second century to combat Montanism and to align Christianity with Roman social standards.

Ironically, these verses are found in the same epistle that contains Paul’s responses to the conflicts among Corinthian believers that had been reported to 1. Throughout this work, all English biblical quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version unless otherwise noted. 1 2 him by “Chloe’s people” (1:11- “τῶν Χλόης”).2 The term “Chloe’s people” refers to “members of Chloe’s household,” and likely indicates that Christian meetings were held at the house of a woman named Chloe. 3 In light of this, it seems quite improbable that Paul would mandate silence for Chloe in her own home.

Due to the seeming contradiction between 1 Cor 14:34-35 and these other aspects of the letter, many have concluded that the passage is a non-Pauline interpolation. They point to the divergent placement of the passage in many ancient manuscripts as evidence that it was a late non-Pauline addition to the Pauline letter. Additionally, these interpolation proponents claim that vv. 34-35 contain rhetoric and language foreign to Paul and do not match his otherwise

Scholars/Theologians Proof about 1Timothy:
The view of a large majority of modern scholars of 1 Timothy is that the epistle was not written by Paul, but dates to after Paul's death and has an unknown author.[2][3] As a pseudepigraphical work incorrectly attributed to Paul, the verse is often described as deutero-Pauline literature[4] or as a pastoral epistle.

New Testament scholar Marcus Borg and Others contends that this verse fits poorly with Paul's more positive references to Christian women and may be a later interpolation rather than part of the original text

 

[Nehemiah6]

34-35 were originally a gloss written in the margin of 1 Corinthians by a non-Pauline hand but eventually inserted into the text of later manuscripts in different places (after v. 33 in some and after v. 40 in others).

More baloney from the naysayers. If indeed that was true none of the modern versions would have these verses. But they all do, so you should discard that nonsense. Here is 1 Cor 14:34 in the Critical Text compared to the Received Text with only one word missing from the former :

CRITICAL TEXT
Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
Αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν, οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν· ἀλλὰ ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει.

RECEIVED TEXT
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
αἱ γυναῖκες ὑμῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν· οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν ἀλλ' ὑποτάσσεσθαι, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει

If anything the Critical Text would have been quite different according to your information. So any time someone does not like a verse, he or she claims it was inserted by some unknown hand. And there is no change in v 33 either. So where do people come up with such foolishness?

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

More baloney from the naysayers. If indeed that was true none of the modern versions would have these verses. But they all do, so you should discard that nonsense. Here is 1 Cor 14:34 in the Critical Text compared to the Received Text with only one word missing from the former :

CRITICAL TEXT
Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
Αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν, οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν· ἀλλὰ ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει.

RECEIVED TEXT
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
αἱ γυναῖκες ὑμῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν· οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν ἀλλ' ὑποτάσσεσθαι, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει

If anything the Critical Text would have been quite different according to your information. So any time someone does not like a verse, he or she claims it was inserted by some unknown hand. And there is no change in v 33 either. So where do people come up with such foolishness?

I wouldn't trust the kjv knowing about the process of the TR and Erasmus if someone paid me a trillion dollars.

I trust the Church Fathers, unlike you do, who (church fathers) have first hand knowledge.

You just enjoy keeping women under your foot unlike Jesus and Paul.