Who is receiving the Spirit?

[wattie]

In regards to the deaconess reference.. not all bible translations call Phoebe a deaconess. The KJV says 'servant'.. and the Greek behind the word is more akin to this than the official role of deacon.

Along with this though..if she did actually have a deacons role..she would still be bound by the structure of how the woman is to behave in a church. So they would still be governed by the teachings given by Paul in the likes of Corinthian letters

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

In regards to the deaconess reference.. not all bible translations call Phoebe a deaconess. The KJV says 'servant'.. and the Greek behind the word is more akin to this than the official role of deacon.

Along with this though..if she did actually have a deacons role..she would still be bound by the structure of how the woman is to behave in a church. So they would still be governed by the teachings given by Paul in the likes of Corinthian letters

I find that hard to believe knowing that I am using the 2nd century Greek which is the oldest documentation in archive.

And the kjv is 12th century Latin Vulgate (read Erasmus), it's the last place anyone should seek for meaningful references.

16:1
ϲυνϊϲτημι δε ϋμι

φοιβην την αδελ

φην ημων ουϲα

διακονον τηϲ εκ

κληϲιαϲ τηϲ εν κε

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

16:1
ϲυνϊϲτημι δε ϋμι

φοιβην την αδελ

φην ημων ουϲα

διακονον τηϲ εκ

κληϲιαϲ τηϲ εν κε


διακονον
diakonon
deacon

 

[wattie]

I find that hard to believe knowing that I am using the 2nd century Greek which is the oldest documentation in archive.

And the kjv is 12th century Latin Vulgate (read Erasmus), it's the last place anyone should seek for meaningful references.

16:1
ϲυνϊϲτημι δε ϋμι

φοιβην την αδελ

φην ημων ουϲα

διακονον τηϲ εκ

κληϲιαϲ τηϲ εν κε

Oldest doesn't mean best. You gotta apply other tests to historical texts. The KJV textus receptus agreed with the majority of over 5000 manuscripts when compared with their findings later unearthed. Even though it was based on not many manuscripts, what those manuscripts had agreed with the majority found later.

I'm not KJVO.. but know that many modern translations aren't what they cracked up to be.

But still aside from this.. like I say.. if a deaconess can be allowed in scripture.. they would still be governed by Paul's writings, inspired by God.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Oldest doesn't mean best. You gotta apply other tests to historical texts. The KJV textus receptus agreed with the majority of over 5000 manuscripts when compared with their findings later unearthed. Even though it was based on not many manuscripts, what those manuscripts had agreed with the majority found later.

I'm not KJVO.. but know that many modern translations aren't what they cracked up to be.

But still aside from this.. like I say.. if a deaconess can be allowed in scripture.. they would still be governed by Paul's writings, inspired by God.

I doubt Jesus Inspired Paul to use the Law as example in 1 Corinthians or make Paul write in first person format in 1 Timothy "I DO NOT PERMIT." And as a Jew who had to learn Torah and recite it from memory there is no such Law concerning women in the Church Body of Christ. It's all man made tradition.

 

[wattie]

I doubt Jesus Inspired Paul to use the Law as example in 1 Corinthians or make Paul write in first person format in 1 Timothy "I DO NOT PERMIT." And as a Jew who had to learn Torah and recite it from memory there is no such Law concerning women in the Church Body of Christ. It's all man made tradition.

Well, if you go down this road of denying Paul was inspired in some of his writings, you'd be putting your own opinion above the weight of scripture. Some of the greatest scholarly minds agree Paul's writings in total are inspired.

It's true the bible does also, being true, show men's failures..but Paul was never corrected by God as far as we know for his writings on women in the church.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Well, if you go down this road of denying Paul was inspired in some of his writings, you'd be putting your own opinion above the weight of scripture. Some of the greatest scholarly minds agree Paul's writings in total are inspired.

It's true the bible does also, being true, show men's failures..but Paul was never corrected by God as far as we know for his writings on women in the church.

Paul wrote letters to his churches. None were corrected until we read John being told to correct them in the 7 churches mentioned in Revelation chapters 1-3.

 

[wattie]

Paul wrote letters to his churches. None were corrected until we read John being told to correct them in the 7 churches mentioned in Revelation chapters 1-3.

Wait... the teaching of how they are to be corrected remains with the same doctrine from Jesus thru Paul and John.

The same admonishments Jesus has fir these churches are what Paul was writing about in different situations. It's the sane teaching!

End.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Wait... the teaching of how they are to be corrected remains with the same doctrine from Jesus thru Paul and John.

The same admonishments Jesus has fir these churches are what Paul was writing about in different situations. It's the sane teaching!

End.

Nowhere is it mentioned that Jesus kept women from doing anything anywhere in the Gospels.

 

[wattie]

Nowhere is it mentioned that Jesus kept women from doing anything anywhere in the Gospels.

You don't understand biblical analysis..I'll agree to disagree.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

You don't understand biblical analysis..I'll agree to disagree.

Matthew 28:20 Jesus said, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

We don't see the Disciples condemning women and they saw what Jesus did and did as He did.

But Paul wasn't there and the only one who taught what Jesus did not teach concerning women.

That is what Biblical Analysis is...comparative FACTS!!

 

[wattie]

Matthew 28:20 Jesus said, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

We don't see the Disciples condemning women and they saw what Jesus did and did as He did.

But Paul wasn't there and the only one who taught what Jesus did not teach concerning women.

That is what Biblical Analysis is...comparative FACTS!!

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

Says it better than I can

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

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

Says it better than I can

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.

 

[Nehemiah6]

It is not incorrect. You are simply wrong, as the women who went to Christ's tomb in Mark 16 were NOT sent by Jesus, and in fact were too afraid to tell anyone, and in Luke 24, nobody instructed them to report to the other apostles... they did it on their own. It was in John 20:11_20 where Jesus sent Mary Magdalene alone to tell the other apostles. Mary Is Magdalene was in fact the first one sent by Jesus to testify of His resurrection.

It is very definitely incorrect. You are simply denying what is revealed in the Gospel of Mark. And to properly address your response, here are the Bible facts:

1. Jesus sent NO ONE to the tomb. He had already told everyone that He would rise again. Believing Him would have meant that all the apostles, disciples, and women would meet together and say to each other: "The Lord will come out of His tomb and meet with us, so let's just wait for Him together. He already told us that He would rise again. And that is the truth".

2. The women showed their love and devotion to Christ by going with spices for His embalming. Obviously they too had not really believed that He would be absent, and assumed that He would remain indefinitely in the sepulchre.

3. Mary was not sent ALONE since the angels asked all the women to go and report the resurrection to the others. But as seen in John, Mary Magdalene did not go with them but lingered at the tomb and met the risen Lord. Then she joined ALL the other women and reported the matter.

4. It is possible that she related her own encounter, but Mark made is very clear that all the women TESTIFIED of the Resurrection of Christ. Indeed while they were on their way to the apostles, Christ met them and told them to have the apostles go to Galilee to meet with Him. This would have been before His meeting with Mary!

5. But He did not say that on the day of resurrection He would (a) meet the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, nor that (b) He would meet with all the apostles later on in Jerusalem first, nor (c) that He would come to meet with Thomas after eight day following the day of resurrection . Finally we see that He met them at the Sea of Galilee and fed them a breakfast. After that He continued to meet with them and teach them for forty days before His ascension.

6. If we do not harmonize all the accounts (including what is in Acts 1) we will have some false ideas about the importance of Mary. Indeed she even said that she thought someone had taken Christ's body away, which was not the case for any of the other women or the apostles (who would not believe initially).

 

[Magenta]

Jesus sent NO ONE to the tomb.

Why is this even being said? You have a habit of failing to stick to the facts, and making things up. The assertion made was that Mary Magdalene was the first one Jesus sent to testify of His resurrection. You deny what Scripture says. Others went to the tomb but none of them were sent by Jesus to tell the others. Only Mary was, and you are wrong to say otherwise.

 

[Edify]

I have a question: what are others watching when they read this Op?
I remember the days when WWJD was in style. I liked it for a little while.
Then I had a smack-in-the-face reality check about WWJD: 1. Many christians had NO CLUE of what Jesus would do, while 2. others simply didn't care.
I wonder which one covers this Op? 1, 2, or both?

 

[Nehemiah6]

Why is this even being said? You have a habit of failing to stick to the facts, and making things up. The assertion made was that Mary Magdalene was the first one Jesus sent to testify of His resurrection. You deny what Scripture says. Others went to the tomb but none of them were sent by Jesus to tell the others. Only Mary was, and you are wrong to say otherwise.

1. Why is it being said? So that everyone is crystal clear. 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.

3. No Mary was NOT the first. So here is the proof that the other women were the first.
And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me. (Mt 28:5-10) And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. (Mark 16:6-8) Why were they afraid of "any man"? Because it was the Jewish mob that called for Christ's crucifixion. They were not afraid of the angels.

4. While John simply mentions Mary running to Simon Peter, Mark does not single her out, nor does Matthew. She certainly could not have gone ahead of the other women, and the fact that she said someone had stolen the body of Christ while the other women made no such allegation means that she did not believe the angels, like the others, but went to Peter on her own apart from them: The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

5. John is simply focused on Mary because he must describe what happened with Mary. (which is not included in the other Gospels, since John's Gospel is always quite different). He does not even mention the other women as do Matthew and Mark and Luke. But Luke includes all the women along with Mary: It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. (Luke 24:10) John does not even say when Mary went to Peter but it does not matter. Three of the Gospels tell us that all the women reported on the resurrection together.

6. So it is not I who is denying Scripture, and you owe me an apology for a needless attack, You should stick to the facts, and not attack other posters.

 

[timemeddler]

Another point worth mentioning, receiving the holy spirit, doesn't automatically mean it comes with supernatural signs and abilities, like the story of the eunuch.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Another point worth mentioning, receiving the holy spirit, doesn't automatically mean it comes with supernatural signs and abilities, like the story of the eunuch.

Perhaps not signs, but spiritual gifts are in fact supernatural abilities. Those who receive the Holy Spirit receive at least one spiritual gift (not necessarily a "sign" gift).

 

[timemeddler]

Perhaps not signs, but spiritual gifts are in fact supernatural abilities. Those who receive the Holy Spirit receive at least one spiritual gift (not necessarily a "sign" gift).

I guess so, you know what I mean though.