Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
From 'Vayikra Rabba' !!
#31
Quote:Personally, I'm still investigating whether I think Paul wrote 1 Timothy or not. It's vocabulary and concerns are those of later Christianity, an institutional structure that just did not exist in Paul's day.


I disagree. I also don't think you know Orthodox Judaism well enough to make that determination, or you wouldn't be taking these positions on women in the first place.

Quote:Do you think I should be drawn and quartered? Am I heretical because I don't accept the NT canon blindly as 'the word of Elohim'? The Church of the East has a different canon than the west. Is one heretical?

As far as your belief is concerned, if you call the NT canon 'the word of Elohim', then at least your position concerning women is consitent with your belief, and I respect that.

No, Rob, I don't think you should be drawn and quartered. But, when it comes to female ordination, you will find a complete lack of acceptance of it in 1st century Judaism, or any traditional continuity of it by any Judaic/Christian community down to this day. That is a position of exterme weakeness, especially in light of Paul's very Jewish concerns in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." Now trying to determine what group has the purest Oral Torah is quite a task. As for myself, I've decided that the Church of the East is the purest stream of Christianity, but I recognise that theoretically it is possible that I could be wrong. And I also disagree with the CoE on some things, but not without a strong basis for that from somewhere else, for instance 1st century Judaism.

Shlama w'burkate, Craig
Reply
#32
Craig,

I'm not promoting female ordination (not ONCE have I even mentioned it), nor have I made any indications that I am taking the position of, or claim to be an expert on 'orthodox Judaism,' so please don't continue to write as if I had made such claims. You're playing the straw-man game. Why do you do that?

If you want to address my position, let me spell it out clearly:

1) women in authoritative positions over men is not without precedent in the Tanakh, REGARDLESS of what the New Testament says.

2) different communities had different practices, and there was no across-the-board uniform standard regarding the role of women imposed upon every community.

Shlama,
Rob
<font face="Estrangelo (V1.1)" size="4">
hnm Lqt4n hl ty0d wh P0 hl tyld Nmw hl Bhytn ryg hl ty0d Nm
(w4y</font>
Reply
#33
Shlama Akhay,

I wanted everybody to see these two paragraphs from Katherine Bushnell's book 'God's Word to Women'. It's found in Lesson 27, paragraphs 207 and 208. The book ends with paragraph 839 from Lesson 100!!! It's a biggie!! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

#207. "On the day of Pentecost, the Spirit was poured out upon "all flesh," that is, not upon every human being, but as is precisely told us, upon old and young and upon male and female alike. And in these words, "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" Paul seems to specially refer to that day of Pentecost, when about 120 persons, many of them women (Acts 1:14,15), were assembled, and the Holy Spirit, that is, the spirit of prophecy, came upon "each of them" (Acts 2:3), and they all "began to speak...as the Spirit gave them utterance;" and Peter said, ...your daughters shall prophesy...and upon my handmaidens...will I pour out of my Spirit." So that there is no possibility of denying that at the time of the inauguration of the present Gospel dispensation, the "word of God" "came out" from God, not from man, and it "came unto" women , and not unto men only. This is Paul's indignant protest against these Judaizers, who by quoting the Oral Law of the Jews would silence women, and interfere with Divine order.

#208. The Apostle then declares: "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandment of the Lord." He here contrasts the "the commandments of the Lord" with the "precepts of men," which the Oral Law of the Jews taught. In other words, a true prophet, or a spiritual person, would perceive, Paul claims, that his ruling in this matter accorded with Scripture, while the ruling of the Jewish rabbis did not. What was Paul's ruling? It was given just before, in directions relating to veiling in worship, which clearly shows that he permitted women both to preach and to pray in public. He gave the same permission in his universal rule but a moment before, at verse 31: "Ye ALL can prophesy...that ALL may learn, and ALL may be comforted."

Any thoughts?

Shlama w'Burkate, Larry Kelsey
Reply
#34
My thoughts are that yes, women can prophesy. This same man tells us that they may not speak in Church, and makes no such statement of men...
Reply
#35
Quote:I'm not promoting female ordination (not ONCE have I even mentioned it)

Well, because you asked, "...how do you interpret Romans 16:1-2, and 7 (Peshitta)?", in a thread that began over a book by a woman that, "was so adamant about the silencing of women in ministry." So yeah, I interpretted that as siding against me that only men can be ordained.

Quote:1) women in authoritative positions over men is not without precedent in the Tanakh, REGARDLESS of what the New Testament says.

All kings of sinful situations by Yisra'el have a precedent in the Tanakh. It isn't enough to show that something occured, especially in the time of the Judges when, "In those days there was no king in Yisra'el, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes" and in Deborah's time specifically we know that they, "did evil in the eyes of the Lord." That's like Elohim's disclaimer saying, "Warning, do not take examples from this time period as some kind of precedent for how I want you to live if it disagrees with other parts of the Word! I do not necessarily endorse the way Samson was living, or that Deborah was made a Judge in the first place, etc."

Quote:2) different communities had different practices, and there was no across-the-board uniform standard regarding the role of women imposed upon every community.

They had different Halakhah regarding some issues concerning women (fences around Niddah, etc), but none of them (Perushim, Tzadokim, Essenes, etc) let them run congregations, or sit on a Beit Din, etc. So there certainly was an implicit across-the-board uniform standard.

Quote:nor have I made any indications that I am taking the position of, or claim to be an expert on 'orthodox Judaism,' so please don't continue to write as if I had made such claims. You're playing the straw-man game. Why do you do that?

And I never implied that you claimed to be an "expert on 'orthodox Judaism'", I simply pointed out that you are willingly to doubt an epistle of Paul's because, "It's vocabulary and concerns are those of later Christianity, an institutional structure that just did not exist in Paul's day," but your statements like those of yours in the last quote above make me think that you don't know enough about the Judaism of Paul's time to do anything but assume that these concerns, "are of those of later Christianity."

Shlama, Craig
Reply
#36
Rob Vanhoff Wrote:As for the "it is really ironic that these things are being debated in the "Nazarene/Messianic Judaism Forum" comment, can you show me one historical instance where the historical "Nazarene Jews" accepted Paul (or one of his letters) as an authority, let alone a "NT" canon?

"The adherents to this sect are known commonly as Nazarenes; they believe in Christ the Son of God, born of, the Virgin Mary; and they say that He who suffered under Pontius Pilate and rose again, is the same as the one in whom we believe." (Letter 75 Jerome to Augustine)

"But the heresy of the Ebionites, as it is called, asserts that Christ was the son of Joseph and Mary, considering him a mere man..."(Eusebius; Ecclesiastical History 6:17)

"There were others (Netzarim/Nazarenes), however, besides them (Evyonim/Ebionites)...did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit."(Eusebius; Ecclesiastical History 3.27)

"But the Ebionites... repudiate the apostle Paul." (Irenaeus; Aganist Heresies 1:16:2)

"But these sectarians... did not call themselves Christians--but "Nazarenes,"... However they are simply complete Jews. They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament as well, as the Jews do... They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion, except for their belief in the Messiah, if you please! For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things, and declare that God is one, and that His Son is Jesus the Christ. They are trained to a nicety in Hebrew. For among them the entire Law, Prophets and the???Writings???are read in Hebrew, as they surely are by the Jews. They are different from the Jews, and different from Christians, only in the following. They disagree with the Jews for they have come to faith in Messiah; but since they are still fettered with the Law???circumcision and the Sabbath, and the rest???they are not in accord with Christians???(Epiphanius; Panarion 29)

"But the Ebionites use only... Matthew..."
(Irenaeus; Aganist Heresies 1:16:2)

"In the Gospel that is in general use among them (Ebionites) which is called 'according to Matthew', which however is not wholely complete but falsified and mutilated." (Epiphanius; Panarion 30:13:2)

It isn't suprising that the only place believers are called "Netzarim" is in Acts 24:5 which was written by Luke who was a student of Paul. The group that would later become the "Ebionites" is also right there in Acts (15:5) as well.

Shlama, Craig
Reply
#37
OK. We have Greek 'fathers' saying "they did this, they did that..." I'm asking for something from the Nazarenes themselves - their own testimony. Not the opinion of Greek foreigners. Would you be content with a strangers' scanty account of your practices (especially when different from their own), in a foreign language at that?

I am interested in when you date each of Paul's letters. Also, how familiar are you with the Greek and Aramaic texts of these letters? Are you dependent upon English translations for your opinions?

Shlama,
Rob
<font face="Estrangelo (V1.1)" size="4">
hnm Lqt4n hl ty0d wh P0 hl tyld Nmw hl Bhytn ryg hl ty0d Nm
(w4y</font>
Reply
#38
Craig Amanyahu Wrote:Women can prophecy because this is not a leadership position. A prophet is someone who opens their mouth and speaks an oracle from God. This can be done in a submissive way (and in fact requires a lot of submission to the Spirit). Paul speaks in 1 Cor 14:26-32 that the prophets should speak only when they are permitted. 1 Cor 14:26-32 clearly puts prophets in submission to the direction of those men who are in charge of the order of any worship.

1Co 12:28 And God has put some in the church, first, Apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then those with wonder-working powers, then those with the power of taking away disease, helpers, wise guides, users of strange tongues.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o
Reply
#39
Rob Vanhoff Wrote:OK. We have Greek 'fathers' saying "they did this, they did that..." I'm asking for something from the Nazarenes themselves - their own testimony. Not the opinion of Greek foreigners. Would you be content with a strangers' scanty account of your practices (especially when different from their own), in a foreign language at that?

I think we have their own testimony in the Peshitta. But, if that isn't enough, I have seen this referenced by someone who may or may not be a reliable:

"the proclaiming was multiplied, through the Goodnews of the emissary Paul who was the least of all the emissaries."
( Netzari commentary on Yeshayahu 8:23-9:3 (Isaiah 9:1-4 in Christian editions))

Perhaps, Andrew Gabriel Roth knows of it and would like to comment on whether this primary source is or isn't a "Netzari commentary" and whether it even exists in the first place.

Quote:I am interested in when you date each of Paul's letters.


Clement of Alexandria (150-215)
"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning
with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the
middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the
apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with
Nero (died 68 AD)." (Miscellanies 7:17.)

I personally think 2 Timothy was the last of Paul's letters and composed around 65 AD. I don't have any assigned date to any of the others.

Quote:Also, how familiar are you with the Greek and Aramaic texts of these letters? Are you dependent upon English translations for your opinions?

I need the English translations.

Shlama, Craig
Reply
#40
Shlama,

Now, if there's a 'Netzari'/Nazarene commentary on Isaiah, that I would love to see. Never heard of it.

Back to the 'women' thing. In my opinion, regardless of authorship, both 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy are response letters. They are specific instructions to a specific community addressing real issues at a specific point in time. The enforcement of the hierarchical structure was perhaps due to the presence of a 'Jezebel' type of spirit amongst some of the women, and/or those who insisted on celibacy "forbidding to marry", etc...

When I impose the rabbinic concept of 'halakhah' on these instructions/commands, I see that this is likely an authoritative decision for the particular communities addressed. My point in referencing the Tanakh was definitely not to make void or deny other passages (e.i., ref. to Adam/Eve), but to try to show that I view the application of Torah to be situation-specific.

For example, look at the following passage from Genesis (Modified KJV for convenient cut & paste)


21:9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.
10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, "Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac."
11 And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son.
12 And Elohim said unto Abraham, "Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called."


(Cf. Galatians 4:30, where Paul himself quotes these words of Sarah!)

The Hebrew phrase for 'hearken unto voice' is lwqb vmH , and means 'to obey'. It is used throughout the Tanakh for Israel's duty to obey God's commandments. Yeshua even uses it - "My sheep hear my voice".

In this passage, Elohim commands Avraham to obey his wife. This does not mean he is no longer head of the household, spiritual authority, etc..., but that in this particular instance, this particular time, he wasn't going to call the shots.

The KJV, while handy for me to cut-and-paste, is not actually accurate in this point either. The Hebrew reads:
hlqb vmH hrW ??yl' rm't rH' lk
Literally, it translates "Everything that Sarah will say to you, listen to her voice (obey her)"

So, to cap off my final post on this particular women-and-authority issue (it's been pretty long, eh?), I will just express my belief that every situation of our lives needs to be Spirit-led. This leading is the weightiest matter of the Torah, over-rulling all other matters. It is my opinion that this is what Paul desired - spiritual order. He knew that rukha d'qoodsha (the Holy Spirit) was not a bringer of confusion, but rather holiness, humilty (a servant's heart), order, and comfort. May this same Spirit guide each of us every moment of our lives!

Shlama w'taybootha,
Rob
<font face="Estrangelo (V1.1)" size="4">
hnm Lqt4n hl ty0d wh P0 hl tyld Nmw hl Bhytn ryg hl ty0d Nm
(w4y</font>
Reply
#41
Rob Vanhoff Wrote:Now, if there's a 'Netzari'/Nazarene commentary on Isaiah, that I would love to see. Never heard of it.

Ok, *supposedly* (I don't trust the source I heard this from until I get verification from somewhere else) this is a "fourth century Nazarene commentary" of which five fragments survive and from which the below are said to be excerpts of:

Isaiah 8:14:

"And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock
of offence to both the houses of Israel???"
The Nazarenes explain the two houses as the two houses of Shammai and Hillel,
from whom originated the Scribes and Pharisees??? [they Pharisees] scattered and
defiled the precepts of the Torah by traditions and mishna. And these two houses
did not accept the Savior???


Isaiah 8:20-21 has:

The Scribes and the Pharisees tell you to listen to them??? answer them like this:
"It is not strange if you follow your traditions since every tribe consults its own
idols. We must not, therefore, consult your dead [sages] about the living ones???."

Shlama, Craig
Reply
#42
Shlama, Akhi Craig,

I think this is all documented in the following book. I belive that Jerome is the historical source (I assume written in Latin)

Pritz, Ray A. Nazarene Jewish Christianity : from the end of the New Testament period until its disappearance in the fourth century (Jerusalem : Magnes Press, Hebrew University: Leiden : E.J. Brill, 1988)

Shlama w'taybutha,
Rob
<font face="Estrangelo (V1.1)" size="4">
hnm Lqt4n hl ty0d wh P0 hl tyld Nmw hl Bhytn ryg hl ty0d Nm
(w4y</font>
Reply
#43
Oops! My titles didn't come out:

1Co 12:28 And God has put some in the church, first, Apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then those with wonder-working powers, then those with the power of taking away disease, helpers, wise guides, users of strange tongues.

If women are Apostles and prophets in accordance to scripture, does that put them ahead of teachers?

Shlomo,
-Steve-o
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)