Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church - for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery - but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. -Ephesians 5:22-33
As mentioned, things were somewhat different for Jewish women. Traditionally, women and men were seen as equals, but with different responsibilities and obligations. Thanks to God's revelations to Moses at Mt. Sinai, the Jews even had laws in place that governed the intricacies of marriage and divorce, as well as laws that specify what is to happen to a woman suspected of adultery.
Rabbi Aaron Parry
The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Talmud
Bilateral Ecclesiology and the Gentiles Series
I've been using marital metaphors in previous blog posts Bilateral Living and The One Who is Two to try and illustrate how it might be possible, based on scripture, to support at least some portion of Mark Kinzer's suggestions in relation to "Bilatereal Ecclesiology" as chronicled in his book Postmissionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People (2005). Keep in mind, I'm not completely sold on each and every point Kinzer makes in PMJ. I believe that the suggestions contained therein need a lot of work before they could be made a viable model to be pursued by Messianic Judaism and the Christian church as a "partnership plan". Nevertheless, the idea requires further investigation, particularly as it maps (or fails to map) to the Apostolic Scriptures, which is what I'm doing here.
Laugh if you must, but in trying to get a ground-level beginner's handle on even what the Talmud is, I've been reading The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Talmud, which by the way, is a very good starter's primer. I decided to spend a small part of my Sunday afternoon reading the chapter "All About the Women" which addresses Nashim (Women), the third order of the Talmud. I barely got a few pages in when inspiration struck.
I was taken by how some of the descriptions regarding women and marriage not only seem to match up to the teachings of Yeshua and Paul, but how they could be applied to the "bilateral" relationship between Messianic Jews and non-Jewish Christians (and yes, there is and must be a relationship, otherwise, the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Jewish Messiah was in vain). What first struck me was Rabbi Parry's words, ...women and men were seen as equals, but with different responsibilities and obligations. That's more or less how the concept of Bilateral Ecclesiology describes the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the believing realm, both in the time of Paul and today.
I had previously read Rabbi Judith Z Abrams's book The Talmud for Beginners: Volume I Prayer and she describes how, while women are not forbidden the commandments that men obey (except those that are obviously gender specific), some obligations, such as those that are time-bound, are not required. This includes praying the Shema twice per day, since the timing may interfere with a woman's duties and responsibilities in the home and to her children (and the feminists reading this right now must be pretty much outraged).
This sugya deals with a different kind of interference that prevents one from reciting the Shema with the required intention. In the rabbis' view, being a woman interfered with one's ability to relate to God. They assumed that a woman was responsible for the demanding, and time-consuming, tasks of raising children and managing a household and therefore could not be held responsible for performing positive, time-bound commandments...Rabbi Abrams also states:
There are many exceptions to the rule of this system. Women are, in fact, obligated to perform some positive commandments, such as lighting the candles on Hannukah. Women are not forbidden to perform positive time-bound commandments; they are simply not obligated to do most of them...They may perform these mitzvot voluntarily if they wish to do so.I previously recorded these quotes and a more detailed account of Rabbi Abrams's book in my blog post The Right Question, but the content fits right in with what I've been writing about more recently, so I'm repeating it in this post.
Because women are not obligated to do these mitzvot, the rabbis ruled that women cannot have the same intention and sense of responsibility regarding the mitzvot as men do...
It makes me wonder about God's plan in first, establishing His covenants with the Children of Israel, and making them His "treasured splendorous people" (Exodus 19:5) and then commanding the Israelites to be a "light to the nations" (Isaiah 49:6). It also makes me wonder about this:
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. -1 Peter 2:9-10Of course, Peter was the "emissary to the circumcised", so you could say he was writing to an exclusively Jewish audience, except in verses 11 and 12, he says, Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.
If he were talking to Jews; people who were already members of the covenant, why would he call them foreigners and exiles, since they clearly weren't such a thing. Yes, in verse 12 he tells his audience to live such good lives among the pagans, but as Messianic disciples, the Gentile believers in the audience would no longer be pagans. Also, in the original quote, Peter refers to his audience as Once you were not a people which makes absolutely no sense if his audience were Jewish covenant members.
Don't worry. I'm not saying that believing Gentiles are equal to believe Jews, except to the degree, as Rabbi Parry states, that Jewish men and Jewish women are equal, but with different obligations and responsibilities. To extend the metaphor though, if Gentiles and Jews are equal but different in the manner that the Talmud describes Jewish men and women to be, then can we say, like Jewish women, that Torah obedience is not specifically forbidden to Gentile Messianics (i.e. Christians) but is allowed on a voluntary basis?
I know some of you are thinking that there are sections of the Talmud that specifically forbid Torah observance by Gentiles or sections that praise Gentile obedience to the commandments, with the understanding that those mitzvot are limited to the Noahide laws, but wait.
Remember that the Talmudic sages, probably down to a man, would not have considered the status of Gentile disciples of Yeshua (Jesus) as relevant to their opinions, particularly because Jews and Christians were very much at odds while the Oral Laws were being documented and certainly during the time when the sages were writing their Gemara on the Oral traditions.
This is a limitation, perhaps a necessary one, that restricts some of the application of the Talmud to the current argument, but not completely.
Daniel on his blog "Christian for Moses" has illustrated that there is Talmudic precedent for non-Jews to perform the mitzvot, though with different motivation, and I've blogged on similar topics and presented further quotes of the sages in the opinions of Rabbi Mayer Twersky and my review of FFOZ's tefillin booklet.
If you start putting all of the pieces together, the picture of the jigsaw puzzle begins to become recognizable. Getting back to something I said earlier, perhaps it was God's plan all along, to create a "nation of priests" of the Children of Israel, and then to use them as a "light to the nations" to, in effect, "marry" the groom to the bride, creating "one flesh" or "one new man" out of the two "individuals", each being equal or co-heirs and co-citizens to one another, but with different responsibilities and obligations to God, the Torah, and each other, much as what you would find in almost any marriage. I liked what Rabbi Parry said here:
According to Jewish thought, marriage is considered one of life's greatest treasures. What's more, it's believed that the relationship that most closely parallels the relationship between man and God is the marital union between a man and a woman.Both the Tanakh and the Apostolic Scriptures use marital metaphors to describe the relationship between the Children of Israel and God as well as the union between the Jewish and Gentile Messianic community and the Jewish Messiah.
“Return, faithless people,” declares the LORD, “for I am your husband. I will choose you—one from a town and two from a clan—and bring you to Zion. Then I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will lead you with knowledge and understanding. In those days, when your numbers have increased greatly in the land,” declares the LORD, “people will no longer say, ‘The ark of the covenant of the LORD.’ It will never enter their minds or be remembered; it will not be missed, nor will another one be made. At that time they will call Jerusalem The Throne of the LORD, and all nations will gather in Jerusalem to honor the name of the LORD. No longer will they follow the stubbornness of their evil hearts. In those days the people of Judah will join the people of Israel, and together they will come from a northern land to the land I gave your ancestors as an inheritance. -Jeremiah 3:14-18I don't think Kinzer's book is the final word on how this "mixed marriage" or rather God's plan for a "mixed marriage" between Christians and Jews is ultimately supposed to work out. Also, the One Law movement is very good about describing the "equality" between the "husband" and "wife" but not so good about describing the inherent differences in responsibilities and obligations that must exist, even between two people made into "one flesh" or two people groups made into "one new man". Clearly, no one has a "lock" on understanding how Jewish and Gentile Messianic relationships are supposed to operate.
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. -Ephesians 5:24
I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. -2 Corinthians 11:2
Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear.” (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.) Then the angel said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!’ ” And he added, “These are the true words of God.” -Revelation 19:7-9
I don't know how it works either, or rather, how it will work. I do think that we'll keep struggling with our relationship until the Jewish Messiah returns and straightens us all out. Then, we will all take our places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven together (Matthew 8:11).
The road is long and often, we travel in the dark, ignoring the light of the world. Look for the lamp who lights your path or you may become lost in the dark forever.
"A Jew never gives up. We're here to bring Mashiach, we will settle for nothing less." -Harav Yitzchak Ginsburgh
32 comments:
I guess you did not get what I have said before, so here it is again: Where, in all the places you quoted, does it say that in a "mixed marriage" the husbands and wives have to live in different houses?
"I guess you did not get what I have said before, so here it is again"
Dan, how about a little respect for people's intelligence and less condescension? I guarantee you, even if your ideas are totally bogus, people (by which I mean other than your regular choir) would listen to what you have to say if you didn't present yourself as a pompous you know what. Seriously.
Dan, I don't have an absolute answer for you and yes, I have been thinking about same vs different houses. I can only speculate on how there were exclusively Jewish, exclusively Gentile, and mixed Messianic congregations in the 1st century.
Many months ago, I suggested that the composition of the various congregations was driven more by the local populations and cultures than an "ecclesiology". That is, we have local churches that have mainly spanish speakers, korean speakers, and so forth. People tend to gather with people from the same country, culture, and language.
That said, we do have a bilingual spanish speaking family who (when they're able to attend) prefers our congregation to the spanish-speaking Messianic congregation in town.
My idea was pretty much shot down because it doesn't line up with strict BE canon but I suppose it could be adapted to include Jewish congregations who use traditional Hebrew prayers without having to accomodate non-Hebrew speaking Gentiles.
I don't have all the answers, but I can see the desire for some Jewish congregations to be "just Jewish". That said, I can see the desire of some Gentile congregations (churches) to be "just Gentile". In fact, many churches are probably like that, preferring traditional Christian hymns without having to accomodate observant Jewish Messianics who would like to say prayers from a siddur.
OK, the examples sound kind of lame, but I'm still trying to figure all this out. I have to admit (and I've been doing some thinking on the matter) that being married to a non-Messianic Jew who is continuing to discover her own Jewish identity is having a significant affect on how I'm conceptualizing the Messianic Jewish/Gentile intermix.
I saw this quote on twitter this morning and it seems to crystalize what I've been trying to do lately. Figured I should share it:
Rebuilding our inner world depends upon our acquiring a new dimension of understanding of who we are and where we're going. -Harav Yitzchak Ginsburgh
Oops. Stopped commenting too soon. Rabbi Ginsburg also talks about rebuilding the outer world as well:
Rebuilding our outer world depends on our joining hands together to re-form society in accordance with the vision of the Torah.
Somewhat appropriate because in the Messianic realm, Jews and Christians continually struggle to do pretty much anything together, particularly based on the vision of the Torah.
"Dan, I don't have an absolute answer for you and yes, I have been thinking about same vs different houses."
so you are agreeing with me that Kinzer's "idea" cannot be implamented in the here and now? i know that you are looking for a solution, but I am here referring just to Kinzer's "idea."
I'm not looking for an answer to Kinzer's proposal per se, but I am exploring support in the Bible that Jews don't simply disappear into the Christian amorphous mass when they come to faith in the Jewish Messiah. As far as Kinzer's proposal being practical, the answer is "yes" and "no".
It's "yes" in that there's nothing stopping a bunch of Messianic Jews from establishing their own congregation that services just (or a majority population of) Messianic Jews, and models its worship & lifestyle practices on normative Judaism. Even in the first century, there were such Messianic Jewish synagogues (as well as Gentile only and "mixed" congregation).
It's "no" in that the Kinzer ideal of reshaping all Messianic Judaism to follow this model is a fantasy. Jews such as yourself are an illustration of that. Not all Jews who call themselves "Messianic" have any desire to follow Kinzer's pattern. Also, getting "the Church" as a whole to go along with Kinzer's proposals will be a real uphill battle and I don't know if it will be practical in any real sense until the Messiah returns.
"so you are agreeing with me that Kinzer's "idea" cannot be implamented in the here and now?"
1. Well, there's a world of difference between CAN and SHOULD. Is the "church" today in the state where Yeshua himself would have wanted it to be 2K years ago? Was his own idealism hopeless, unrealizable and "unimplementable"?
2. This is NOT about any sort of immediate "implementation" - we are all waiting for the Messianic Age for that. The last 2K teach us that whatever man touches eventually turns to dung, but it doesn't mean that we are to fold our hands and stand idly by. We can still do things, one thing at a time, one congregation at a time and go from there. We have to start somewhere. We implement things starting with ourselves and those who G-d brings our way, and pray that G-d blesses it over the coming years.
My point is that this is about something far more significant and long term. It's about the very basics. Who and what is Israel in G-d's eyes? Is Israel's role any different from that of the nations? What is G-d's plan for the nations - is it any different from that of Israel? How do two plans work together. Is supersessionism wrong in G-d's eyes and what should be done about it?
"It's "no" in that the Kinzer ideal of reshaping all Messianic Judaism to follow this model is a fantasy. Jews such as yourself are an illustration of that."
James, Dan doesn't consider himself a part of "Messianic Judaism" nor does he even call his own faith "Judaism". This has got to give you some clues where this man is coming from. In fact, Benzvi doesn't associate with any Messianic Jews and have said nothing but vitriol against them for years now. I am not sure that he's an "illustration" of anything.
"What is G-d's plan for the nations - is it any different from that of Israel?"
That's a good question, and it helps develop a more detailed picture of our roles as gentiles in this Torah walk. There are many reasons why I personally believe I should keep Torah. It's easy however to confuse prophecy with what we consider "G-d's plans". The antichrist will sit in the temple. G-d's plan? Yikes, I hope not. We get into some dicey things when we start to apply the term "children of Israel" to Jews only. What about all of G-d's people in the world that aren't Jewish? Will G-d not take care of them during the tribulations in the end days (not talking about a rapture)? In that application it's almost like reverse-supersessionism.
"We get into some dicey things when we start to apply the term "children of Israel" to Jews only."
I am not sure if I understand you, benicho. Who else does the term "children of Israel" ever apply to? Is the term ever used in the Bible (including NT) to describe Gentiles? At any time, ever?
"What about all of G-d's people in the world that aren't Jewish? Will G-d not take care of them during the tribulations in the end days."
G-d has always cared about Gentiles. Look at the story of Jonah. He will certainly care about those who became adopted children of Abraham through Yeshua (notice that Gentiles are never called "children of Israel"). Abraham is called the father of many nations. (Genesis 17:5)
Now I am going to have to write a blog with a detailed scriptural analysis about who exactly "children of Israel" are:)
I'm referring to nomenclature issues in this day and age. For example G-d's people and children of Israel are used in both Old and New testament referring to both Jews and Gentiles. When people say "children of Israel" it almost denotes exception of gentiles. I agree, I haven't seen a reference to gentiles as "children of Israel" exclusively, but I have seen Jews referred as G-d's people, and we see that even the nations are referred to as G-d's people in Revelations. The role of gentiles in prophetic writings is vague (maybe you can expand).
"Is the term ever used in the Bible (including NT) to describe Gentiles? At any time, ever?"
It would be interesting to see all the references to "G-d's people" and "children of Israel" in a list to check context. The prophetic writings in Tanakh are seemingly talking to Israel, same with the book of Revelations, but you notice that the leaders of the tribes aren't called Israel, what are your thoughts on that?
"Now I am going to have to write a blog with a detailed scriptural analysis about who exactly "children of Israel" are:)"
Good idea, let me know what version you're using when you cite all the references, some versions incorrectly translate "children of Israel" as G-d's people or chosen people, etc.
"For example G-d's people and children of Israel are used in both Old and New testament referring to both Jews and Gentiles."
"Chilren of Israel" never refers to Gentiles in the Bible. Those Gentiles who have soujourned with Israel are called "mixed multitude", "alien", "foreigner", or in relation to adoption of Judaism a "convert". In Judaism today converts to Judaism do become adopted "children of Israel".
"G-d's people", however, IS used to refer at to to Gentiles and even specific nations in "OT". For example:
"In that day Israel will be the third, along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth. HaShem will bless them, saying, “Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance.” (Isaiah 19:24-25)"
As can be plainly see, the Bible doesn't see any need to confuse the nations with Israel. All nations can become "people of G-d".
"When people say "children of Israel" it almost denotes exception of gentiles."
I agree, it does denote that - "children of Israel" never refers of Gentiles. What a confusing mess that would be if it did (well, that's exactly what Replacement Theology accomplished, by reading scriptures to include Gentiles anytime Israel was mentioned)!
I think you're just misunderstanding what I meant. I was referring to the confusion people have made by applying gentiles to "children of Israel". I agree with you, but the way the terms "G-d's people" and "children of Israel" have been used interchangeably has created confusion about identity, which is why I say we need to be careful how we apply the terms, in what context, and to what audience (some people as you know don't think we have different identities). The same can be said of saying "Jew" to apply to all the children of Israel. I don't want to open a can of worms with that.
"I agree, it does denote that - "children of Israel" never refers of Gentiles."
Just to clarify, I don't see any instance of gentiles referred to specifically as children of Israel either, I was more referring to those who try to claim that "if we're not part of the "children of Israel" then how are we heirs?", something OL proponents often bring up. As if to say that by not sharing the title "children of Israel" then somehow we're excluded? not sure of the driving motivation behind that.
Anyways, to more concrete things, a list of references to "children of Israel" and "G-d's people" would be a good study.
Aah, gotcha benicho. Communication via blog comments can be quite confusing to say that least. Although, you made good points and I supported them (especially re: "people of G-d" being applied to nations other than Israel).
In the end, it looks like the nations and Israel will have a similar relationship with each other as do the tribes of Israel with each other:
Each nation and each tribe of Israel:
1. Have their own unique identity
2. Represent a unique part of one whole (Kingdom of G-d).
3. Have a place of their own (geographically)
4. Each one has specific talents and gifts
5. Each one worships separately in their communities and yet all have a central focal point where to worship at certain times of the year (Temple of G-d - which will be for "all nations").
6. There could be similar relationship between Israel and the nations as between Cohanim (priests) and the rest of Israel: the nation of Israel will be "priests" unto the nations (Exodus 19:6). At the same time, all believers from all nations will be "priests unto G-d", just as every Jew is considered part of the nation of "priests" even if they are not a cohen that has specific responsibilities.
Each one worships separately in their communities and yet all have a central focal point where to worship at certain times of the year (Temple of G-d - which will be for "all nations").
Wow, Gene! You're saying the faithful of the nations will have access to the Temple in Messianic days? ;-)
these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations." -Isaiah 56:7
Seriously, that's comforting to know and it's comforting to understand that our "bilateral" relationship won't entirely keep us apart as fellow disciples in the Jewish Messiah.
@Gene
Yeah it gets confusing when all these terms are thrown out on the table.
@James
"Wow, Gene! You're saying the faithful of the nations will have access to the Temple in Messianic days? ;-)"
Isaiah 56:6-7 I can't say enough about, but to expand on your comment...There's an interesting though as to what faithful is. Obeying, simply believing, etc? There are people now that truly are faithful, but as we seen in Revelations during the tribulations people will be deceived and misled (even the "faithful"). We can only speculate how it will all happen, but this is precisely why it's important for us goy to know our Torah, this is also why I believe (and do not take lightly) we ought learn it, because it's going to be a guiding light (sound familiar?) during the tribulations. Like I've said before, how many will be led astray for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6 should be a nice foreshadowing).
Speaking of which isn't Hosea 4 interesting with regards to the current mass deaths of animals?
Speaking of which isn't Hosea 4 interesting with regards to the current mass deaths of animals?
I wouldn't get over excited about applying Hosea 4:3 to the current animal deaths, since God seems to be talking more specifically about the Land of Israel and the consequences of His chosen people's disobedience on the physical countryside and wildlife.
Of course, some say that a particular prophesy can be applied to more than one historical event. Not sure if I go along with that, but I'm willing to entertain the possibility.
I wouldn't apply it, but it's a warning by G-d to his people about what happens when they disobey. I won't say this is proof of anything, but I will suggest that perhaps these are naturally occurring ramifications for disobedience to the Word (as it seems in Hosea). If you read the context of chapter for that's all it's saying...disobedience leads to these problems. I don't see any verse there suggesting that G-d is going to smite them by His own hand. Do we really believe this only applies to Israel? We're so caught on this idea that "well that's just for Israel" that it leaks into most everything we interpret even after we've been on this Hebrew roots journey.
Speaking of which, you may enjoy Brad Scott's "G-d is smarter than we are" series, quite interesting to say the least.
"Of course, some say that a particular prophesy can be applied to more than one historical event. Not sure if I go along with that, but I'm willing to entertain the possibility."
Speaking of which is the prophesy in Isaiah 7:14 which can be applicable to two, both king Hezzekiah (correct me if I'm wrong) and of course the Messiah.
I've been reading the Idiot's Guide to the Talmud again and came across the following, which I found interesting and related to the current topic of discussion:
Accordingly, the remedy (for sin) ultimately had to come with greater awareness of what God's laws are about. How was this accomplished more than 2,000 years ago?
The most efficient way was for the transgressor to travel to Jerusalem; where he (it was almost always a "he") would purchase an offering, have it properly prepared, hand it to the priests on the Temple Mount, and talk with the teachers.
Even non-Jews could bring a sacrifice to the Holy Temple. Leviticus 1:2 teaches, "A man from amongst you offers a free-will offering..." The fact of that it says "a man" and not necessarily an Israelite, implies that making sacrifices was not restricted to followers of the faith.
Interesting, and it has implications about the role of Gentiles in the Third Temple during the Messianic Age.
"James, Dan doesn't consider himself a part of "Messianic Judaism" nor does he even call his own faith "Judaism". This has got to give you some clues where this man is coming from. In fact, Benzvi doesn't associate with any Messianic Jews and have said nothing but vitriol against them for years now. I am not sure that he's an "illustration" of anything."
Well, Gene, most of mainstream Judaism doesn't think you much of a Jew either..... But keep kissing their behinds maybe they will make you a token one.....
"Well, Gene, most of mainstream Judaism doesn't think you much of a Jew either..... But keep kissing their behinds maybe they will make you a token one....."
Sad to see you not denying that you are not part of any Judaism. But this just you being you.
The "they" you are talking about are my people. The fact that my own flesh and blood may not think much of me because of who I consider to be the Messiah changes nothing of how I relate to them.
OK, before the personal attacks get any worse, why don't you guys go to your corners and cool off. I've got a perfectly good blog post I wrote yesterday that's feeling rather neglected. You could provide some (constructive) comments there if you'd like.
"Sad to see you not denying that you are not part of any Judaism. But this just you being you.
The "they" you are talking about are my people. The fact that my own flesh and blood may not think much of me because of who I consider to be the Messiah changes nothing of how I relate to them. "
Philllip. 3:5-8;
Boy, Gene, you must hate Paul, don't you?
Me? I am proud to be in his company.
One day, when Messiah comes, you will learn.
"Philllip. 3:5-8; Boy, Gene, you must hate Paul, don't you? Me? I am proud to be in his company."
You are proud to simplistically interpret words (as 2 Peter 3:16 warned us about) of Paul (inspite of the fact that he swore to obey not only Torah but even the traditions, and even continued calling himself "I am a Pharisee") to pain him as a despiser of Judaism and the Jewish people who are in it? That puts you not in the company of Paul but of those who have persecuted Jews by twisting the words that Paul wrote to suit their own deep-seated prejudices. Lest you counterclaim that you were born a Jew and that this can't possible apply to you, look up this fella by the name: Johannes Pfefferkorn.
Man, I really should stop allowing myself to be baited by you.
A mere friend will agree with you, but a real friend will argue. -Russian Proverb
Of course, that's arguing out of love, not hostility.
"You are proud to simplistically interpret words"
Oh, you want me to perform gymnastics, like you and the BE crowd do?
Let them all see the weak foundation of your belief.....
Dan, some day we'll just laugh and laugh about this...
well... at least I will:)
Anywho... let's not soil James' nice blog, peace.
Post a Comment