Conservative Bishops to Meet Anglican Head Over Breakaway Province

St. John\'s »

Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

By the way, Phileo, the Septuagint appears to have mistranslated the Hebrew giving us a 'coat of many colors' where the Hebrew appears to be a 'coat with sleeves,' cf. ASV vs NRSV, sorry.

Conservative Bishops to Meet Anglican Head Over Breakaway Province

St. John\'s »

Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

it is also interesting to note that some of the conservative dioceses, like Pittsburgh, accept women's ordination, while others, like Fort Worth, do no, so the clergy are not interchangeable. Interesting that they could agree to disagree on this issue, but not on others.

Conservative Bishops to Meet Anglican Head Over Breakaway Province

St. John\'s »

Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

note that no reason was given by the conservatives as to why they did not proceed with the attempt to create a new Anglican province in accordance with the rules of the Anglican Consultative Council. Moreover Duncan's exaggerated numbers of 100,000 members is still less than 4% of the Episcopal Church, even though it includes members of the Reformed Episcopal Church that separated in the 19th century, others who separated in the 80's over women's ordination, and those who recently split over homosexuality. Not a real split, more like a splinter.

Breakaway Anglicans Aim for Less Division with New Province

St. John\'s »

Thu Dec 04, 2008 4:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

or maybe this 'new' so-called Anglican Province will 150 years later admit the error of their ways, like the Southern Baptists, who did indeed split supporting slavery as biblical mandated.

Breakaway Anglicans Aim for Less Division with New Province

St. John\'s »

Thu Dec 04, 2008 2:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

believer, those Baptists who you declared "opted to go with God" separated from their northern brethren because of the northern Baptists' opposition to slavery. Those Southern Baptists based that support for slavery upon the indisputable evidence of the Bible, a position that they have never repudiated!

Breakaway Anglicans Aim for Less Division with New Province

St. John\'s »

Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

wbmoore, a very real schism occurred in America's churches after the Civil War. The Baptists and Methodists actually split in two, and though the Methodists are now United, the Southern Baptists have never been able to reunited with their northern counterpart. Moreover, the Methodists formed a separate denomination for their black members, originally called the Colored Methodist Church, (C.M.E.), now the Christian Methodist Church. All over Biblical interpretation about slavery! Homosexuality, like women's ordination, is just a bump in the road in comparison.

Breakaway Anglicans Aim for Less Division with New Province

St. John\'s »

Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

wbmoore, that's wishful thinking on your part, for it certainly doesn't look like that is happening, despite all the press headlines. The numbers of dissenters is less than women's ordination twenty years ago!

Breakaway Anglicans Aim for Less Division with New Province

St. John\'s »

Wed Dec 03, 2008 5:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

How sad, but these efforts are probably going to fail to be significant as were earlier schisms by the Reformed Episcopal Church in the 19th century, or the anti-women's groups in the 80's. Failing to abide by the Windsor Report will be their death knell as an Anglican organization, like their continued crossing of diocesan boundaries. And failing to acknowledge at least two of the four Instruments of the Unity, viz. Lambeth and the Archbishop of Canterbury, will also conflict with their claims of being the 'true' Anglican Church, even if the Nigerians and other conservatives support join them. We are an international church in the end, and Anglican Consultative Council, Lambeth, and the ABC will overrule any Primates' meeting.

Fort Worth is 4th Episcopal Diocese to Break Away

St. John\'s »

Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

believer, I lived in Belgium for three years, where there is also recognition of same-sex marriages and I didn't see any widespread evidence of the Jester in the King's Court's fears. Did you witness a free-for-all in Holland, "where anyone can marry anyone else. male female sister brother mother husband as if it didn't matter"? I don't think so.

Fort Worth is 4th Episcopal Diocese to Break Away

St. John\'s »

Tue Nov 25, 2008 7:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

believer, Dr. Norman Geisler's doctorate is in Philosophy, not Hebrew studies. He's taught theology and philosophy and apologetics, not Biblical Studies. You like him because he's an inerrantist and agrees with your position, not because he's an acknowledged and respected scholar in the field of Hebraic studies or the Old Testament. He comes to the conclusion you want, and you are more interested in just promoting your views than engaging in an objective discussion about the issue.

Fort Worth is 4th Episcopal Diocese to Break Away

St. John\'s »

Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:45 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Jester in the Kings Court, none of your projected fears have occurred in other countries where same-sex marriage has been allowed for years. Are you suggesting that Americans will be more out of control than say the Dutch, or Swiss?

Fort Worth is 4th Episcopal Diocese to Break Away

St. John\'s »

Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Most of the oral tradition represented in the Talmud, especially in the Gemara represent pre-Christian opinions. This is certainly true with both the Schools of Shammai and Hillel, so your attempts to simply dismiss them as Jews who rejected Jesus doesn't really work. Also Dr. Geisler is not a scholar of Hebrew studies. These Jewish scholars will argue that the Mosaic Law and Levitical code represent God's ordinance. They are almost uniform in their opinions about polygamy being a part of the Law. And finally, interracial marriage was opposed by 37 states until 1967, and polling interviews reveal that the majority of those who were opposed to changing the statutes were Evangelical Christians basing their vote on their Biblical interpretation, not unlike our current debate on same-sex marriage.

Fort Worth is 4th Episcopal Diocese to Break Away

St. John\'s »

Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Online4Him, the point is that the biblical concept of marriage has changed over the centuries. Women are no longer considered as chattel. Polygamy is no longer accepted and interracial marriage is now accepted, although each of these positions has a long history of biblical supporters. It is in this context that the questions about homosexual marriage are being considered. Pretending otherwise is to dismiss and ignore thousands of year of biblical discussions in favor of yours, and the ease with which you do that is just self-righteous.

Fort Worth is 4th Episcopal Diocese to Break Away

St. John\'s »

Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

So for thousands of years Jewish scholars agreed that the Mosaic Law and the Levitical code established polygamy as the Biblical norm, but they were simply wrong, and you're extracting a couple of verses to support your interpretation dismisses theirs, without prejudices, and I am wrong to suggest that you are being self-righteous?

Fort Worth is 4th Episcopal Diocese to Break Away

St. John\'s »

Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Online4Him and believer, I hope that the Holy Spirit lays heavy upon your hearts about the ease with which you dismissed 2,000 years of Jewish scholarship, as though you knew better the meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures. How sad? How outrageous? How self-righteous?

Fort Worth is 4th Episcopal Diocese to Break Away

St. John\'s »

Sat Nov 22, 2008 8:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

believer, it is not MY reading of the Mosaic Law AND the Levitical code, it is the reading of the Jewish scholars for some 3,000 years. I am not the one picking out a verse from Genesis and Matthew and declaring that THIS is the original design and plan of God, and thus that these Jewish scholars were mistaken in their understanding of God's ordinance for thousands of years, you are! Read the Talmud, read Misnah. Read the Hebrew Scriptures! God's beloved children of Israel derive from Jacob having multiple wives and concubines! God didn't just favor the children of one wive over the others, God loved and cherished them all without distinction! You are the one reading into the Scriptures what YOU want to find there!

Fort Worth is 4th Episcopal Diocese to Break Away

St. John\'s »

Sat Nov 22, 2008 2:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Child sacrifice is not prescribed in the Mosaic Law as is polygamy, nor is child sacrifice found in the Levitical Code, nor was child sacrifice practiced by the Patriarchs, and Moses, and good Kings David and Solomon, nor is there any recognition of child sacrifice as an acceptable practice in the New Testament or upon the lips of Jesus, so, no, I don't think the comparison is fair at all.

Fort Worth is 4th Episcopal Diocese to Break Away

St. John\'s »

Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:44 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

believer, I am not intending to defend polygamy but to dispute your suggestions that monogamy is the clear and obvious biblical norm. It wasn't, though it has become our cultural norm. The change is more a result of the Greco-Roman culture than God's original design and plan.

Fort Worth is 4th Episcopal Diocese to Break Away

St. John\'s »

Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:53 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Online4Him, King Herod is known to have had many wives and a harem, and though he is criticized in the New Testament for many things, he is not criticized for this. The Sadducees in their discussion with Jesus use the example of Levirate marriage, suggesting it is still practiced in NT times, and Jesus' response doesn't condemn the practice. There is other evidence of the practice of polygamy in Palestinian Judaism in NT times (cf. J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period, 1969, 90, 93, 369f.). Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.) had ten wives (Josephus, Ant. 17, 19f.; War 1,562) and a considerable harem (War 1,511). Polygamy and concubinage among the aristocracy is attested by Josephus, Ant. 12, 186ff.; 13, 380; War 1, 97. The continued practice of levirate marriage (Yeb. 15b) evidently led to polygamy, which was countenanced by the school of Shammai.

Fort Worth is 4th Episcopal Diocese to Break Away

St. John\'s »

Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Online4Him, the Hebrew in Deuteronomy 17.16/17 for "multiply" both of horses, wives and money in each case is "Rabah", which means to be or become great, be or become many, be or become much, be or become numerous

1. (Qal)
1. to become many, become numerous, multiply (of people, animals, things)
2. to be or grow great
2. (Piel) to make large, enlarge, increase, become many
3. (Hiphil)
1. to make much, make many, have many 1c
4. to multiply, increase 1c
5. to make much to do, do much in respect of, transgress greatly 1c
6. to increase greatly or exceedingly
1. to make great, enlarge, do much
The context is clear that we are talking about 'many' here, not 'two'. The proscription is against having too many wives, horses, or too much money. You guys are reading into this text something that is not there, while dismissing Exodus 21.10 with its reference to "ordinances" of God in verse 1, using the Hebrew word 'mishpat,' which clearly means law or ordinance or legla priviledge, Strongs: judgment, justice, ordinance

1. judgment
1. act of deciding a case
2. place, court, seat of judgment
3. process, procedure, litigation (before judges)
4. case, cause (presented for judgment)
5. sentence, decision (of judgment)
6. execution (of judgment)
7. time (of judgment)
2. justice, right, rectitude (attributes of God or man)
3. ordinance
4. decision (in law)
5. right, privilege, due (legal)
6. proper, fitting, measure, fitness, custom, manner, plan. This last meaning might even suggest that THIS is God's plan, or custom, or design!