Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2013 0:17:16 GMT -5
the ministry is not about following that what is of the human flesh but it is of following what is of the Spirit Jesus didn't call the Apostles to follow after the flesh but after the Spirit how many Apostles in the Bible were actually show to have a wife and how many not? Jesus called his Apostles to give them extended and necessary education on the interpretation of the scriptures that they all had to grow up by(bible college, eh?)...how these scriptures fore told of Jesus' c oming and the reasons he was coming..... And I'm not certain, but perhaps think your reference in following the Spirit, you're speaking about the Holy Spirit....HOWEVER Jesus did not particularly say in direct words to "follow the Spirit", HE DID tell them to "follow thou me"....did he not? He also gave them the Holy Spirit other wise they would not have understood the scripture which ultimately is from the Holy Spirit/God/The Father so Jesus was not of the Holy Spirit?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2013 4:49:28 GMT -5
if you hire someone would you pay them monies? can one hire without some sort of remuneration?
Please go and read the opening verses of Matthew chapter 20, THEN come back and disagree with me!
The Apostles and indeed EVERY Christian is a "hired hand!" The Great Husbandman is not interested in employing "free" labour, or hiring workers for nothing!
when they made their own interpretation of God laws they were no longer Gods laws but their own
Exactly. The same happens with (all?) religious groups today. Some even have bun fights in God's name!
those ladies weren't hired they were chosen
You don't see these terms as compatible? Contextually accurate? You cannot reconcile them with each other?
nah man you're barking up the wrong tree
I'm sorry Virgs, but all the evidence points to you been the one who has been confusing dogs behaviour with that of humans!
i ask you fitting in with whom?
Fitting in with whatever religious system wants you to fit in with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2013 5:03:08 GMT -5
Jesus called his Apostles to give them extended and necessary education on the interpretation of the scriptures that they all had to grow up by(bible college, eh?)...how these scriptures fore told of Jesus' c oming and the reasons he was coming..... And I'm not certain, but perhaps think your reference in following the Spirit, you're speaking about the Holy Spirit....HOWEVER Jesus did not particularly say in direct words to "follow the Spirit", HE DID tell them to "follow thou me"....did he not? He also gave them the Holy Spirit other wise they would not have understood the scripture which ultimately is from the Holy Spirit/God/The Father so Jesus was not of the Holy Spirit? Virgs, keep in mind that Jesus sent them the Holy Spirit "after" he ascended to Heaven.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Nov 19, 2013 10:41:38 GMT -5
Jesus called his Apostles to give them extended and necessary education on the interpretation of the scriptures that they all had to grow up by(bible college, eh?)...how these scriptures fore told of Jesus' c oming and the reasons he was coming..... And I'm not certain, but perhaps think your reference in following the Spirit, you're speaking about the Holy Spirit....HOWEVER Jesus did not particularly say in direct words to "follow the Spirit", HE DID tell them to "follow thou me"....did he not? He also gave them the Holy Spirit other wise they would not have understood the scripture which ultimately is from the Holy Spirit/God/The Father so Jesus was not of the Holy Spirit? He was incarnated in Mary by the Holy Spirit and was called "that holy thing" by the angel.....He received the Holy Spirit at the age of 12 in order to be able to go home with his birth mother and father, and it says that he grew and gainedapproval by the Father or Holy Spirit and with man. Again we read of the Holy Spirit that came down upon him at his baptism by John the Baptist....then we read in John's gospel that he had the Holy Spirit not by measure but all.....his amount of Holy Spirit was NOT measured to him as it is to men. Then as Jesus told his disciples that "he" meaning Jesus would send the Comforter to then, which is interpreted the Holy Spirit. So there became a time when the Holy Spirit was what emanated from God the FAther AND Jesus His Son.......This again is a simple mystery that mankind wants to make difficult in their unbelief! You probably have heard others speak of where Jesus questioned or considered would there be any faith on earth when he returns........so somewhere along the years of Jesus' birth, resurrection and being instilled as a Chief Priest forever after the order of Melchisadek, it seems to cease that the Holy Spirit was on the upper hand then Jesus' in that again we read that Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit to them. There is an equality of powers or so it seems to me, but the Father retaining the ultimate power for the Son had well pleased the Father and in no way was the Father reluctant to tell witnesses that. The Apostles had agreed during the time that Jesus was with them that Jesus was the Jesus Christ...God's Christ......it doesn't say how they came to that conclusion, but we can know that Jesus was able to open the scriptures unto them as he felt and still feels is necessary. Again, the Holy Spirit being given in measures because mankind likely could not sustain that full measure of the Holy Spirit...... I guess I should try to shorten my answer to specifically answer yours....Yes, Jesus was incarnated by the Holy Spirit into Mary....thus making Jesus 100 per cent God and 100 per cent man. I used to wonder why it was necessary that Jesus come into the world as any human does since it is evident in Genesis for one, that Jesus could take on the form of man and be seen as a man, though Abraham knew without a problem that ONE of those three men he saw from the door of his tent was truly God....The thing seems to be that Jesus had to come into flesh as a babe so he would rightfully have the birthright to be David's heir of the throne......otherwise, he could have and likely would have just walked the earth as he had done in the OT. I think from what is said that Jesus taught the Apostles about the scripture and there was much they couldn't understand UNTIL the Holy Spirit gave them the spirit of understanding and might. Then they begin to recall all that Jesus had said unto them. I think we find ourselves much the same in a smaller measure perhaps, but after becoming well acquainted with the scriptures then as time requires the appropriate scriptures come back to us. Or so it does with me.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Nov 19, 2013 10:46:55 GMT -5
Maybe you should tell that to virgo. He seems to think that it is only the spirit that counts and not the way the things are done in the flesh. That's the way I interpreted what he wrote anyway. If Jesus didn't say that they had to be single, why do the workers have to be single - after all they are following the example of Jesus and now you are saying that is not in Jesus rule book? How come it is the workers rule book for workers then? why would bert need to tell me of something i already know and he knows i do the flesh is the human will Seems some of ex 2x2's and in 2x2's still are having difficulty of putting the Holy Spirit in the proper place considering the Father and the Son......The Holy Spirit often was not completely understand by w&f's because it was as if we knew he was there but as we did't know just exactly where to consider the Holy Spirit's position in accordance to the Father and the Son....that we often times disregard the importance of the Holy Spirit...also I think workers that couldn't quite understand themselves about the Holy Spirit and in fear of blaspheiming him, they usually didn't try to preach a whole lot about him. However it is as Jesus said that the Holy Spirit when he comes to us individually that he doesn't speak of himself, but of the Son....otherwords seems to me that the Holy Spirit did not seek to be elevated above the Son...and this is how the Holy Spirit teaches US humility, etc. IMO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2013 12:43:32 GMT -5
Shaz, Virgs and I understand the Holy Spirit to be the power or force of God the Father through which he does all things. Everything that Jesus ever did was through the Holy Spirit with which the Father empowered him.
When Jesus was on the Earth he promised to send the Comforter, i.e. the Holy Spirit, when he returned to the Father. This was because on his resurrection he inherited "all power in heaven and earth" (for the FIRST time) and was in a position to send the Holy Spirit himself/directly. Although still under the Father's control, he is now reigning in place of his Father, i.e. representing the Father, the Almighty God, until he eventually defeats all of his enemies. The power is the Holy Spirit which Jesus himself now has control of.
1 Corinthians Ch. 15 gives good insight into things.
vs. 25 "For he must reign, till he put hath put all enemies under his feet.
vs. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
vs. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
vs. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him , then shall the Son also be himself subject unto him that put all things under him , that God may be all in all."
My grateful thanks to Ems for pointing this out in an earlier post which completes the picture.
As Bert will attest, the unforgivable sin, i.e. blaspheming against the Holy Ghost, appears to be "denying the power of God?" (in one's life). Seems self explanatory?
Interesting too that death is an enemy of God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2013 0:03:20 GMT -5
if you hire someone would you pay them monies? can one hire without some sort of remuneration? Please go and read the opening verses of Matthew chapter 20, THEN come back and disagree with me!
The Apostles and indeed EVERY Christian is a "hired hand!" The Great Husbandman is not interested in employing "free" labour, or hiring workers for nothing!
when they made their own interpretation of God laws they were no longer Gods laws but their own Exactly. The same happens with (all?) religious groups today. Some even have bun fights in God's name!
those ladies weren't hired they were chosen You don't see these terms as compatible? Contextually accurate? You cannot reconcile them with each other?
nah man you're barking up the wrong tree I'm sorry Virgs, but all the evidence points to you been the one who has been confusing dogs behaviour with that of humans!
i ask you fitting in with whom? Fitting in with whatever religious system wants you to fit in with it.well i will just have to go and get my penny a day for forty years so fitting in with Jesus is not required then?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Nov 20, 2013 0:10:05 GMT -5
Rams bleat, dogs bark. It is ok for the workers to interpret God's laws but not anyone else. Some also wear their religion on the back of their heads.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2013 1:04:11 GMT -5
The apostles were married - not only Peter. Jesus called married men and they took their wives with them. The workers claim to be copying the ministry Jesus set up so why do they not accept those who are married into the work? I know the excuses but don't you think the apostles would have had the same trials as the workers. Here is the verse in a number of different translations so there is no mistaking it. 1 Corinthians 9:5 (ASV) 5 Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5 (AMP) | 5 Have we not the right also to take along with us a Christian sister as wife, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas (Peter)? 1 Corinthians 9:5 (DARBY) 5 have we not a right to take round a sister [as] wife, as also the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5 (ESV) 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5 (KJV) 5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5 (TLB) 5 If I had a wife, and if she were a believer, couldn’t I bring her along on these trips just as the other disciples do, and as the Lord’s brothers do, and as Peter does? 1 Corinthians 9:5 (NIV) 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5 (NKJV) 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5 (NLV) 5 Do we not have the right to take a Christian wife along with us? The other missionaries do. The Lord’s brothers do and Peter does. 1 Corinthians 9:5 (NRSV) 5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5 (RSV) 5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5 (VOICE) 5 Have we lost the right to bring along our wives, our sisters in Jesus? Other emissaries travel with their wives, and so do the brothers of our Lord, not to mention Cephas. Thanks for pointing out this out and all the various versions. They were speaking up for their 'rights'. The basic kneed and right of any man to have his woman by his side in his travels and in his time of need. Being an evangelical preacher in any day/time is quite demanding; even with the Power of the Holy Spirit. I don't think that a lot of people REALIZE how DEMANDING such a calling IS! Obviously they may have been gone from home a long time to 'go forth and preach the Gospel'. Don't you think they would have missed their wives (and family)? I do. Does not the LORD provide?!? Of course He does. He always has and always will. :)fwiw-bop
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2013 3:01:31 GMT -5
Rams bleat, dogs bark. It is ok for the workers to interpret God's laws but not anyone else. Some also wear their religion on the back of their heads. I prefer Gods interpretation of His laws
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2013 4:08:35 GMT -5
Enjoyed this thread.
Surprised in my ignorance by how little scriptual justification there seems to be for celibate ministeries. I am b&r, left at a relatively early age so that maybe the reason why I no nothing about the holy spirit or the celibacy thing. What a huge committment. Not simply celibacy but the lack of itimacy, the denial of the fundamental human urge to reproduce. Not something any human could do anymore than aspire to on a daily basis, given big an ask it is, the high failure rate, how significant a fail is and with some pretty solid evidence the attempt is damaging for the aspirant, let alone the victims of their damage. Expediency does not cut the mustard for me.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Nov 20, 2013 4:51:11 GMT -5
Rams bleat, dogs bark. It is ok for the workers to interpret God's laws but not anyone else. Some also wear their religion on the back of their heads. I prefer Gods interpretation of His laws Given all the rules the workers have made you are in the wrong church then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2013 5:25:24 GMT -5
if you hire someone would you pay them monies? can one hire without some sort of remuneration? Please go and read the opening verses of Matthew chapter 20, THEN come back and disagree with me!
The Apostles and indeed EVERY Christian is a "hired hand!" The Great Husbandman is not interested in employing "free" labour, or hiring workers for nothing!
when they made their own interpretation of God laws they were no longer Gods laws but their own Exactly. The same happens with (all?) religious groups today. Some even have bun fights in God's name!
those ladies weren't hired they were chosen You don't see these terms as compatible? Contextually accurate? You cannot reconcile them with each other?
nah man you're barking up the wrong tree I'm sorry Virgs, but all the evidence points to you been the one who has been confusing dogs behaviour with that of humans!
i ask you fitting in with whom? Fitting in with whatever religious system wants you to fit in with it.well i will just have to go and get my penny a day for forty years so fitting in with Jesus is not required then? Virgs, your position was that Jesus "chose" his disciples, not "hire" them. I see these terms as contextually compatible. Obviously you don't. I produced a passage of scripture which quotes Jesus' own words which clearly indicate that "all" his followers, not just a few itinerant missionaries, are in one sense "hired labourers." It is plain as daylight. Of course, I forgot, I might be saying this in "my" daylight hours, which in fact might be hours of darkness with yourself? Jesus clearly indicates a parallel between spiritual calling and Earthly hiring. Man was created in the image of God. Honest business and employment sense come from God and from his ways. There is nothing wrong with preachers receiving their penny a day or equivalent in goods or services for 40 years. It's when man dictates what is acceptable to God and what is not that we get problems. This comes from reading the wrong things into scripture according to our own ideas and making commandments of them. William Irvine did exactly that. This is clearly revealed in "The Compiled Letters of Dorothy Irvine," a fictional sister of Mr Irvine. In one letter of about March 1902 or 3 (year date is unclear) to her equally fictional great aunt, she wrote this: "Aunt Aggie, much of your last letter brought tears of joy to my eyes, but your concerns about William are of equal concern to me. You ask, why doesn't he be like your own minister, Rev. McSpligge, and receive a stipend to care for his basic needs. As you know your nephew is a very stubborn and self-minded person. Only recently he and Mr Cooney were discussing this very thing and William rejected it out of hand.
As you know, William has been rejecting everything to do with the churches and wants to get back to the beginning with everything. A clean slate he calls it. And when Mr Cooney pressed him about a salary, he became quite cross. He told Mr Cooney in no uncertain manner that salaries began with the Romans and that the word "salary" came from the word "sal" meaning salt, which is what the Roman soldiers were paid with in the beginning.
My brother considered that in order to accept a salary, he would have to go back to the beginning of what that term meant and that the workers would have to receive their wages in measures of salt. He saw great problems with this, imagining the workers going about from place to place with suitcases full of packets of salt as the friends added to their burden daily. Also they could not go into a shop and ask to purchase the goods of their needs with packets of salt. Therefore he rejected the idea of receiving a salary and decided the only way round this issue was to receive freewill offerings, on the quiet, of hard cash.
Mr Cooney was not so convinced, at least initially. He tried to reason with William saying that the salt would come in handy when they had fish and chips, but William said that they would have to eat a lot of fish and chips in order to use up the salt, and asked where would they get the money to buy the fish and chips in the first place. No fish and chips shop owner was going to be persuaded to part with his fish and chips in exchange for packets of salt, a commodity he likely had in abundance and made freely available to his customers. William told Mr Cooney that the Friends could provide the workers with fish and chips and that when they were doing so they could be reminded to have salt put on them and this would take care of their salt needs.
I know that Mr Cooney was not impressed with my brother at that time and may have chosen to part ways but for the fact he had already given William the proceeds of his drapery business for the Work's sake. Anyway dear Auntie that is why your dear nephew will not even think about receiving a salary.
Now as regards why I wear my hair up like I do and insist on wearing very long dresses..."
As you can see from the above extract just how things get distorted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2013 5:38:18 GMT -5
Rams bleat, dogs bark. It is ok for the workers to interpret God's laws but not anyone else. Some also wear their religion on the back of their heads. I prefer Gods interpretation of His laws Ah but have you considered "your" interpretation of God's interpretation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2013 0:14:59 GMT -5
well i will just have to go and get my penny a day for forty years so fitting in with Jesus is not required then? Virgs, your position was that Jesus "chose" his disciples, not "hire" them. I see these terms as contextually compatible. Obviously you don't. I produced a passage of scripture which quotes Jesus' own words which clearly indicate that "all" his followers, not just a few itinerant missionaries, are in one sense "hired labourers." It is plain as daylight. Of course, I forgot, I might be saying this in "my" daylight hours, which in fact might be hours of darkness with yourself? Jesus clearly indicates a parallel between spiritual calling and Earthly hiring. Man was created in the image of God. Honest business and employment sense come from God and from his ways. There is nothing wrong with preachers receiving their penny a day or equivalent in goods or services for 40 years. It's when man dictates what is acceptable to God and what is not that we get problems. This comes from reading the wrong things into scripture according to our own ideas and making commandments of them. William Irvine did exactly that. This is clearly revealed in "The Compiled Letters of Dorothy Irvine," a fictional sister of Mr Irvine. In one letter of about March 1902 or 3 (year date is unclear) to her equally fictional great aunt, she wrote this: "Aunt Aggie, much of your last letter brought tears of joy to my eyes, but your concerns about William are of equal concern to me. You ask, why doesn't he be like your own minister, Rev. McSpligge, and receive a stipend to care for his basic needs. As you know your nephew is a very stubborn and self-minded person. Only recently he and Mr Cooney were discussing this very thing and William rejected it out of hand.
As you know, William has been rejecting everything to do with the churches and wants to get back to the beginning with everything. A clean slate he calls it. And when Mr Cooney pressed him about a salary, he became quite cross. He told Mr Cooney in no uncertain manner that salaries began with the Romans and that the word "salary" came from the word "sal" meaning salt, which is what the Roman soldiers were paid with in the beginning.
My brother considered that in order to accept a salary, he would have to go back to the beginning of what that term meant and that the workers would have to receive their wages in measures of salt. He saw great problems with this, imagining the workers going about from place to place with suitcases full of packets of salt as the friends added to their burden daily. Also they could not go into a shop and ask to purchase the goods of their needs with packets of salt. Therefore he rejected the idea of receiving a salary and decided the only way round this issue was to receive freewill offerings, on the quiet, of hard cash.
Mr Cooney was not so convinced, at least initially. He tried to reason with William saying that the salt would come in handy when they had fish and chips, but William said that they would have to eat a lot of fish and chips in order to use up the salt, and asked where would they get the money to buy the fish and chips in the first place. No fish and chips shop owner was going to be persuaded to part with his fish and chips in exchange for packets of salt, a commodity he likely had in abundance and made freely available to his customers. William told Mr Cooney that the Friends could provide the workers with fish and chips and that when they were doing so they could be reminded to have salt put on them and this would take care of their salt needs.
I know that Mr Cooney was not impressed with my brother at that time and may have chosen to part ways but for the fact he had already given William the proceeds of his drapery business for the Work's sake. Anyway dear Auntie that is why your dear nephew will not even think about receiving a salary.
Now as regards why I wear my hair up like I do and insist on wearing very long dresses..."
As you can see from the above extract just how things get distorted. did you read the last verse in the parable you have been quoting from?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2013 0:16:23 GMT -5
I prefer Gods interpretation of His laws Given all the rules the workers have made you are in the wrong church then. who's church do you think i'm in
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2013 0:17:39 GMT -5
I prefer Gods interpretation of His laws Ah but have you considered "your" interpretation of God's interpretation? what makes you think i have an interpretation of God's interpretation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2013 4:00:13 GMT -5
The Virgs replied:
did you read the last verse in the parable you have been quoting from?
Most certainly did Virgs. What's your point?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2013 4:02:32 GMT -5
Ah but have you considered "your" interpretation of God's interpretation? what makes you think i have an interpretation of God's interpretation? From our current discussion it appears you may be preferring the common understanding and teaching of your group over what Jesus has clearly stated?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 21, 2013 22:31:43 GMT -5
Ah but have you considered "your" interpretation of God's interpretation? what makes you think i have an interpretation of God's interpretation? Cuz you're human.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2013 2:41:18 GMT -5
The Virgs replied: did you read the last verse in the parable you have been quoting from? Most certainly did Virgs. What's your point? you say hired i say chosen, i say chosen you say hired and there is no smilie for yawn care to show at least one disciple who was hired and given remuneration?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2013 2:42:18 GMT -5
what makes you think i have an interpretation of God's interpretation? From our current discussion it appears you may be preferring the common understanding and teaching of your group over what Jesus has clearly stated? it appears that you may be wrong
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2013 2:43:14 GMT -5
what makes you think i have an interpretation of God's interpretation? Cuz you're human. explain please
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2013 4:34:59 GMT -5
From our current discussion it appears you may be preferring the common understanding and teaching of your group over what Jesus has clearly stated? it appears that you may be wrong Virgs, keep in mind that appearances can be deceptive!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2013 4:52:19 GMT -5
The Virgs replied: did you read the last verse in the parable you have been quoting from? Most certainly did Virgs. What's your point? you say hired i say chosen, i say chosen you say hired and there is no smilie for yawn No Virgs. I say both. Servants of God (all servants) are BOTH chosen AND hired. The terms are entirely compatible. In the portion of scripture I cited, which you "appear" to be dismissing (although appearances can be deceptive), Jesus clearly shows the parallel between a vineyard owner "choosing" his workforce AND at the same time "hiring" them for reward for their labours. It is an example given from the mouth of Jesus himself. Put aside your own perceptions based upon what you have been taught and LISTEN to what Jesus is actually saying. You can't throw out anything that Jesus said, simply because it does not agree with your mindset. See the reality of what Jesus says and adjust your mindset accordingly. If you find this tiresome, then just be honest and state that you prefer a system to Jesus, or have a long rest before you properly contemplate. You fool no one but yourself.care to show at least one disciple who was hired and given remuneration? You are understanding matters through 21st century eyes. Throughout history most people did not work for money (mainly). It was in short supply. Remember the value of money until well into the 20th century was contained within the value of the metal that it was made of. It was not the worthless metals and paper we have today with the actual value being contained within a promise of the Government to honour that value. Most "remuneration" was other forms of upkeep and maintenance. "Remuneration" is really what is agreed between an employer and employee. The employer "chooses" whom he wants to work for him and "hires" them for an agreed return. It is that simple. The Apostles accepted that. There was a common purse from which they all drew remuneration in the form of money, as well as other forms of upkeep. Do you think the Apostles didn't send or take home money to their wives? If they didn't then Jesus provided for them by other means, all within the agreed contract of employment with the hired hands that he chose!
Jesus clearly gave an example of choosing, hiring and reward in the portion of scripture I cited. You are not arguing with me. You are arguing with Jesus!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 23, 2013 10:52:51 GMT -5
You can't help but put your own 'interpretation' or 'meaning' to anything because of the way your brain processes things. Those who wrote the bible wrote their little portion of it using 'their' filter of what they thought God was saying. You, reading it, use 'your' filter of what you think God is saying through that person. That is why there are so many different interpretations of scripture with each and every person thinking only their interpretation is the correct one. We may have some 'common' themes that everyone sort of agrees on, but ultimately, your definition is going to be uniquely 'yours'. That's because you are an unique human with a brain that functions and interprets differently from anyone else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2013 3:02:29 GMT -5
you say hired i say chosen, i say chosen you say hired and there is no smilie for yawn No Virgs. I say both. Servants of God (all servants) are BOTH chosen AND hired. The terms are entirely compatible. In the portion of scripture I cited, which you "appear" to be dismissing (although appearances can be deceptive), Jesus clearly shows the parallel between a vineyard owner "choosing" his workforce AND at the same time "hiring" them for reward for their labours. It is an example given from the mouth of Jesus himself. Put aside your own perceptions based upon what you have been taught and LISTEN to what Jesus is actually saying. You can't throw out anything that Jesus said, simply because it does not agree with your mindset. See the reality of what Jesus says and adjust your mindset accordingly. If you find this tiresome, then just be honest and state that you prefer a system to Jesus, or have a long rest before you properly contemplate. You fool no one but yourself.care to show at least one disciple who was hired and given remuneration? You are understanding matters through 21st century eyes. Throughout history most people did not work for money (mainly). It was in short supply. Remember the value of money until well into the 20th century was contained within the value of the metal that it was made of. It was not the worthless metals and paper we have today with the actual value being contained within a promise of the Government to honour that value. Most "remuneration" was other forms of upkeep and maintenance. "Remuneration" is really what is agreed between an employer and employee. The employer "chooses" whom he wants to work for him and "hires" them for an agreed return. It is that simple. The Apostles accepted that. There was a common purse from which they all drew remuneration in the form of money, as well as other forms of upkeep. Do you think the Apostles didn't send or take home money to their wives? If they didn't then Jesus provided for them by other means, all within the agreed contract of employment with the hired hands that he chose!
Jesus clearly gave an example of choosing, hiring and reward in the portion of scripture I cited. You are not arguing with me. You are arguing with Jesus! i'm putting my hands up on this one i just can't be bothered
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2013 8:10:32 GMT -5
i'm putting my hands up on this one i just can't be bothered Thanks Virgs. I'm glad you "chose" to put your hands "hire!"
|
|