Saved Without A Pastor??

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The Word of God was not taught as part of Temple worship. Jesus, like other rabbis, often went to the Temple and taught, because there was always a crowd there. But the teaching of the Word in Judaism primarily took place in synagogues and in classes run by rabbis.

You may be right. I’m assuming that the teaching that Jesus and others did included reading from the scrolls. Maybe I’m on shaky ground there. In any case you are no doubt correct that the majority of the law reading was done in synagogues.

[Esaias]

Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you,.... Christ's church is a kingdom, and he is King in it; pastors of churches are subordinate governors; who rule well when they rule not in an arbitrary way, according to their own wills, but according to the laws of Christ, with all faithfulness, prudence, and diligence. The word may be rendered "guides" or "leaders"; for such point out the way of peace, life, and salvation to men, and direct them to Christ; and guide them into the understanding of the Scriptures, and the truths of the Gospel; and lead them in the paths of faith and holiness, and are examples to them. The Greek word, here used, is what the Jews call Christian bishops by; and ηγεμονια, is, by Maimonides (w), said to be the same as פקידות, "a bishopric": to "remember" them is to know, own, acknowledge, and respect them as their governors; to obey them, and submit to them; to treasure up in memory their doctrines and exhortations; to be mindful of them at the throne of grace, to pray for them; and to take care of their maintenance and outward supply of life:
- Gill's Commentary

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I believe that this refers to rulers similar to Nicodemus. ...
I believe that verse 17 and 24 also refer to the form of government rule.

Is there anyone else in the history of Christendom who believes this, as you do?

Because honestly, a simple reading of the chapter leads me to think Paul is referring to Christian leaders in the church (namely, the elders responsible for teaching). I see absolutely no indication that "those who have the rule over you", "whose faith" the Hebrew Christians were to follow, "who have spoken the Word of God" to them, could be anyone other than Christian teachers.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Is there anyone else in the history of Christendom who believes this, as you do?

I don't know how much you've read of my posts on this thread, but the answer is yes. It began with Jesus, and this admonition to His apostles.

Matthew 20
[25] But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion (now this is what a ruler would do) over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. (and this)
[26] But it shall not be so among you: (don't let it be once named among you) but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; do you understand this?
[27] And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
What is the meaning of servant? Does servant sound like someone who rules over us?
[28] Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. Even Jesus who is the King of kings gave us an example of how to minister, He gave His very life for us. By setting this example we know that it extends all the way to the head of the church.

If this Hebrews 13 is saying what you believe it says, then it is in direct conflict with the instructions of Jesus AND the example he set in this passage. I don't believe the Bible contradicts itself. The author of Hebrews is referring to rulers, because they who rule, are by definition, rulers.

There are other passages that support this viewpoint as well. What is lacking? Scripture to support that Hebrews 13 is referring to pastors, elders, teachers, leaders (of the church) etc..

Originally Posted by Esaias

Because honestly, a simple reading of the chapter leads me to think Paul is referring to Christian leaders in the church (namely, the elders responsible for teaching). I see absolutely no indication that "those who have the rule over you", "whose faith" the Hebrew Christians were to follow, "who have spoken the Word of God" to them, could be anyone other than Christian teachers.

Can you see what is happening here? You (and others) are watering down the words "rule over" to leaders, teachers, elders, pastors and whatever else that you can come up with to make the scripture fir your doctrine. It is a classic case of eisegesis. When, in the history of Christendom, have pastors, elders, leaders and teachers, been referred to as rulers? (Except possibly in the Roman Catholic Church).

Also, if doctrine is not based on scripture, and the meaning of the words that the scripture contains, it is most likely in error. Doctrine is not defined by the popular opinion, if it is, we are in grave error to deny the trinity. You personally are touting a second covering doctrine that is not recognized by the conventional apostolic church.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

You personally are touting a second covering doctrine that is not recognized by the conventional apostolic church.

So, that means what?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

So, that means what?

My point is that he is questioning whether I'm right, according to how many people believe what I say, and not based onscripture. On the other hand, (or put the shoe on the other foot) and he has his own beliefs that he teaches, that are certainly NOT mainstream even in apostolic churches, and he evidently thinks THAT'S okay.

Because he's special. If I (or others) did the same thing, we would be hypocrites.

THAT"S what THAT means.

Thanks for asking.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

My point is that he is questioning whether I'm right, according to how many people believe what I say, and not based onscripture. On the other hand, (or put the shoe on the other foot) and he has his own beliefs that he teaches, that are certainly NOT mainstream even in apostolic churches, and he evidently thinks THAT'S okay.

Because he's special. If I (or others) did the same thing, we would be hypocrites.

THAT"S what THAT means.

Thanks for asking.

OK, but consider this, religion (I mean every single one) has tendency for one or more individuals to not just reinvent the wheel. But come up with something that isn't even a wheel. When someone points out to us if anyone else in history ever thought or put these ideas in practice, we shouldn't be so quick to discount their pointing that out for us. Because we need to understand that we aren't the first one to see that water was wet. Someone somewhere is out there who believed what we believe in history.

In short, if someone in past, present, can't understand what we found then those in the future might not find it. Because the teaching whether true or false cannot withstand the test of time.

Let me bring an example, the 144,000 of the Watchtower Bible Society. When they first came up with that doctrine it was totally exclusive to them. But as time marched on their doctrine had to shapeshift to be able to be peddled among the elect slave class of Witnesses. Yet, what happened was that the teaching died out as the 144,000 died out, and their eschatology didn't concluded as they once believed. Another is Harold Egbert Camping, and his sorry attempts to pinpoint the end. His entire group accepted his belief, and even under the guise of being scriptural, they dropped the watermelon on his say so, and come Monday couldn't pay their water bill. Which reminds me, I hope come Monday I can pay mine.

Anyway, we shouldn't take offense or think it odd if we are pointed away from our bug on the leaf and asked to look at the forest.

Even our own movement, I was hounded when I first came to the Apostolic Movement by Catholic relatives. Show us your group in history, yet I did the heavy lifting to present my case. So, when they did all that, I could of taken it the wrong way, or just went back to the wood shed to get some good stuff together. I went back to the wood shed.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

OK, but consider this, religion (I mean every single one) has tendency for one or more individuals to not just reinvent the wheel. But come up with something that isn't even a wheel. When someone points out to us if anyone else in history ever thought or put these ideas in practice, we shouldn't be so quick to discount their pointing that out for us. Because we need to understand that we aren't the first one to see that water was wet. Someone somewhere is out there who believed what we believe in history.

In short, if someone in past, present, can't understand what we found then those in the future might not find it. Because the teaching whether true or false cannot withstand the test of time.

Let me bring an example, the 144,000 of the Watchtower Bible Society. When they first came up with that doctrine it was totally exclusive to them. But as time marched on their doctrine had to shapeshift to be able to be peddled among the elect slave class of Witnesses. Yet, what happened was that the teaching died out as the 144,000 died out, and their eschatology didn't concluded as they once believed. Another is Harold Egbert Camping, and his sorry attempts to pinpoint the end. His entire group accepted his belief, and even under the guise of being scriptural, they dropped the watermelon on his say so, and come Monday couldn't pay their water bill. Which reminds me, I hope come Monday I can pay mine.

Anyway, we shouldn't take offense or think it odd if we are pointed away from our bug on the leaf and asked to look at the forest.

Even our own movement, I was hounded when I first came to the Apostolic Movement by Catholic relatives. Show us your group in history, yet I did the heavy lifting to present my case. So, when they did all that, I could of taken it the wrong way, or just went back to the wood shed to get some good stuff together. I went back to the wood shed.

Don't worry brother. I'm not offended. I just went to the woodshed. Did you read the words of Jesus that I posted?

Thanks for your comments.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Don't worry brother. I'm not offended. I just went to the woodshed. Did you read the words of Jesus that I posted?

Thanks for your comments.

Why is Jesus bringing up Imperial Roman Military Law?

I think you are taking the word servant to negate any sort of authority rulership quality? As a teacher, mentor, older brother would have over siblings. Jesus is still the Father, and requests us to be as mature as the Father. But, please proceed, there are two different Greek military phrases used, and want you to tell me their differences in meanings.

[Evang.Benincasa]

TM, do you believe that Hebrews 13:16-17 is dealing with the Roman Judean governing leadership

Tithemister? Were you using this these verses in your no tithing teaching? Is it because they are being told to sacrifice to GOD by SHARING with the guys being talked about in verse 17???!!!!

That is so funny!