Profession of teachers in the firsts centuries

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Can you prove this was the case with the two schools in the first century?

I don’t think it is reasonable for me to start “proving” none of that to you. I have read books on the subject. There is plenty of material out there to read about this.

Hillel and Shammai were prominent teachers and also schools of thought regarding interpretation.
The interpretation of the Scripture from people like them was used in judicial courts (part of the Sanhedrin, or the whole Sanhedrin, depending who you read), and also were used by the scribes in the synagogue who were student of the law that usually quoted other rabbis when explaining Scripture passages (hence, the phrase “he taught with authority, not as the scribes).

I am definitely not making a 100% matching comparison. There are obvious difference, e.g., Bernard writings are not used for church discipline. So if you are trying to find holes to debunk the comparison, you will find probably many.

Bernard is number one in prominence in the UPCI at this point. And many teachers and preachers in the UPCI just echo his teachings about oneness, holiness, and new birth. Even the little hermeneutics you are taught in the license is a book of him.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

How long have you been in the UPC?

Long enough. I also have the local and general license training. I am not holding Bernard on a pedestal, just in case that’s what you think I am doing.
I disagree with him in several points but also recognized his many contributions to Oneness Pentecostalism. The part in my opinion that was the best of his contributions is the historical investigation he did about oneness, holiness, and baptism in Jesus name and the speaking in tongue through history, and putting all of that in books for us to read. That was an amazing contribution in my opinion.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I don’t think it is reasonable for me to start “proving” none of that to you. I have read books on the subject. There is plenty of material out there to read about this.

Hillel and Shammai were prominent teachers and also schools of thought regarding interpretation.

You only know these two names because of commentaries of the New Testament. Yet, these were just two schools, and they are brought up because they were two schools who fought each other. Another reason why you know about them, is because early rabbis in an attempt to disprove Jesus claim He plagiarized these individuals. Other than that Rabbinical Judean mythology in the first century was more complex than two teachers. It was an entire hodgepodge of contradictions. How Jesus stood out from these teachings, is because He ended the arguments.

Originally Posted by coksiw

The interpretation of the Scripture from people like them was used in judicial courts (part of the Sanhedrin, or the whole Sanhedrin, depending who you read), and also were used by the scribes in the synagogue who were student of the law that usually quoted other rabbis when explaining Scripture passages (hence, the phrase “he taught with authority, not as the scribes).

Depending on who you read? Excuse me? Studying history is dealing with a plethora of information, and sorting out what is factual evidence. Going by opinions is what the Talmud is all about. That is why it is a Satanic putrefied set of documents. All of the sages and rabbis arguing about their own personal opinions. May you continue your studies and find the factual truth concerning these Judean reprobates.

Originally Posted by coksiw

I am definitely not making a 100% matching comparison. There are obvious difference, e.g., Bernard writings are not used for church discipline. So if you are trying to find holes to debunk the comparison, you will find probably many.

The disagreement is exactly what the young Jedi pointed out. Rabbis in the first century weren't elected officials. Their information and works were not "books" as we know today being marketed through commerce. Their documents were debated by other schools of thought within the Rabbinical Judean community. Works which were only held in regard by their students, and then later in the Middle Ages compiled within a Judaic library called the Talmud

Originally Posted by coksiw

Bernard is number one in prominence in the UPCI at this point. And many teachers and preachers in the UPCI just echo his teachings about oneness, holiness, and new birth. Even the little hermeneutics you are taught in the license is a book of him.

You believe in a Pentecostal papacy?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Long enough. I also have the local and general license training. I am not holding Bernard on a pedestal, just in case that’s what you think I am doing.
I disagree with him in several points but also recognized his many contributions to Oneness Pentecostalism. The part in my opinion that was the best of his contributions is the historical investigation he did about oneness, holiness, and baptism in Jesus name and the speaking in tongue through history, and putting all of that in books for us to read. That was an amazing contribution in my opinion.

Bernard is number one in prominence in the UPCI at this point. And many teachers and preachers in the UPCI just echo his teachings about oneness, holiness, and new birth. Even the little hermeneutics you are taught in the license is a book of him.

Sounds like a Pentecostal papacy. You know the first century church taught against the above bolded statement?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You only know these two names because of commentaries of the New Testament.

This is false. In fact, I never heard of them through commentaries. I learned about them and many other rabbis writings from history books.

Other than that Rabbinical Judean mythology in the first century was more complex than two teachers.

Thanks for letting me know. But I already knew about other Rabbis. I think you are trying to lecture me even though I didn't request your insight.

Depending on who you read? Excuse me?

I don't think you got my point. Some historians, from the writing evidences, believe that the Sanhedrin was only one group with all members participating in judicial, religious and political matters. Others believe there were actually separate groups within the Sanhedrin.

Rabbis in the first century weren't elected officials.

You are not getting my point. Bernard started writing the books like in the 60s before being an elected official.

Their information and works were not "books" as we know today being marketed through commerce. Their documents were debated by other schools of thought within the Rabbinical Judean community. Works which were only held in regard by their students, and then later in the Middle Ages compiled within a Judaic library called the Talmud

OK, there are still writings from a prominent teacher used a lot, which is my point. Bernard writings did not define the articles of faith, just in case you don't know. And not everybody in the UPCI agrees with him. I know two that disagree with his view of oneness, and one that disagrees with his view of church government.

I think you are losing it. Seriously, it is a comparison, not a claim of incarnation.

You believe in a Pentecostal papacy?

Are you envious of their honor? why are you so offended?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Are you envious of their honor? why are you so offended?

Only one offended is you. You are the individual on the defensive.

Originally Posted by coksiw

This is false. In fact, I never heard of them through commentaries. I learned about them and many other rabbis writings from history books.

Do you know what is a commentary actually? History books about Rabbinical Judaism? Were they secular history books?

Originally Posted by coksiw

Thanks for letting me know. But I already knew about other Rabbis. I think you are trying to lecture me even though I didn't request your insight.

You don't have to request anyone's insight here. You are on an open forum. Therefore anyone who happens to be a member on this forum is free to respond to anything which is posted here. We all can give insights as we very well please. If you don't like the ways things roll, you can feel free to place a poster on ignore, or don't respond to the post. If you knew about other rabbinical schools it didn't show. Therefore I apologize, if I hurt your intellectual pride.

Originally Posted by coksiw

I don't think you got my point. Some historians, from the writing evidences, believe that the Sanhedrin was only one group with all members participating in judicial, religious and political matters. Others believe there were actually separate groups within the Sanhedrin.

They were different schools within the Sanhedrin. That isn't opinion, that historical. The Greek word literally means to sit together to work out matters. Hence it wouldn't be a group of Sadducees or solely a group of Pharisees. First century had different schools which also included the priests families. All taking a part within the government structure of Jerusalem. The Judeans couldn't agree, or see eye to eye on much. Everything was a debate, hence while the Romans attacked Jerusalem, three different factions were busy killing each other inside the walls.

Originally Posted by coksiw

You are not getting my point. Bernard started writing the books like in the 60s before being an elected official.

So, did Elder Murray Burr, and your point is???

Originally Posted by coksiw

OK, there are still writings from a prominent teacher used a lot, which is my point. Bernard writings did not define the articles of faith, just in case you don't know. And not everybody in the UPCI agrees with him. I know two that disagree with his view of oneness, and one that disagrees with his view of church government.

Well, sorry to break to you, but the comparison with the two rabbinical teachers you previously mentioned, is becoming less and less a good comparison. Maybe I'll just leave you to refute yourself.

Originally Posted by coksiw

I think you are losing it.

I'm the one looking for a fight?

Originally Posted by coksiw

Seriously,

Sure

Originally Posted by coksiw

it is a comparison, not a claim of incarnation.

Incarnation, you said it, not me. You made it sound pretty cultish in your description of Brother Bernard. Just an observation, no need to get upset over it.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Only one offended is you. You are the individual on the defensive.




Do you know what is a commentary actually? History books about Rabbinical Judaism? Were they secular history books?



You don't have to request anyone's insight here. You are on an open forum. Therefore anyone who happens to be a member on this forum is free to respond to anything which is posted here. We all can give insights as we very well please. If you don't like the ways things roll, you can feel free to place a poster on ignore, or don't respond to the post. If you knew about other rabbinical schools it didn't show. Therefore I apologize, if I hurt your intellectual pride.



They were different schools within the Sanhedrin. That isn't opinion, that historical. The Greek word literally means to sit together to work out matters. Hence it wouldn't be a group of Sadducees or solely a group of Pharisees. First century had different schools which also included the priests families. All taking a part within the government structure of Jerusalem. The Judeans couldn't agree, or see eye to eye on much. Everything was a debate, hence while the Romans attacked Jerusalem, three different factions were busy killing each other inside the walls.



So, did Elder Murray Burr, and your point is???



Well, sorry to break to you, but the comparison with the two rabbinical teachers you previously mentioned, is becoming less and less a good comparison. Maybe I'll just leave you to refute yourself.



I'm the one looking for a fight?




Sure



Incarnation, you said it, not me. You made it sound pretty cultish in your description of Brother Bernard. Just an observation, no need to get upset over it.

Hey you are being nice to me. What happened?!

[Steven Avery]

One book that should help on this topic.

Rabbi Akiba's Messiah: The Origins of Rabbinic Authority
Daniel Gruber
http://www.amazon.com/Rabbi-Akibas-M.../dp/B000FIAJI0

[Esaias]

I'm sorry, but Bernard and Wilson are no Hillel and Shammai.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I'm sorry, but Bernard and Wilson are no Hillel and Shammai.

Benedict and Francis?