Its unauthorized to say that silence equals a command of God.

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Note carefully what I said. I did not say that God specified the mode of travel that Jonah was to use. I focused on the city that God told him to travel to. Nineveh was specified. God was silent about Tarshish. However, Jonah went there and did not obey nor please God. Agree?

As for the mode of travel, no specific instructions were given, therefore Jonah could choose the means that was available to him. Would you agree, or would you speak on God's behalf and restrict Jonah to a particular mode?

I doubt God would care if Jonah went to Tarshish if he then proceeded to Ninevah. However, God was SPECIFIC about where he wanted Jonah to go; he wasn't punishing him for going to Tarshish, he was punishing him for NOT going to Ninevah.

It's not a silence issue. It's an obedience issue.

Doesn't "I doubt" really translate into "I speculate" or "I assume?" Is there a scriptural example or support for your premise?

Priests from the tribe of Levi were also an obedience issue. However, the Scripture still says there was an element of silence involved in the matter as far as Judah was concerned i.e. Hebrews 7:13-17. The matter with Nineveh and Tarshish is no different.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Jesus was NOT authorized to be a Levitical priest; rather, He was a priest after the order of Melchizedek.

That is such a weak argument. Of course Jesus wasn't authorised to be a "Levitical" priest.

The argument isn't mine. God is the author of it i.e. 2 Timothy 3:16a, Hebrews 7:13-17, 8:4.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

For sure, it didn't seem to be such a mess to Noah. He did as God instructed.

No it didn't and we have no evidence that he approached the situation according to your understanding either.

Please explain how Noah approached the situation.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Just for interest sake, would you categorize the man of God in 1 Kings 13 as being entangled in "legal mumbo jumbo"?

How about Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10?

And ... your point is?

 

[crawfish]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Doesn't "I doubt" really translate into "I speculate" or "I assume?" Is there a scriptural example or support for your premise?

Priests from the tribe of Levi were also an obedience issue. However, the Scripture still says there was an element of silence involved in the matter as far as Judah was concerned i.e. Hebrews 7:13-17. The matter with Nineveh and Tarshish is no different.

Alright...look at God's command to Abraham. He was commanded to "leave his country, his people and his father's household" and go to Canaan. I don't recall taking Lot a part of that deal.

 

[- DRA -]

I have done much study on this subject and have remained silentD ) to avoid starting up trouble, but....

You bring up the subject of Col 2:14 Lets take a look at this verse and the surrounding verses for context.

Just a few questions:

1) What is the handwriting of Ordinances that was against us and contrary to us?

2) What does it mean "Which are a shadow of things to come"?

3) What is the "meat, drink, holy days, new moons, and sabbaths"?

Is the Handwriting of Ordinances the whole old testament? Is ALL of the old testament against us and contrary to us? Would it not be better to view these verses as speaking of sacrafices and ordinances that God required of the Children of Israel that all pointed to Jesus? Would this not be a better interpretation of "shadow"?

It seems that the baby has been thrown out with the bath water when we assume that the "law" was the whole of all the writings before pentecost.

The answer to question #3 can be found in leviticus 23, and Exodus 29 and 30. All of these are related to the earthly priesthood and the sacrificial system setup at mt Sinai for the children of Israel that all pointed to Jesus. They were the shadow of things to come. When the "thing"(Jesus) came there was no further need for the shadow for the real was here. Basic type/antitype. My point being this only includes the things that pertained directly to Jesus and pointed to His coming.

Look at Galatians 3:10

Paul quoted this from:

The Handwriting of Ordinances can be found in Exodus through Deuteronomy. Those things which were a type of Christ and were no longer needed because of His perfect sacrifice. Isn't that why the veil in the temple was torn from the top down, signifying the end of the sacrifices that all pointed to Jesus?

Just some thoughts on the subject of Colossians 2, which hopefully will stimulate some discussion.

Response to Question #1:
Jesus blotted out the handwriting of ordinances ... nailing it to His cross. In light of this, note the conclusion drawn in verse 16 - "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." This helps us understand what is included in the "handwriting of ordinances." It included instructions about food, drink, new moons, and sabbaths. Because Jesus took the instructions about these ordinances out of the way, God's people should no longer judge each other by whether or not they follow the instructions about these things. Consider also Romans 15:4. The things written "aforetime" were written for our "learning," not our law today. In fact, the things described in Col. 2:16 were a part of the law of Moses, which was given exclusively to the Israelites i.e. Romans 2:14. It ended when the new covenant/testament/law/will went into effect (see Hebrews 8:6-13 and 9:16-17.

Response to Question #2:
"Which are a shadow of things to come" refers to the things mentioned in the previous verse - Col. 2:16. Note also passages such as Hebrews 8:5 and 10:1. And, also note the use of "example" ("copy" in the NKJV) in Hebrews 8:5, and "like figure" (antitype in the NKJV) in 1 Peter 3:20. Another consideration is the word "figure" in Romans 5:14. Conclusion: Many things in the Old Testament foreshadowed things in the New Testament.

Response to Question #3:
These were things specified under the law of Moses, but not under the law of Christ.

Additional Points:
The "handwriting of ordinances that was against us" refers to the law of Moses and its lack of ability to completely take sins away. God made provisions for the blood of animals to make atonement (or cover) for sins, but it could not take them completely away as does the blood of Christ (Hebrews 10). An additional text that should be considered is 2 Corinthians 3.

Hope this helps you in your studies.

Oh, almost forgot. The veil in the temple separated the holy place from the most holy place. Thus, its tearing signified access to the most holy place i.e. God's presence (see Hebrews 6:19-20, 10:19-20).

 

[- DRA -]

Alright...look at God's command to Abraham. He was commanded to "leave his country, his people and his father's household" and go to Canaan. I don't recall taking Lot a part of that deal.

Actually, Terah (Abram's father), Sarai, (Abram's wife), and what I suspect are servants (Gen. 12:5) also went along. They weren't in the "deal" either. But they went along.

Food for Thought:
Perhaps the "deal" wasn't that Abram's wife, relatives, and servants couldn't go with him, but that God wanted Abram to go sight unseen to a land that God would show him. Unless I'm badly mistaken, Abram did what God told him to.

Additional Food for Thought:
Today, under the gospel of Christ, does the Lord save those who disobey Him according to Hebrews 5:9?

 

[crawfish]

Actually, Terah (Abram's father), Sarai, (Abram's wife), and what I suspect are servants (Gen. 12:5) also went along. They weren't in the "deal" either. But they went along.

Food for Thought:
Perhaps the "deal" wasn't that Abram's wife, relatives, and servants couldn't go with him, but that God wanted Abram to go sight unseen to a land that God would show him. Unless I'm badly mistaken, Abram did what God told him to.

I'm fairly certain, based on your prior post, that you wouldn't let me get away with the bolded word.

Also, I'd forgotten about Terah. Wouldn't Abram's father be part of his father's household? Wouldn't Abram be in direct violation of God's command by taking him? In any case, I have no problem with your scenario above, but I'm not the stickler for the "silence" issue that you are.

Additional Food for Thought:
Today, under the gospel of Christ, does the Lord save those who disobey Him according to Hebrews 5:9?

I'll need a better definition of the verse to answer. Does "obey him" in this context refer to all times, or obeying the call of salvation by repenting and being baptized?

 

[Splayd]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Jesus was NOT authorized to be a Levitical priest; rather, He was a priest after the order of Melchizedek.

The argument isn't mine. God is the author of it i.e. 2 Timothy 3:16a, Hebrews 7:13-17, 8:4.

Oh please. Let's recap. You originally made the argument that silence prohibits, using the argument that Jesus couldn't be "a priest" because he wasn't a Levite.

On further examination you've perhaps recognised the folly of your argument and rephrased it to the much weaker argument (for your position) that He couldn't be a "Levitical priest". While absolutely true, it now demonstrates nothing for your case. People from the tribe of Judah aren't authorised to be from the tribe of Levi is a ludicrously obvious statement if you think about it which says nothing of silence.

Let's consider what Paul was really saying and just how well it supports your position. Wasn't he actually saying that the silence about priests from the tribe of Judah doesn't necessarily prohibit Jesus from being a priest? Isn't he actually demonstrating that although Jesus obviously couldn't be a Levitical priest, scripture still allows that he could be (and in fact is) a priest after the order of Melchizadek? Hmmm...

Originally Posted by - DRA -

For sure, it didn't seem to be such a mess to Noah. He did as God instructed.

Please explain how Noah approached the situation.

I'm not sure DRA and that's exactly my point. We simply aren't given those details. For someone who likes to call others for speculating, you do it a lot yourself. Do you have any evidence of anyone in scripture ever applying the approach you insist on?

 

[Splayd]

Hmm, are you saying a boat with gopherwood and pine contains no gopherwood?

No.

Do the scriptures say "build an ark out of only gopherwood?

OK. Let's back up and consider our approaches against what scripture actually does say.

Scripture DOES say that God instructed Noah to make the ark out of gopherwood. We're also told that Noah did as he was instructed.

From that information you ASSUME that Noah wasn't to use pine in addition to gopherwood. Not an unreasonable assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. You don't stop there though. You build upon that assumption with further assumptions.

Because you have first determined that Noah wasn't to use additional woods, you conclude that he didn't. Again this isn't an unreasonable assumption, given that he did do what he was instructed to it BUT it is entirely reliant on your first assumption being correct and further increases the speculation. You've built an assumption on an assumption.

You keep building your tower of speculation by trying to justify your initial assumption. ie: The scripture doesn't say not to use additional woods but because we have determined that it meant that, we now to rationalise our assumption by speculating as to why it would mean that. Starting to get pretty shaky now and fast developing into a circular argument.

Not content with determining that there must be a reason that the lack of comment about additional woods necessarily equates with an actual (and already determined) comment about additional woods (ie: that they aren't allowed) it's now imperative that we now speculate as to what that reason is. This is where you now conclude that silence prohibits. It is an assumption built on an assumption built on an assumption built on an assumption... BUT makes a nice neat package of circular reasoning. How do we know silence prohibits? Because Noah wasn't allowed to use other woods! How do we know he wasn't allowed to use other woods? Because silence prohibits! It's beautiful... but not based on anything concrete.

By contrast, my argument is that Noah was given the positive instruction to build an ark with gopherwood... and did. That's it. I can speculate that he shouldn't use other woods and that he didn't use other woods but I acknowledge that it's speculation and base it entirely on the facts as presented. He built an ark using gopherwood.

Peace

 

[Loveaboveall]

Response to Question #1:
Jesus blotted out the handwriting of ordinances ... nailing it to His cross. In light of this, note the conclusion drawn in verse 16 - "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." This helps us understand what is included in the "handwriting of ordinances." It included instructions about food, drink, new moons, and sabbaths. Because Jesus took the instructions about these ordinances out of the way, God's people should no longer judge each other by whether or not they follow the instructions about these things. Consider also Romans 15:4. The things written "aforetime" were written for our "learning," not our law today. In fact, the things described in Col. 2:16 were a part of the law of Moses, which was given exclusively to the Israelites i.e. Romans 2:14. It ended when the new covenant/testament/law/will went into effect (see Hebrews 8:6-13 and 9:16-17.

Response to Question #2:
"Which are a shadow of things to come" refers to the things mentioned in the previous verse - Col. 2:16. Note also passages such as Hebrews 8:5 and 10:1. And, also note the use of "example" ("copy" in the NKJV) in Hebrews 8:5, and "like figure" (antitype in the NKJV) in 1 Peter 3:20. Another consideration is the word "figure" in Romans 5:14. Conclusion: Many things in the Old Testament foreshadowed things in the New Testament.

Response to Question #3:
These were things specified under the law of Moses, but not under the law of Christ.

Additional Points:
The "handwriting of ordinances that was against us" refers to the law of Moses and its lack of ability to completely take sins away. God made provisions for the blood of animals to make atonement (or cover) for sins, but it could not take them completely away as does the blood of Christ (Hebrews 10). An additional text that should be considered is 2 Corinthians 3.

Hope this helps you in your studies.

Oh, almost forgot. The veil in the temple separated the holy place from the most holy place. Thus, its tearing signified access to the most holy place i.e. God's presence (see Hebrews 6:19-20, 10:19-20).

I think you just about missed my whole point

What was nailed to the cross was the ceremonies given to the children of Israel. They were not needed because Jesus was our perfect sacrifice. Does this mean that all of the old testament should be thrown out? Psalm 150 specifically tells us to worship God with instruments and all I hear is that we are not under the old covenant. How was this done away with at the cross? Or anything else that is mentioned in the old testament that does not specifically deal with the "Ordinances and Shadows" which pointed to the cross.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Response to Question #1:
Jesus blotted out the handwriting of ordinances ... nailing it to His cross. In light of this, note the conclusion drawn in verse 16 - "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." This helps us understand what is included in the "handwriting of ordinances." It included instructions about food, drink, new moons, and sabbaths. Because Jesus took the instructions about these ordinances out of the way, God's people should no longer judge each other by whether or not they follow the instructions about these things. Consider also Romans 15:4. The things written "aforetime" were written for our "learning," not our law today. In fact, the things described in Col. 2:16 were a part of the law of Moses, which was given exclusively to the Israelites i.e. Romans 2:14. It ended when the new covenant/testament/law/will went into effect (see Hebrews 8:6-13 and 9:16-17.

Response to Question #2:
"Which are a shadow of things to come" refers to the things mentioned in the previous verse - Col. 2:16. Note also passages such as Hebrews 8:5 and 10:1. And, also note the use of "example" ("copy" in the NKJV) in Hebrews 8:5, and "like figure" (antitype in the NKJV) in 1 Peter 3:20. Another consideration is the word "figure" in Romans 5:14. Conclusion: Many things in the Old Testament foreshadowed things in the New Testament.

Response to Question #3:
These were things specified under the law of Moses, but not under the law of Christ.

Additional Points:
The "handwriting of ordinances that was against us" refers to the law of Moses and its lack of ability to completely take sins away. God made provisions for the blood of animals to make atonement (or cover) for sins, but it could not take them completely away as does the blood of Christ (Hebrews 10). An additional text that should be considered is 2 Corinthians 3.

Hope this helps you in your studies.

Oh, almost forgot. The veil in the temple separated the holy place from the most holy place. Thus, its tearing signified access to the most holy place i.e. God's presence (see Hebrews 6:19-20, 10:19-20).

I think you just about missed my whole point

What was nailed to the cross was the ceremonies given to the children of Israel. They were not needed because Jesus was our perfect sacrifice. Does this mean that all of the old testament should be thrown out? Psalm 150 specifically tells us to worship God with instruments and all I hear is that we are not under the old covenant. How was this done away with at the cross? Or anything else that is mentioned in the old testament that does not specifically deal with the "Ordinances and Shadows" which pointed to the cross.

Sorry, my mistake. For a moment there, I thought you might actually be interested in studying Colossians 2:14.
Now it is clear you aren't. You're just looking for a way to justify instrumental music.

I am of Gentile descent. My people were never under the law of Moses in any way, shape, or form. As for what parts of the law apply today under the gospel of Christ, I urge you to check out that issue in Acts 15 and see what the resolution was to the issue.

You might also want to consider Galatians 5:1-4. Although the issue at hand was circumcision, note the consequences of looking to the O.T. for justification for a particular practice - a person was indebted to keep the whole law - not just the part(s) that suited them - and resulted in them being separated from Christ.

 

[- DRA -]

Oh please. Let's recap. You originally made the argument that silence prohibits, using the argument that Jesus couldn't be "a priest" because he wasn't a Levite.

This is my original point:

(From Post # 15 on Page 2) Actually, I think we should be careful to not overlook an obvious point. God had spoken. He specified that priests would be the tribe of Levi. His silence about other tribes did NOT authorize them to be Levitical priests under the law of Moses. Rather, it prohibited them from being priests.

On further examination you've perhaps recognised the folly of your argument and rephrased it to the much weaker argument (for your position) that He couldn't be a "Levitical priest". While absolutely true, it now demonstrates nothing for your case. People from the tribe of Judah aren't authorised to be from the tribe of Levi is a ludicrously obvious statement if you think about it which says nothing of silence.

Let's give credit to whom credit is due. If the reasoning about the silence of priests from Judah is indeed folly (as you say), then the credit belongs to God who inspired the Scriptures (i.e. 2 Timothy 3:16a, Hebrews 7:14) and make this very point.

Let's consider what Paul was really saying and just how well it supports your position. Wasn't he actually saying that the silence about priests from the tribe of Judah doesn't necessarily prohibit Jesus from being a priest? Isn't he actually demonstrating that although Jesus obviously couldn't be a Levitical priest, scripture still allows that he could be (and in fact is) a priest after the order of Melchizadek? Hmmm...

Uh, you kinda left out part of the story. You see, the point being stressed is that Jesus was declared to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek. A supporting point is that He couldn't have been a Levitical priest - He descended from the wrong tribe to be a priest. And, it is specifically pointed out that God was silent about priests from the tribe of Judah. As much as you would like to discredit this point and claim that it is just a part of some reasoning process that I came up with, it's a plain statement made right there in black and white in Hebrews 7:14. Don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself.

I'm not sure DRA and that's exactly my point. We simply aren't given those details. For someone who likes to call others for speculating, you do it a lot yourself. Do you have any evidence of anyone in scripture ever applying the approach you insist on?

Uh ... yes. Noah. Genesis 6:22. Check it out. He did just as God told Him. That's the approach I recommend. Why are you so afraid of this conclusion? Could it be that it has something to do with the IM issue? After all, if Noah had to do just as God said, then we should do likewise with passages such as Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16, right? But, that approach causes problems, right? You see, I really do understand where you are coming from and why you are resorting to the red herrings.

 

[Splayd]

You see, I really do understand where you are coming from and why you are resorting to the red herrings.

Red Herrings??? Hmmmm... examining your argument is a distraction? Sorry - I didn't realise we were supposed to take everything you say at face value. I can appreciate how it must be difficult for you to be asked to explain your handling of scripture. Nonetheless it seems to me that it's actually pertinent to the discussion.

Let's apply some integrity to the discussion and reexamine the way it has progressed.

You concluded: Rather, it prohibited them from being priests.

To be fair, your preceding sentence acknowledged that Jesus couldn't be a "Levitical" priest, but you have regularly missed that qualifier in your argument. I'd suggest that it's a very important qualifier but an inconvenient one for your argument.

Firstly - I agree 100% that it says that the scripture is silent about priests from the tribe of Judah. I've never argued otherwise. The issue isn't whether or not it's stated but whether or not it is being interpreted and applied correctly in your argument. That's what I'm disputing and I'd suggest that it's arrogant to insist that your argument is necessarily God's argument.

Now let's consider it carefully.

Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Now - it's very clearly demonstrated here that scripture is silent about priests from the tribe of Judah. Noone could dispute that... BUT how is it applied?

If it's concluded that silence prohibits, then it necessarily follows that this passage would conclude that Jesus couldn't be a priest at all, wouldn't it? Any other conclusion demands that He could be a priest DESPITE scripture's silence on that point.

Far from making the point that silence prohibits, it emphasises the point I've made all along - that we should consider what IS said instead of focussing on what isn't.

Mightn't the argument be better understood along the lines of:
"Scripture is silent about priests coming from the tribe of Judah. Right?
And only Levites can be priests. Right?
So Jesus can't be a priest. Right?
WRONG! Don't forget good old Melchizadek. He wasn't a Levitical priest but he was still a priest. In fact his is a better priesthood and that's the sort of priest Jesus is."

Now I agree entirely with the point that noone other than Levites could be a Levitical priest. I've never argued against that either... BUT it in no way whatsover makes a case for silence prohibiting.

NOW - to the Noah situation again.

Uh ... yes. Noah. Genesis 6:22. Check it out. He did just as God told Him. That's the approach I recommend. Why are you so afraid of this conclusion?

Ummm... That's my conclusion too. Noah did as God asked. Again - the issue was never about what scripture said. It was about your understanding and application of what it says. What I asked for is evidence that Noah approached the matter by considering what the silence meant. I submit that there is none and further that the only evidence we have is that he followed the positive instruction.

Peace

 

[Loveaboveall]

Sorry, my mistake. For a moment there, I thought you might actually be interested in studying Colossians 2:14.
Now it is clear you aren't. You're just looking for a way to justify instrumental music.

Sarcasm does no good and is not indicative of how a christian should talk

This has EVERYTHING to do with Colossians 2:14! These verses outline specifically what was nailed to the cross. It wasn't the whole "old testament" it was the handwriting of ordinances that were against us. Personally I have no bone to pick about the IM, I just want to go by the bible and the bible alone for my doctrine. This idea of silence making doctrine I have found is not biblical. Col 2 is loud and clear what was done away with, there is NO silence. The law of types that foreshadowed Jesus as our savior is no more. This included the commands regarding the levitical priesthood. This is how Jesus could be a High Priest and and not violate the law. If the law had not been nailed to the cross then God would have been breaking the law by ordaining Jesus as the High Priest. Simple as that, there is NO silence.

I am of Gentile descent. My people were never under the law of Moses in any way, shape, or form. As for what parts of the law apply today under the gospel of Christ, I urge you to check out that issue in Acts 15 and see what the resolution was to the issue.

Does God really care who your ancestors are when determing whether to offer salvation to them? To suggest that God would only save the Israelites and no one else is completely against the character of God.I gave evidence of Gentiles who became a part of the children of Israel and thus were bound by the old covenant! With the bible clearly showing that Gentiles could be part of God's people and worship Him under the old covenant how can you dismiss it?

You might also want to consider Galatians 5:1-4. Although the issue at hand was circumcision, note the consequences of looking to the O.T. for justification for a particular practice - a person was indebted to keep the whole law - not just the part(s) that suited them - and resulted in them being separated from Christ.

Where were the children of Israel commanded to circumcise their boys? In the Handwriting of ordinances that was against us and contrary to us, right? Wouldn't this have been nailed to the cross? The Galatians still wanted to require the Gentiles to become circumcised as they would have had to under the old covenant if they converted. Paul wrote a whole letter to them to speak out against keeping the Handwriting of ordinances that was against us. He tells them several times, this law is a curse to you if you don't keep all of it, and you aren't required to keep it so why do you want to. You have freedom in Christ! That is his point!

But it still goes back to this idea of silence... Hebrews 7 clearly makes the point that Jesus COULD NOT be a priest under the original law that governs the priesthood, He was not a levite. There is not silence there. Col 2 specifically states this law of the priesthood was done away with at the cross. The writer of Hebrews makes this very point! The law was nailed to the cross, it was changed, this is why Jesus could be our High Priest and it is much better because it is not after a carnal commandment that was contained in ordincances with curses but He is a priest after the order of Melchizidek which never ends.

 

[GoldSolThumpkin]

Now let's consider it carefully.

Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda(h); of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Now - it's very clearly demonstrated here that scripture is silent about priests from the tribe of Judah. No one could dispute that... BUT how is it applied?

If it's concluded that silence prohibits, then it necessarily follows that this passage would conclude that Jesus couldn't be a priest at all, wouldn't it? Any other conclusion demands that He could be a priest DESPITE scripture's silence on that point.

No. The qualifier that his priesthood was an exception to the rule puts a hole in this specific point of your argument.

My example of how to interpret scripture is this:
1) I am very careful. Like Noah, if told to do something a certain prescribed way, then I will not entertain others, at all.
2) Changing one thing is the same as changing the entire thing.
3) If, for example, communion was to be done with juice, crackers, and sacrificial lamb, then I would use all three. I would not choose one or two of them. The fact that in the old testement, sacrificial lamb was the prescribed method, does not include it as an option. The prescribed method in NOW grape (not orange) juice and crackers (not bread).

Yes, the prescribed method and/or process in the new testement supercedes other previous methods and processes. The reason is because God made a point of making a change. He had a reason. My reasons for anything are less important that his. I don't like taking risks with pleasing or displeasing God.

 

[Splayd]

No. The qualifier that his priesthood was an exception to the rule puts a hole in this specific point of your argument.

So just to clarify - the exception proves the rule? I might even buy that if it was established that it is a rule. All I can see is the counter-example.

My example of how to interpret scripture is this:
1) I am very careful. Like Noah, if told to do something a certain prescribed way, then I will not entertain others, at all.

Like Noah??? We don't have that information. We simply don't know the way Noah went about it apart from the fact that he did what God told him to do. Now IF silence prohibits AND he couldn't do anything other than the things you've determined he could do then of course it follows that that's what he did. On the other hand, IF silence actually means he must jump 7 times every 10 minutes then it necessarily means that he did that. Your Noah example is circular reasoning. Whatever he did and however he did it was in line with what God wanted him to do. That's it.

2) Changing one thing is the same as changing the entire thing.

Noone's advocating changing anything.

 

[RefrusRevlis]

From that information you ASSUME that Noah wasn't to use pine in addition to gopherwood. Not an unreasonable assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. You don't stop there though. You build upon that assumption with further assumptions.

Because you have first determined that Noah wasn't to use additional woods, you conclude that he didn't. Again this isn't an unreasonable assumption, given that he did do what he was instructed to it BUT it is entirely reliant on your first assumption being correct and further increases the speculation. You've built an assumption on an assumption.

You keep building your tower of speculation by trying to justify your initial assumption. ie: The scripture doesn't say not to use additional woods but because we have determined that it meant that, we now to rationalise our assumption by speculating as to why it would mean that. Starting to get pretty shaky now and fast developing into a circular argument.

Not content with determining that there must be a reason that the lack of comment about additional woods necessarily equates with an actual (and already determined) comment about additional woods (ie: that they aren't allowed) it's now imperative that we now speculate as to what that reason is. This is where you now conclude that silence prohibits. It is an assumption built on an assumption built on an assumption built on an assumption... BUT makes a nice neat package of circular reasoning. How do we know silence prohibits? Because Noah wasn't allowed to use other woods! How do we know he wasn't allowed to use other woods? Because silence prohibits! It's beautiful... but not based on anything concrete.

By contrast, my argument is that Noah was given the positive instruction to build an ark with gopherwood... and did. That's it. I can speculate that he shouldn't use other woods and that he didn't use other woods but I acknowledge that it's speculation and base it entirely on the facts as presented. He built an ark using gopherwood.

You are assuming that I'm assuming.
But seriously, I will try to get to the point of my questions in my next post.

Refrus

 

[Countrygirl1976]

God speaks to us and there is no silence.

 

[Loveaboveall]

Has anyone gone back and actually looked at what Moses did say about the Priesthood?

Ex 28:1 And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, [even] Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.

Numbers 3:6-7,9,12 Bring the tribe of Levi near, and present them before Aaron the priest, that they may minister unto him.And they shall keep his charge, and the charge of the whole congregation before the tabernacle of the congregation, to do the service of the tabernacle...And thou shalt give the Levites unto Aaron and to his sons: they [are] wholly given unto him out of the children of Israel...And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine;

A little history may help here, also. One of the Sanhedrins functions was to determine wether a man who claimed to be a levite could prove his lineage all the way back to Aaron. If he could not he was rejected and was not allowed to officiate in the preistly ministry. Where is the silence in this argument. God SET APART a tribe to be His to perform holy duties in the sanctuary. All others were considered strangers in the Holy Places and would be put to death.

Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

How can we take this verse so far out of context to prove something that it never was intended to prove? By saying, "Moses spake nothing", does not mean it is a doctrine of silence! It means that God set apart the tribe of Levi not the tribe of Judah, thus Jesus, under the law of the priesthood could not be a Priest, let alone a High Priest. Where is the silence? Does God ever have exceptions to His laws? I can't think of any, maybe someone else can. The law said the Levites were set apart and only they could be priests, there are no exceptions. If there was an exception Moses would have written it, thus because he did not there is no doubt. To assume because it does not specifically state that the tribe of Judah could not be priests that there is the possiblity that it would be possible is not sound biblical reasoning.

 

[Loveaboveall]

Uh, you kinda left out part of the story. You see, the point being stressed is that Jesus was declared to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek. A supporting point is that He couldn't have been a Levitical priest - He descended from the wrong tribe to be a priest. And, it is specifically pointed out that God was silent about priests from the tribe of Judah. As much as you would like to discredit this point and claim that it is just a part of some reasoning process that I came up with, it's a plain statement made right there in black and white in Hebrews 7:14. Don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself.

Okay, I think I am starting to understand where you are coming from. A positive command always is silent about any other positive/neutral aspects of that command, is that right? However, a negative command is never silent about a positive/neutral aspect of the command, right? In some instances I can buy your argument, others not so much.

i.e. any positive command given such as "go unto all the world" does not speak of what mode to do this which would be another positive command. Which I can go along with.

However, the examples given are just not good examples to use for your argument of silence. I understand why Heb 7:14 is used because it specifically says "Moses spake nothing" which is a great statement on the surface to use in the silent argument but it is not.

Heres the difference: God's commands are general and specific. "Go to all the world" is general, it would not be disobeying the command to do it by foot or horse. The command in Numbers to set apart the Levites as God's chosen tribe is specific, it leaves no room for discussion. There can be no other postive commands associated with it, which means there is no silence on the subject. It would be the same if some of Israel decided that since God did not say they couldn't keep sunday as the sabbath that they would do that because God was silent on the subject. The sabbath was a specific command that left no room for other positive commands to keep sunday as the sabbath. Abraham on the other hand got a general command to get out of Ur. It did not specify how he was to do it but that he was to leave and trust God to lead him. Thus there was left open(silence) the ability of abraham to choose what would be the best way to leave whether it be by foot, boat, whatever.

So what one must do is study to understand whether a command is general or specific. The illustrations of the priesthood and Noah's wood are specific thus they are not good examples of silence by God. Pick some general examples and I might agree with you then.

 

[Everlasting]

The plight of Moses only reflects: that we comparing a time when man did not have, and had not examined the laws from God. To a time when man should have begun to grown; into the knowledge of the God law's?



How can anyone say that, Jesus the Son of God, was not a minister of the people. If you really want to hold onto the "wrestling with principalities concept" then you will find the obivious. If the world wanted to accept Him for who He was, with all of the healings and miracles that He performed: The oppressive establishment could have embraced Him. How can you await the return of a redeemer whom you do not feel can minister goodness to your soul?



Just a Thought
_____________



Everlasting

Moon over Key Biscayne
bn.com
ISBN# 1-4241-6884-8