WordWolf

TLC: "I'm nearly dumbfounded that you won't, can't, or don't care to consider any of the directly quoted from scripture phrases I plainly gave in my last post as being some "Scriptural rational" for a certain "dispensing" (of the Word of God) that markedly set or changed or altered the relationship between God and man." Ah, that's not what I asked you about in the first place- nor what you responded about. TLC: "Given that mankind is sick (and not what God intended), I've actually come back around to liking "dispensation," when thought of in terms of a dispensary. If you pick up the wrong prescription (perhaps the right medication, but with the wrong instructions) at the pharmacy, not only is it not going to do what it should (or what you think it'll do), it might even kill you. " WordWolf: "A) If there's a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking, please share it. Otherwise, it looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery." TLC: ""Surely you know and recognize that "dispensation" is not a translation that is made up. Just exactly why do you suppose they used that word? Do you not think the scholars of 1611 viewed it as a "dispensing" of... something? " WordWolf: "That's not "sharing a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking." That's supposing it matches what the translators of one or more versions were thinking without actually presenting any evidence for it. It still looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery." TLC: ""Actually, it's the 1611 KJV and 1881 RV , which (as far as I know, and as I presume you know already) were collaborative translations done by some of the (if not the) most extensive group of highly qualified language scholars ever assembled to translate the texts into English (in use at that time.) So, I just don't see it as something to be taken lightly, and not bother to look at it in light of that particular nuance. " WordWolf: "So, that's still not "sharing a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking." That's supposing that your thinking matches what the collaborative translators of the 1611 KJV and 1881 RV were thinking, without actually presenting any evidence that's what they were thinking. It still looks like you made an analogy and ran with it- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery." Taxidev: "This is very interesting. I just looked at Strong and Thayer after finding this word used 4 times in the epistles. All 4 times it is translated dispensation. But both Strong and Thayer hold a type of managerial bent on their definitions, definitely along the lines of what you say here. And, that word is also translated stewardship 3 times in Luke, and steward 3 times in Luke and Titus. So administration, rather than being a period of time, is more of a handling and overseeing. In fact, Eph 3:2 makes it pretty clear that it is an oversight, a handling. " WordWolf: "o, Taxidev looked at "oikonomia"- which, actually, is the word TLC's saying should properly be rendered "dispensation" and further asserts that this word should be taken to mean something akin to a "dispensary" like we think of for medication" "So far, it seems the Greek all says one thing, and that has nothing to do with "oikonomia" being any kind of "dispensary" or related to that in concept in any way. I'm still asking TLC to make a case for it, and keep getting "'Dispensation' is the word those translators chose" and a refusal to address that their usage of it seems to go in a completely different direction other than a "dispensary." I don't know why they chose that specific word, but there seems to be no reason whatsoever to think it was in relation to a medication. The usage all seems to refer to some sort of management or governance, rather than a dispensary or even a period of time, Which, of course, is a different talking-point." TLC: "No, I never said that. I very plainly said that I've "come back to liking dispensation" (and have given you several reasons since why.) Frankly, I'm not convinced there is a perfect translation for it, as it carries with it several nuances of meaning. One of which (that I see as being essential to it) is that there is/was a "dispensing" of words (i.e., of) which markedly set or changed or altered the relationship between God and man. " So, you mentioned more than one reason, but you darn well DID originate the "dispensaty" analogy I immediately asked you about- and ducked answerting. The closest you came to addressing that directly-other than saying "they used the word 'dispensation' for a reason' and supposing that reason matched your reasoning was this: TLC: "(However, I'm not going there, as I couldn't even get you past the dispensing issue without you demanding - in typical twi fashion - "chapter and verse.")" WordWolf: "I'm surprised to see someone make a virtue of not having a Scriptural rationale for something, but I'm fine with continuing on about "stewardship". TLC: "'m nearly dumbfounded that you won't, can't, or don't care to consider any of the directly quoted from scripture phrases I plainly gave in my last post as being some "Scriptural rational" for a certain "dispensing" (of the Word of God) that markedly set or changed or altered the relationship between God and man. " That wasn't what I asked about, as we can see. You answered a question I didn't ask, and ducked the question I asked, and pretended they were the same. In other news, this is flogging a dead horse, and we all can get on with the actual discussion once more. I hope. ================================ TLC: "Frankly, I'm not convinced there is a perfect translation for it, as it carries with it several nuances of meaning. One of which (that I see as being essential to it) is that there is/was a "dispensing" of words (i.e., of) which markedly set or changed or altered the relationship between God and man. At first, man was put in the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. Then he was sent forth from it to till the ground from whence he was taken. Then, in addition to the green herb, every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for man. Of course, that all changed with Moses and the giving of the law. When did that change? Yeah, with the apostle Paul (see Col. 1:25). Of course, this is but one little aspect of it. But if anyone wants to blenderize it all and live on the slop, just don't blame God if you aren't feeling nourished by it, or it if makes you sick, or if you can't make sense of certain things. There's a (healthy) reason for the separations. Truth is, I also very much like the nuance of stewardships, in light of it involving different "economies." Perhaps its a reflection of certain fiduciary responsibilities. If you're going to prosper (or at least, not be sent to the poor house), you need to be able to recognize and adapt to what the "real" economy is all about. Sure, there may be patterns and similarities involved, but if you fail to see the differences... well, no need to go too deep into it. But if you really want to get deep into another perspective on it, there appears to be a certain "crossing over" involved with each change. " WordWolf: "I think the sensible thing here will be to pull out that word "oikonomia" and get into its usages- specifically, what it was meant to say and what was not meant to say. As much as I like the word "stewardship", there may be problems with translating it that way- or implications that should NEVER be made- because it wasn't meant to go in a direction I think it should mean, or want it to mean. " TLC: "But, since you asked (and since its not something fabricated on a whim), I steered into it by illustrating the basic fact that there was indeed a "dispensing" of something at various times which coincided with a significant change in the relationship between God and man." God Almighty definitely gave lots of stuff to people across history. I'll stipulate to that without needing to illustrate the point- it seems self-evident to me, but I'm willing to show something if there's a question about it later. Whether that has anything whatsoever with the word "oikonomia" or the concept taken from one translation of it as "dispensation"- well, that's where there needs to be discussion and some support-for or against- actually posted. Taxidev already took a look there. Perhaps we should join him when we can. (I'm a little busy but will post what I find as soon as I'm able.) TLC: "Have at it. I can hardly wait to see your detailed Scriptural rationale and in-depth explanation of it. Who knows, maybe I'll like it." I never said it was going to be "detailed" or "in-depth", although it might be one or both. In case it isn't, I don't want anyone coming along later and claiming I failed to do one or both after claiming I would do both. But yes, perhaps you'll like it. I'd prefer to post something worth liking, which would make that easier, of course.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24586-rr-group-too-late-cult-sycophants-already-taken/ The other thread on "Revival and Restoration." "R&R Group- Too late, cult sycophants already taken."

This is the other thread about RnR.

I'm surprised to see someone make a virtue of not having a Scriptural rationale for something, but I'm fine with continuing on about "stewardship". I think the sensible thing here will be to pull out that word "oikonomia" and get into its usages- specifically, what it was meant to say and what was not meant to say. As much as I like the word "stewardship", there may be problems with translating it that way- or implications that should NEVER be made- because it wasn't meant to go in a direction I think it should mean, or want it to mean. I'm also curious. If we're not going to examine ideas and terms using the Bible, on what are we going to base the bulk of the discussion? Personally, if I have a brilliant and clever idea that has zero support from the Bible, and I assert it, I expect to be called on that one, and vice versa....

The "one verse doctrine" thing wasn't tied to the "dispensations" thing. I'm hoping not to need to keep forking this discussion, though.

Dan manufactured a problem and then manufactured its solution. Dan was unable to think of any apt penalty other than "lose salvation", so he concluded that God Almighty can't come up with one, either, and so he added that opinion to the relevant verses. God promised eternal life and incorruptible seed- but He didn't promise that those who prey on others (for example) won't face an appropriate penalty that doesn't involve revoking the above. I think it's actually kinda scary that God Almighty can come up with a punishment that fits all of that at the same time. Then again, in science fiction, that could have dramatic consequences (like eternal life without adding agelessness, so 500 years later, one looks 500 years old and so on. ) I don't think that's what they'll face- but they might prefer that to what's actually prepared and kept hidden for now.

1 Timothy 3 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 3 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of [a]overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine [c]or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation [d]incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not [e]double-tongued, [f]or addicted to much wine [g]or fond of sordid gain, 9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. 11 [h]Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a [j]high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. 14 I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; 15 but [k]in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how [l]one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. 16 By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was [m]vindicated [n]in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory. ====================================================================== A) I don't see the word "priest" mentioned anywhere in that chapter. B) Many Catholics do READ the Bible. There's a fundamental divide between "sola scriptura" Christians (the Bible and that's it, in theory) and historic/high churches. The historic churches rely largely on their history, thinking that something is lost skipping that and ONLY using the Bible. It is true that those of us reading only the Bible ARE relying on history- just a limited amount of it. So, we approach things in fundamentally different ways. Doesn't mean I need to pretend they can't find Genesis in a Bible that's handed to them, or something. I know it's easy- and twi made it policy- to bash other Christians, "FOR WHOM CHRIST DIED", but it's not necessary.

Here's what it might look like. Earlier in the thread, I mentioned something about the Greek word "oikonomia", a word that's translated a few ways in the Greek Bible texts. WordWolf: "Then again, I didn't render "oikonomia" as "dispensation" NOR "administration." I render it "stewardship", and consider who's in charge of stewarding God's Word at that time, and in what form it's stewarded." Taxidev: "This is very interesting. I just looked at Strong and Thayer after finding this word used 4 times in the epistles. All 4 times it is translated dispensation. But both Strong and Thayer hold a type of managerial bent on their definitions, definitely along the lines of what you say here. And, that word is also translated stewardship 3 times in Luke, and steward 3 times in Luke and Titus. So administration, rather than being a period of time, is more of a handling and overseeing. In fact, Eph 3:2 makes it pretty clear that it is an oversight, a handling. Good call, WordWolf!" So, Taxidev looked at "oikonomia"- which, actually, is the word TLC's saying should properly be rendered "dispensation" and further asserts that this word should be taken to mean something akin to a "dispensary" like we think of for medication. WordWolf: "Then again, I didn't render "oikonomia" as "dispensation" NOR "administration." I render it "stewardship", and consider who's in charge of stewarding God's Word at that time, and in what form it's stewarded." TLC directly replied to this with: "Given that mankind is sick (and not what God intended), I've actually come back around to liking "dispensation," when thought of in terms of a dispensary. If you pick up the wrong prescription (perhaps the right medication, but with the wrong instructions) at the pharmacy, not only is it not going to do what it should (or what you think it'll do), it might even kill you. " So far, it seems the Greek all says one thing, and that has nothing to do with "oikonomia" being any kind of "dispensary" or related to that in concept in any way. I'm still asking TLC to make a case for it, and keep getting "'Dispensation' is the word those translators chose" and a refusal to address that their usage of it seems to go in a completely different direction other than a "dispensary." I don't know why they chose that specific word, but there seems to be no reason whatsoever to think it was in relation to a medication. The usage all seems to refer to some sort of management or governance, rather than a dispensary or even a period of time, Which, of course, is a different talking-point. Taxidev, if you saved your data when you did the search, can you post here and retrace your steps so everyone can see how you got there? It sounded like you documented all your steps, but if you could type out the details, it would be appreciated. (I'd have posted a similar search already, but I regret I lack the time so far. If you don't lack the time, I for one would be grateful.)

TLC: "Given that mankind is sick (and not what God intended), I've actually come back around to liking "dispensation," when thought of in terms of a dispensary. If you pick up the wrong prescription (perhaps the right medication, but with the wrong instructions) at the pharmacy, not only is it not going to do what it should (or what you think it'll do), it might even kill you. " WordWolf: "A) If there's a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking, please share it. Otherwise, it looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery." TLC "Surely you know and recognize that "dispensation" is not a translation that is made up. Just exactly why do you suppose they used that word? Do you not think the scholars of 1611 viewed it as a "dispensing" of... something? " WordWolf: "That's not "sharing a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking." That's supposing it matches what the translators of one or more versions were thinking without actually presenting any evidence for it. It still looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery." TLC: "Actually, it's the 1611 KJV and 1881 RV , which (as far as I know, and as I presume you know already) were collaborative translations done by some of the (if not the) most extensive group of highly qualified language scholars ever assembled to translate the texts into English (in use at that time.) So, I just don't see it as something to be taken lightly, and not bother to look at it in light of that particular nuance. " WordWolf (new posting): So, that's still not "sharing a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking." That's supposing that your thinking matches what the collaborative translators of the 1611 KJV and 1881 RV were thinking, without actually presenting any evidence that's what they were thinking. It still looks like you made an analogy and ran with it- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery.

"Let's see....he could start by calling out Islam for what it really is, an ideological, political force intent on enslaving the world ( would probably trigger a 'holy war' tho !! )" EXACTLY. He's trying to make the RCC a group of COMPASSION. Starting a new crusade isn't exactly going to help- or work, for that matter. It will get the RCC AND Islam vilified, which will be bad for the RCC AND its members. "He could put an end to the church 'forbidding to marry' priests." They've been talking about that for decades. No consensus has been reached. And all the new ramifications would have to be covered. I think that they should expand the deaconate and promote that for those who feel they could not meet all the requirements of the priesthood but feel a calling. That would alleviate some of the issues caused by lower numbers of priests. Eventually, the RCC will come to some sort of consensus on celibacy and the priesthood. "He could sanction the use of contraception especially in third world countries." No, he couldn't. The RCC has a big issue with contraception and think it violates God's Will. They're not going to say "God disapproves but this decision is popular so we're going to run with it..." They think that we can resort to mathematics when preventing childbirth, but not physics or chemistry. I don't agree with them, but I see where they're coming from, and they ARE more about responsibility than about taking any of this lightly. " Heck, the RC church has enough money to supply the contraception" Not unless they sell off their stuff. They have some expensive things but not gobs of liquid capital to swim in. Money comes in-and flows out. "BUT, they still have the same mindset as muslims...increase converts by breeding. " That's not their reasoning, and it's sad to misrepresent them that badly, then turn around and announce you can solve their problems easily. In fact, his reluctance to change to what's popular rather than traditional argues AGAINST "the latest designer causes". "This is just for starters." Thanks for replying, Allan. However, I hope you're getting the idea that it's not all as simple as you made it out to be.

TLC: "I have a hard time seeing exactly which (or what kind of) covenant you might say or think applies to us in this day and time. I guess I just don't see it written and/or referred to as something applicable to us in anything that Paul wrote. Care to explain you thinking on this?" WordWolf: " Covenants? I think of this: Hebrews 8 King James Version (KJV) 8 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. 3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. 4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: 5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. 6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: ============================== [So, there's the covenant made to the 12 tribes, and the covenant which was promised to follow. Jesus us the mediator of that better covenant. From what I've seen dealing with devout Jews, I think the old, outmoded covenant still does what it did before. It sure is better than no covenant. However, it is outmoded and outdated since the new, improved model left the factory, so to speak." TLC: "Yes, there's no question that certain covenants are spoken of, most notably to Israel. And yes, Paul does speak in Hebrews (which I believe he wrote) of a new (better) covenant, but it appears to me that this new covenant relates rather specifically (and certainly most directly) to Israel. In fact, given Paul's concern for all of Israel (and not just those that had accepted Jesus as Lord) and his background, Hebrews offers an highly advanced and powerful insight into both the historical and future covenant relationship between God and Israel. I just don't see the church of the body of Christ brought up or mentioned anywhere in it. Neither do I see the terms of any covenant between God and Christ (or his body.) And as for 1 Tim. 2:5, I'm not convinced that having a mediator necessary implies or mandates a certain need for a covenant." I didn't quote I Timothy 2:5- which says Christ Jesus is mankind's ONE mediator. I quoted Hebrews 8:6, which states outright that Jesus is the mediator OF that better covenant. As for that covenant referring to us, it's the same comparison as in Galatians 4. Galatians 4:24ff (KJV) 21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free." ================================================================ To make Hebrews AND Galatians exclude born-again Christians is to slice us out of a LOT of the Epistles. Hebrews was addressed to Christians of a Jewish background, and Galatians was addressed to Christians living in Galatia. That some of them would have Jewish personal histories or just plain know Scripture (Philip witnessed to a non-Jew reading Scripture in his chariot) is not much of a jump. Paul said one covenant corresponded to the bondwoman's covenant-and that one was "Jerusalem which now is" (Judaism.) The other is ours, which is "children of promise." ==================== Ok, I can't get the freaking thing to stop underlining. I hope my point was clear despite that.)

TLC: "Given that mankind is sick (and not what God intended), I've actually come back around to liking "dispensation," when thought of in terms of a dispensary. If you pick up the wrong prescription (perhaps the right medication, but with the wrong instructions) at the pharmacy, not only is it not going to do what it should (or what you think it'll do), it might even kill you. " WordWolf: "A) If there's a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking, please share it. Otherwise, it looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery." TLC "Surely you know and recognize that "dispensation" is not a translation that is made up. Just exactly why do you suppose they used that word? Do you not think the scholars of 1611 viewed it as a "dispensing" of... something? " That's not "sharing a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking." That's supposing it matches what the translators of one or more versions were thinking without actually presenting any evidence for it. It still looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery.

Bumping up the other thread about the AOS- "Satan's Alley" connection.

Bumping up this thread about the Travolta movie with "Satan's Alley" in it...

Glad someone else thought of that as well! As it turns out, Deuteronomy says that if the prophet missed, they are to be killed for speaking presumptuously for the Lord. As it turns out, vpw saved us the trouble by dropping dead on his own in that time-frame..

It didn't start with a full-scale production. When he was in college, lcm was an athlete and was in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, where the phrase "athlete of the spirit" was mentioned here and there. After getting full-scale into twi, lcm had a small production done with the name, with Haywood and Murphy as the leads. After lcm was in charge, he saw the Travolta movie "Staying Alive." He decided to plagiarize the "Satan's Alley" scene of the musical they were performing in the movie. So, he padded out the old thing and ended up with something that wasn't several minutes long, but 2 freaking hours. In doing this, he also had Ephesians 6:10-17 completely rewritten with athletic imagery and said this was ok to do- an "expanded translation according to usage." He said we were athletes and that replaced the "soldiers of the Lord" (and skipped all other imagery like planting and watering.) Anyway, he wasn't in the original little presentation, but when he expanded it, he made sure he filled 2 roles- narrator on-set and male lead despite having no rhythm and no dance experience. Those who were walking around the grounds at the time can get into specifics again.

But the market places were open places. Restricting access to them would be bad for business, and contrary to the culture. People LIKED the freewheeling feel of the market places. We modern folk may dislike them for what those people loved about them, but those were THEIR market places, not ours. Our malls are a LOT more sedate by comparison- except for Black Friday, say. Thanks, both of you.

lcm was NOT the star of the 1.0 presentation. However, when it was expanded, it was during lcm's "I have to be the center of everything" narcissism swing. He was on High Country Caravan, he appeared at the beginning of the "Many Ways" music album explaining what it was about, and so on, If something went on in public, he had to be in the photo OR ELSE. So, lcm kept being around until some suck-up wondered aloud why he wasn't in the front of THAT as well- and lcm found the excuse he was waiting for and pushed Haywood down and took his role. I liked the thing at the time. But, at the time, I was young and stupid.

I never said he was perfect. No Pope can satisfy everyone. (I've seen one person who thinks that his only acceptable action would be to immediately dismantle the RCC and hand out all its assets.) What, precisely, do you think he SHOULD be doing that he's not doing? Remember that he's got the entire RCC to run, and if he just announced a complete inversion of the group, he'd find himself the victim of a sniper.

We sure came far afield in this thread. I wanted to talk about vpw's plagiarism when I started it. These things sure go wherever once they're started...

A) If there's a Scriptural basis for the prescription and dispensary line of thinking, please share it. Otherwise, it looks like you made an analogy and ran with that- which vpw did a lot and makes some of us quite leery. ============================================== Covenants? I think of this: Hebrews 8 King James Version (KJV) 8 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. 3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. 4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: 5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. 6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: ============================================ So, there's the covenant made to the 12 tribes, and the covenant which was promised to follow. Jesus us the mediator of that better covenant. From what I've seen dealing with devout Jews, I think the old, outmoded covenant still does what it did before. It sure is better than no covenant. However, it is outmoded and outdated since the new, improved model left the factory, so to speak.

Since this is a DISCUSSION FORUM, would anyone (especially the original poster) care to share something about the guy in the video, or the content of the video? I'm not a big fan of a video link dump with no explanation as to why I should watch it or even how long it is.

I might have gotten it from the really obscure actors. I might have recognized the actors for the 2 relatives, but I'm not sure. I would definitely have recognized DL as WA. WOuld you believe I was one of the last kids my age to see this movie? When my family decided to go see it, I got sick, bedridden. They decided to go anyway. I managed to stay standing in line, but lay down and slept for virtually the entire movie. No, they never went to see it again. I finally saw the actual movie on VHS later. I knew plenty of the story because, for one thing, I had the novelization. (From time to time, I look back, and think that my family may not have liked me that much.)

Matthew Broderick Glory Morgan Freeman