WordWolf

Wilfred Brimley Coccoon Don Ameche

Weird All Yankovic Spy Hard Leslie Nielsen

If it's 50 years old, it's before my time. The Mrs and I are fans of different "retro" things, so we sometimes sound older than we are.

Haven't seen it yet. Might be the actor isn't Harrison Ford (but who is, really?) Might be it contradicts the novels. Might be popular to bash. Hard to say from here. I'm just not getting my hopes up. For me, the heyday of SW/ST has passed, and I can't be too disappointed in current results because they're not the same franchises- at least not in my head.

Did you say the Green Arrow has a television show now? Wasn't he just on "Smallville?"

"Star Wars- Episode IV-A New Hope." I don't recognize the first 2 actors. Peter Cushing played Grand Moff Tarkin (and, since he wasn't shot full-body, wore slippers with his Imperial Moff uniform.) Anthony Daniels was See-Threepio, Kenny Baker was Artoo-Detoo, and Peter Mayhew was Chewbacca. As PM points out, he may not have gotten a medal at the end, but he did have the last line. (Book versions said he got a medal later because Princess Leia wasn't his height.) The MTV Awards used to have a Lifetime Achievement Award of dubious seriousness. One year, it was awarded to Chewbacca the Wookiee. AFAIK, it was PM who came out, in costume. And Carrie Fisher came out and put a medal around his neck. How did PM get the job? He and David Prowse showed up. When they both stood up, they were both hired, and asked which wanted to play a hero, and which wanted to play a villain. Their answers are how we got the casting for Darth Vader and Chewbacca.

Overboard Kurt Russell Tango & Cash (Didn't we see GH and PB in this page already?)

I really should have remembered to stay off the thread. I won't finish the last episode or so, probably, until after the World Cup.

I may be imagining I've heard this ONCE, quite some time ago. It's not sparking a memory of a tune or anything.

I quite openly advise people NOT to rely on the Authorized Version/King James Version, and specify that only Shakespeare fans and fans of Elizabethan English should even try to use it. My current usages of it remain confined to quoting it at the GSC because everyone here's familiar with it, and using it to find verses that I look up in other versions (since I'm familiar with it.) For personal use, I use the NASB. I first heard of it in the context of a splinter group (yes, Raf, you mentioned it first), and its usage of the italics for the same reasons as the AV/KJV (it was Authorized by King James, in case anyone doesn't know) . After I read Neil Lightfoot's "How We Got the Bible", I switched over to the New American Standard Bible (NASB), despite its refusal to be titled a "version" which it, of course, is. In the course of explaining what's wonderful about the NIV (in his opinion), NL made points in passing about the NASB that filled my list of what I wanted in a version. That is, the italics, clear communication, and CONSISTENCY IN TRANSLATION (readers are more likely to find Greek Word A is always translated English Word H, for example, and not English Word H twice, English Word Q four times, and so on. So, despite being a fan of Shakespeare, I recommend the NASB around, and read it myself. With access to things like E-sword and online Bibles, it's easy to compare the versions side-by-side whenever you want. The internet has made that a LOT easier.

If you're going to get a few bills under the table, or a few perks where you aren't caught not paying tax..... ...it's smart to have a job on the books. Then the IRS thinks that's your sole source of income. They won't, say, think to come around to your home and wonder why "the big television we use to display teachings" that "the ministry" owns is on the wall of YOUR living room, etc.... If you have no listed job, the IRS gets suspicious.

The smart money says they won't. Oh, there will be some cosmetic differences for about 2-3 years as things are worked out, then the doctrine will be locked into place, the practics locked into place, and you have another twi with a different name and different people doing the exploiting. I'm curious how long it will be before the first higher-up from RnR leaves to do his own personal thing, claiming the others don't listen. Past experience with twi splinters suggest it won't be much longer....

I don't know which would be a bigger trainwreck- that they don't expand their learning, or that they do. If they don't expand, they're just fossilized leftovers from twi. But when we see twi splinters "expand", we get mess-ups like endorsing Momentus and the "personal prophecy" thing. And they can't be fixed because they can't accept they'd mess up that badly- and worse, that people like us saw it coming a mile away, can identify the problem at a moment's glance, and begin outlining solutions.

chockfull: "Sure - oikonomia and usages sound like a reasonable start. I am not 100% convinced that doing "word studies" on Greek words is going to present a great deal of enlightenment regarding "the ages" or "administrations of time" types of views. The LXX isn't as precise as the Hebrew OT. And I'm going to obviate one of my other problems. I reject a fundamentalist viewpoint of being able to do mathematical type proofs with scriptures." I'm hoping to go over what I find, and make the clearest case for a consistent answer I can find, "showing all my work." My thinking is that it should be internally consistent and stand on its own merits. If that doesn't work, then hopedully I didn't waste too much of your time. If that does work, I'm hoping that will be enough for you to agree at least to that. That's really all I can ask, if I'm presenting a rationale. chockfull: " Where are you at on this?" I'm where I was before digging into the material again. (So, my opinion may change in the next few days.) At present, I think that the sensible rendering of "oikonomia" is "stewardship", period. Furthermore, I think the division of things into "covenants" is more consistent with what we see than "dispensations/administrations", whether ot nor rhe word "dispensations" even appears in Scripture. Again, I reserve the right to change opinions once all the evidence is laid out.

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.)