Have You Ever Read Ephesians?

Okay. Okay. Hey, if you accuse God of being a sadistic dictator don't be upset if someone questions your own motives. So the book of Romans you have no problem with imagining Pauline authorship ? Every chapter?

Richh,The poster wrote this: I have decided that as we draw closer to the second coming of Christ this kind of complaint will be made more often.There have always been people who looked around at the world and decided that there must be no God or that He doesn't care.I think we can only expect that those who make this objection and really believe it, well grow bolder in this complaint.I expect that the coming Antichrist will voice something like this: " ... And the whole earth marveled after the beast [Antichrist]. And they worshipped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshipped th ebeast, saying, Who is like the beast? And who can make war with him?

​

And there was given to him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, which tabernacle in heaven ..." (Rev. 13:3b-6) Yet we believers have seen that Christ has overcome the world, Christ has terminated the fallen man, Christ has judged the Devil.They do not understand the working of these realities from the inside out. They do not understand the battle won by Christ from the center of the believers outward to the circumference. We have been crucified with Christ. We have been raised with Christ. We have ascended with Christ, and we have been made to sit far above all in Christ.The seeds of these realities operating from the kernel of the believers' beings progressing out to bring our out beings into the coming age from the inside, escapes the unbelievers.But we hasten that day when the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ.It is hard to help some people to see the radical nature of God dispensing Himself into man. I mean "radical" as in going to the ROOT of man's problem.

The point of the Luke passage was that someone assumed that Jesus would take his side to handle an "unfair" situation.Jesus flatly refused. This refusal does not mean Jeus "supported" an unfair disproportion of wealth. Jesus perceived that pure coveteousness was at the root of the man's seemingly legitimate complaint.Our attempts to "recruit" the Son of God over to our side can betray in us that same attitude. Wives can do it, not to speak of husbands. Slaves can do it, not to speak of slave masters. Here is my objection to your assumption. The word "support" you use as if it is God's endorsement of various imperfect and sometimes evil systems.Did Jesus "support" leper colonies because not every leper went away healed ?Did Jesus "support" cheating in collecting taxes because not every tax collecter like Matthew (Levi) became His disciple ?We have Paul giving instructions to people who, when they believed in Christ, were in the Roman system of bondservant / master relationship. I don't read those instructions of Paul as Paul's endorsement or support of the social systems for their own sakes. We have in the New Testament a few words of Paul's exhortations to slaves and masters. We also have an epistle dedicated to how he handled a situation. That is a runaway slave of a Christian brother. And the slave becomes a Christian. He ends up in prison with Paul.Why he is released I don't know. I am not even sure if it was mandatory that the law return him to his master. However, Paul is sending him back with a letter TO his master, the epistle of Philemon.If you cannot honestly see in that letter that Paul skillfully touches the conscience of that slave master that his runaway slave is to be received as a :1.) Beloved Christian brother
2.) A co-worker of Paul himself in his Gospel work.
3.) A servant of the very Christ Philemon loves
4.) As Paul's own heart, Paul's child
5.) Co-equal in status with Philemon's own physical son as a believer.
6.) A person who OWES Philemon exactly NOTHING, because any loss is to be charged to Paul's account.If you cannot see these things, I don't know how I can help you.
No, I have no example of Paul commanding Philemon to immediately release all of his servants. That I cannot find.But the point which he made in Colossians, Ephesians, and Galatians is made again. If Philemon wants the normal Christian church life experience he has to realize that there "CANNOT BE" social oppression of master against his slave.Let me put it this way. The two matters are mutually exclusive. If you want males oppressing females then you have to give up the normal church. If you want the normal church then you have to give up male oppression of females.You may have an abnormal and degraded kind of church. But you cannot have the blessedness of the prevailing church. "There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor free, there cannot be male and female, for you are all one in Christ." (Galatians 3:28) The two are mutually exclusive. We cannot have the church life and have social oppression of any kind. We have to have oneness in Christ.This should not be taken to mean that because there cannot be male and female then I can go boldly into the women's bathroom because in the church "there cannot be male and female".Peter tells the Christian husbands to dwell with their wives with knowledge. This implies to me that he should recognize the essential differences in the male and female physical, psychological makeup.Likewise, if you want slave with and underclass status to master in the church then you cannot have the normal church. That will be a degraded thing, an abnormal thing, a corrupted thing. That is because in the "one new man" - "there cannot be slave or nor free man" .I think the letter of Philemon demonstrates Paul carrying out this kind of ministry towards the church. If Philemon was so incensed against the runaway slave Omisemus, do you honestly think his attitude remained the same after that letter? And that knowing that Paul was soon himself possibly to visit the church meeting in his house ?I believe that Philemon got a real education. Now I do not know exactly what happened when Onesimus returned. I am willing to research the possibilities. But Paul says the he has confidence that Philemon would do above and beyond what Paul was requesting of him. It is not? That is not your beef with Paul? It seems that you wish he stood on his authority as an apostle and commanded not only Philemon but everyone else who was a master, to declare an Emancipation Proclamation.Maybe Abe Lincoln is your man. Paul exhorts also the Christian to greet one another with a holy kiss. This was indicative of the times.I think I want to avoid either extreme. I want to recognize that the customs of the day of his writing is reflected in his writing somewhat. But on the other hand I cannot dismiss his exhortation for wives to be subject to THEIR OWN husbands. And husbands should love to the uttermost their wives.This is somewhat a difficult matter like Romans 13 concerning human government. It is nearly impossible to imagine that when Paul wrote Romans 13 Ceasar Nero was the emperor. I don't think Paul was implying by subject to God ordained governments, that Christians should line up to go to the lions with all submission to Nero's blood thirsty persecutions.I have to discontinue for the moment. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I will grant you that the leper colony analogy was not that good.

quote:

---

You made a claim. You claimed that Paul in Ephesians 5 and 6 is supported by Jesus.

​

You now need to support that claim. Please either do so or retract the claim.

---

I can support that Christ's teaching is behind Paul's exhortations much easier than you can or have been able to demonstrate some "Original Authentic Paul" and "Latter Fake Paul".Ephesians 5:1 - the exhortation the be "imitators of God" echoes Jesus in Matthew 5:48Verse 2 - "Walk in love, even as Christ also loved ..." should be no problem to find parallels, ie. John 15 concerning the abiding branches in the true vine loving one another.Verse 3 - condemns fornication, all uncleaness, greediness you should have no problem finding corresponding passages from Jesus in Matthew 5 through 8.Verse 4 - The warnings about perverted speaking can be easily matched with Christ's warning that men shall give account of every careless word they utter Matthew 12:36,37. Verse 5 - The warnings that certain unrepented lifestyles will exclude one from inheriting the kingdom of God certainly corresponds to Christ's whole tone in Matthew 5 - 8. Unless our righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees we would not enter into the kingdom of the heavens (Matthew 5:20) .Verse 6 - Warnings of coming judgment are certainly reminders of Christ's similar warnings John 5:21-30.Verse 7 - Not to be partakers with evil doers should be obviously like Christ's words (Matt. 16:1-12) .Verse 8 - That the disciples "are now light in the Lord" echoes that they are the light of the world (Matt. 5:14) .I am now going to skip ahead to the portions I think you are most concerned about:Verses 22 about wives submission to husbands is a general teaching about having a submissive heart to authority.Submission is an attitude. Obedience is a measured response. Christ does not want us to obey authority when it contradicts what God has commanded of us. But there is not to be insubordination but a submissive attitude.In this passage we see Christ speaking of submission in attitude without insubordination yet measured obedience taking into account what God desires - "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in Moses' seat; Therefore all that they tell you, do and keep; but do not do according to their works, for they say things and do not do them ..." (Matt. 23:1-3). The rest of the passage to verse 12 is insightful too.But the general point here is that we are to maintain a submissive spirit towards authority. But here as well as many places in the Bible obediance took into account the higher will of God while submission in attitude with no hint of insubordination was maintained.Ie. "But Peter and the apostles answered and said, It is necessary to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29) In this instance the followers of Jesus manifested His own attitude before the high priest in his trials.And in the OT saints manifested subordination in attitude but would not obey authority contradictory to the will of God.We see the three friends of Daniel who refused to bow to the golden image set up by Nebuchadnessar.This teaching of a submissive attitude not betraying insubordination to authority yet owing highest allegiance to God, I regard as the theme governing the wife to husband, slave to master, children to parent exhortations. Anyone, man or woman, who reads into Paul's words that the wife must without exception do everything demanded of her by the husband, doesn't understand the issues there.I think Paul like Christ is putting the axe to the natural tendency of fallen Adamic sin nature to be filled with rebellion, insubordination, slander.It would be naive to assume unqualified obedience of wife to husband, servant to master, or children to parents IF obedience meant for them to do some offensive transgression against God or proper morality, or law breaking. But submission in attitude could still be maintained in obedience is measured.Now the whole section of the husband / wife teaching Paul sums up as really pointing beyond worldly matter to Christ and His marriage to the church. The task now is to show this as paralleling the teaching coming out of the mouth of Jesus.First, Paul's summary of the husband / wife relationship - "For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh, This mystery is great, but I speak with regard to Christ and the church. Nevertheless you also, each one of you, in the same way love your own wife as yourself; and the wife should fear her husband." (Eph. 5:32,33) Of course both John the Baptist and the Apostle John spoke of the Bride as Christ's followers and Christ as the Bridegroom. I anticipate that you will not easily accept those teachings as words of Jesus. I would regard John 3:29,30 about the friend of Jesus (the Bridegroom) and the encrease in the number of His disciples as (the bride). I of course would acccept Revelation 21 and 22 concerning the New Jerusalem as the Bride and Wife of Christ as New Testament teaching concerning God and Christ's will.But you probably want a "red letter" approach. Where then from the mouth of Jesus do we see Ephesians 5 reflected ?The God of the Old Testament was spoken of many passages as the Spouse to His people a wife - ( Isaiah 54:6; Jeremiah 3:1; Ezekiel 16:8; Hosea 2:19) In view of the fact that Jesus definitely taught He was the God of the Old Testament become a man, He automatically takes on the role of the Divine Husband to His people as His Wife.Here is one place Jesus taught that He was the same God as in the Old Testament spoken of in all those passages: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" (Matt. 23:37)It was always God Himself who cared for Jerusalem, as a bird flutters over her young (comp. Isaiah 31:5; Deut. 32:11-12). So Jesus was saying that He was that God incarnated as a man with these words - "I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings ...". Jesus indicates by this teaching that He is God Himself. Therefore, the spousal relationship that God had with His people necessarily applies to Christ in the same way the fluttering mother bird symbol applies.The relationship Paul expounds in Ephesians 5 of wife to husband includes teaching that the wife is also the one body with the husband. The concept of the followers of Christ being part of His own Body is seen in similar words concerning the Vine with its abiding branches being one plant in John chapter 15.That the believers are of His Body is also seen in Christ's words to Paul at Paul's conversion - "And he [Saul of Tarsus] fell on the ground and heard a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me? ... I am Jesus, whom you persecute." (Acts 5:4,5) I should be noticed that Jesus did not say "Why do you persecute my people?" nor "Why do you persecute my church?" nor "Why do you persecute My followers?" He spoke from heaven " ... why do you persecute Me?". The Lord's followers were part of Christ Himself. To touch the disciples of Jesus was to touch the "Me" of Christ seated in Heaven. In other words they were His Body.Having seen this revelation Paul afterwards taught the vision that the Head Christ and the Body the church were together one corperate entity. And Paul reiterates this revelation in his exhortation to husbands and wives - "In the same way the husbands also ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves own wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ also the church. Because we are members of His Body.

​

For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh." (Eph. 5:28-31) So Ephesians chapter 5 in its teaching of husband and wife is built upon Christ's teaching of His being the incarnate Husband to the Spouse of His redeemed and sanctified people.I will have to address chapter six of Ephesians in another post.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Dr. Rodney Stark is a renown sociologist of religion. I think he is an atheist.Here is a little Wiki bio on Dr. Stark.Rodney Stark - WikipediaInterestingly, he credits the better treatment of women as a major cause to the wide spread growth of Christianity.

quote:

---

Stark has suggested that Christianity grew because it treated women better than pagan religions. He also suggested that making Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire weakened the faithfulness of the Christian community by bringing in people who did not really believe or had a weaker belief. This is consistent with Stark's published observations of contemporary religious movements, where once-successful faith movements gradually decline in fervor due to the free rider problem.

---

Theodoric, If I didn't want you to read the article I would not have posted it for you. I don't know what the "yes we can read" comment is suppose to mean.I said I THOUGHT the man was an atheist. Probably because he admitted -

quote:

---

In their 1987 book A Theory of Religion, Stark and Bainbridge describe themselves as "personally incapable of religious faith".[4] While reluctant to discuss his own religious views, he stated in a 2004 interview that he was not a man of faith, but also not an atheist:

---

Maybe what I thought is wrong. But a person saying he is "incapable of religious faith" sounds like some brand of non-believer in theism to me.Of course he said there that he also is not an atheist. So it is unclear where his unfaith or no faith or "incapable of faith" puts him.Now you say his opinion should not matter. I anticipate that this means Rodney Stark's opinion doesn't matter that much but of course Theodoric's opinion does.I am willing to consider a sociologist of religion on the matter. I think his opinion has some merit. Why not? I suspect a contrary view from another sociologist of religion you would wish me to consider as well.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The name Rodney Stark came to me because he was called to be an expert witness to a libel lawsuit in the late 70s, early 80s against a group being accused of being a cult. Dr. Stark was accounted as an expert on religious movements and cults and the motivations of people as to why they join a group, change a group, leave a group of believers in some faith or religion.In other words, Dr. Stark's area of specialty has to do with what makes people want to join or leave various religious movements. He's a sociologist of religion.So in the course of this discussion I thought to consider his opinion on women and the Christian faith. And like it or not, I thought it was significant that Stark credits the early spread of the Christian faith having as one factor its superior treatment of women compared to other beliefs of the era.Sorry. That's one man's opinion who studies these things professionally.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Jazznz,I did not say you were a Holocaust denier.Without reviewing all the posts I don't think I called you a Holocaust denier or a God hater.I may have drawn some comparisons with some of the things you wrote and what one hears from corners like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens.For example you wrote: Sounds like a snippet from Richard Dawkins to me. But I did not accuse you of being a God hater. I think having a problem as you admit, with an "evil and sadistic dictator" might imply no love lost between you and the Bible's alledged depiction of God.I don't agree with the "evil and sadistic dictator" line at all.Now my coming comments on Ephesisans 6 are going to be partially addressed to you, but not entirely. You may find that I am speaking to other readers in those comments as well.If you get that sensation it will be because I feel not to beat this particular theme of Paul's instructions ad infinitum when there are other things in Ephesisans I am eager to comment on.By the way, I do not "dismiss" the new atheists completely. I think some of the things they say probably should be said. We theists are not afraid of criticism. It sharpens us sometimes.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

When was the last time you sat among Christians in thier congregation "today" to observe how the sisters were treated ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This is not an effective argument against my beliefs for a couple of reasons.For well over 40 years I have not subscribed to the clerical system of ordained clergy. From my readings of the New Testament and the writings of certain Brethren enfluenced teachers, I came years ago to consider "ordination" of a clergy class of professional spiritual people to be against the New Testament of the "priesthood of the believer."So complaining about how many "Reverend" Jane Doe's there are matters not to me because I think "Reverend" George Doe is manmade religious heirarchy opposed to the New Testament universal priesthood of believers.Now the "War on Women" matter is moving into media hype and politics. It may be an invitation to debate about US social policy or abortion advacacy.This not much different from someone saying "Whose behind Tree Huggers anyway ?"Both are derogatory labels invented by political rivals of competing social policies. So when you see a woman in the pulpit with a funny collar then you will deem that woman are being treated fairly? Well, the idea that only a clerical position is indicative of spiritual authority is so repulsive to my understanding of the New Testament that I would have to write volumes why this is not true.Sigh. I don't like that this discussion on Ephesians will morph into an endless debate on social activism.Here is where the authority lies in the normal Christian church life - "If you abide in Me and My words abide in you, ask whatever you will and it will be done for you." (John 15:7) It is not how many initials he or she has before the name or whether they are addressed as Reverend Ann or Reverend Mary ... ie "That's Reverend Joe's church. And that is Reverend Sally's church."What moves the throne of God is disciples abiding in Christ and Christ's word abiding in them, so that their prayers and petitions echo the will of God and allow the divine throne to administrate.It is not the official position of some manmade clergy / laity system that wields spiritual authroity. It is men and women abiding in the realm of the living Christ as channels for Him to move on the earth.I speak here of what is normal. I may not be speaking of what is average. But some of us seek the normal Christian church experience.Okay, granted. Paul told Timothy that he personally did not permit a woman to exercise authority over a man. But this exhortation could be taken, I think, as Paul speaking of his personal practice - "I ... do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man." Now Paul also mentioned the couple Prisca and Aquilla with the WOMAN's name first. He may have considered her as the more consecrated of the two. Maybe her weath was a factor in the support of his ministry. Maybe he knew her as a great prayer warrior. I do not know.I know that Paul mentioned the WIFE before her husband in that apostolic pair of Prisca and Acquilla.I know that Paul regarded a certain woman Junia as of note among the apostles. In my opinion Paul must have discerned some noteworthy depth of service and authority which with this woman and her companion. "Greet Prisca and Acquilla, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 15:3) "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." (Rom. 15:7) Am I to believe that he never heard the sister speak ? Did none of the other apostles never hear Junia speak ? I doubt this.Sisters can be indispensable prayer warriors. I knew brother who traveled about to minister to local churches. He would not go out unless he let a certain elderly sister know of his schedule in detail. His intention was that he desperately needed her intercessions in prayer in the spiritual warfare.The problem with many is that they don't know of any kind of authority unless one has some official title or hierarchical position in the clergy / laity system.Okay. I when I get to meet the Apostle Paul in the kingdom or in the New Jerusalem I will talk with him. I'll say -"Brother Paul, even though you had a practice not to allow a sister to teach or exercise authority over a man, in church history we had some very helpful women. Paul, a certain women Mrs. Jesse Penn Lewis wrote a marvelous book on the parts of man - the heart, the spirit, the soul, the body. This enabled thousands of us to understand what the Bible meant by these terms. We also had a sister missionary Margerat Barber who instructed one of the 20th century's most useful servants of God helping millions in mainland China and in the West as well. We had a great book called "God's Plan of Redemption" written by a woman Mary McDonough which I would put in the hands of anyone searching for God with no hesitation.Brother Paul, we did have some woman who were very much used by God to build the church."Any man who desires to be taught by a Christian woman should go read that book.http://www.livingstreambooks.com/...lan-of-Redemption/DetailI don't know what Paul will reply. But he spoke well of Timothy's mother and grandmother as enfluencial on that young apostle. And he confessed that a certain mother of Rufus was his own spiritual mother - "Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother as well as mine." (Romans 16:13) I don't count it a supercial matter that Paul should speak of a woman as his spiritual mother. She had to have given him words to which he took heed.Then there are the 9000 some hymns written by Fanny Crosby. I bet that some of those hymns have had more spiritual power in the lives of Christians than a lot of sermons delivered by men with Reverend before their names.

You said that you had a problem.
You said that you had a problem with a sadistic dictator depicted in the Bible.Am I right? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Something wrong with preaching ?Hey, you're not tied to the pew unable to retort, argue, preach your own message, contradict, debunk and otherwise debate this "preacher."Maybe you just don't have anything worth telling anybody. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Weren't you just waxing eloquent about people whining over "style" ?You have a good memory. Its just short.

Theodoric's preaching sermon below: Just say "amen!" ya'll.

I am asked to show support of Jesus to Paul's exhortations in Ephesians 6.Verse 1 - "The children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right." The Apostle did not simply say "children obey your parents" but "obey your parents in the Lord".All the living in the Christian church is a matter of living and moving "in the Lord" Jesus because in resurrection Jesus has become a realm and a sphere into which people may enter.In speaking of His resurrection Jesus said - "In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you." (John 14:20) The Son of God became a living realm into which men, women, and children may spiritually enter and live. Briefly, Paul exhorts the Christian children to be obedient to their parents in the realm of Christ and His grace - "obey your parents in the Lord".Generally, all honoring, submission, and obedience of the disciples must be "in the Lord" and in the might of His strength - "Finally, be empowered in the Lord and in the might of His strength." (Eph. 6:10)Being empowered in Christ and in the might of His strength for both Christian children and Christian parents corresponds to Jesus teaching the believers to abide in Him and He in them as the branches in the true vine. Apart from abiding in Him they can do nothing for the manifestation of the divine / human vine true enterprize - "I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing." (John 15:6) The abiding branches draw their life suppy from the rich true vine in which they are attached.Obey the parents in the Lord also means obey them by being one with the Lord. It is not to be straining of self effort, but by the Lord and according to the Lord's word. They do not have to rely upon their own natural strength but turn to the Lord Jesus Himself for grace. This is all supported by John 15.Paul strengthens his exhortation to the Christian children by refering back to Exodus 20:12 and the first commandment with a blessing - "Honor your father and mother, which is the first commandment with a promise, that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth." Honoring is an attitude of heart and may differ from obeying. Obedience is an action but honor is an attitude or certain spirit. As I wrote above in another post, obedience of God's people to authority may be measured. Submission and honoring is absolute. If the parent instructions the child to do something against God, the Christian child may honor the parent and show a respectful and submissive attitude yet not obey them to offend God.The same applies to wives towards husbands in the Lord and slaves towards masters in the Lord.The whole idea is proven as supported by Christ because Christ teaches that He is the God of the Old Testament become a man. He said that He was the I AM who appeared in burning bush to Moses and gave to Moses the ten commandments (John 8:58; Matt. 23:37))"The Jews then said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham? Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came into being, I am.

​

So they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus was hidden and went out of the temple." They thought to execute Him immediately for blasphemy because He said that He was "I AM" as the God of Exodus 12. And it was this God who gave the commandment of honoring the father and mother. So Paul's exhortation to Christian children is sourced in Christ and in God of Exodus who was incarnated in Christ (as Christ believed and taught).Of course Jesus, as a twelve year old boy, left an example of an obedient and parent honoring child in the Gospel of Luke. He disappeared and was found in the temple. When his distraught mother and Joseph found Him He said that He must be about His Father's business. (He was afterall, the Son of God).Yet He subjected Himself to them after this crucial revelation. "And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them." (Luke 2:51a) Cont. latter. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.