Results 381 - 400 of 553
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Tamara Brewington Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
381 | homosexual brain wired that way at birth | 1 Cor 6:9 | Tamara Brewington | 205856 | ||
Dear Doc, Great Doc! God's Day To You, Tam |
||||||
382 | Widows and remarriage | 1 Cor 7:39 | Tamara Brewington | 203715 | ||
A widow is allowed to marry any free Christian, but not a divorced person... She is free to remarry, but he isn't.. Refer to Mathew 19:9 where it says that whoever marries a divorced person commits adultery. And see Mark 10:11 where it says that whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. The issue is not whether a widow can remarry, of course you could, the issue is whether or not a divorced person could remarry and no they can't. | ||||||
383 | Widows and remarriage | 1 Cor 7:39 | Tamara Brewington | 203716 | ||
A widow is allowed to marry any free Christian, but not a divorced person... She is free to remarry, but he isn't.. Refer to Mathew 19:9 where it says that whoever marries a divorced person commits adultery. And see Mark 10:11 where it says that whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. The issue is not whether a widow can remarry, of course you could, the issue is whether or not a divorced person could remarry and no they can't. | ||||||
384 | Widows and remarriage | 1 Cor 7:39 | Tamara Brewington | 203717 | ||
A widow is allowed to marry any free Christian, but not a divorced person... She is free to remarry, but he isn't.. Refer to Mathew 19:9 where it says that whoever marries a divorced person commits adultery. And see Mark 10:11 where it says that whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. The issue is not whether a widow can remarry, of course you could, the issue is whether or not a divorced person could remarry and no they can't. | ||||||
385 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | Tamara Brewington | 203926 | ||
Is the scripture in I Corinthians 11:1-16 to be considered normative for Christians as a moraly indicitive imperative, or is to be considered merely historicaly applicable to Biblical times? And is this, as is widely believed, applicable only to married men and women or does the term aner refer to first men and second husband and does the term gune refer to first woman and second wife? And wouldn't all women have had to cover their heads back then or be considered prostitutes with uncovered heads, or as temple prostitutes as ones with hair cut off? And if that was a moral imperative then for all women because of the heirarchy of headship of the whole church in Christ (because weren't all women under the authority of her father or husband or brother as no woman had her own property and no authority?), why is it not seen as such now(notwithstanding that they used a complete covering of a shawl and not a little bonnet or hat as conventions have changed)? We had a rousing discussion in our church in Bible study and most of the women refused to wear hats. But I did decided to after waiting the week after easter, which my pastor asked me to do so that my wearing a hat would not be confused with an easter hat tradition(his wife always wore a hat until she passed away). He did not press the rest, but told them he had given them the scripture and that he would leave it up to them to be convicted or not because he refused to be in the middle of a big fight between those who felt convicted and those who don't, it just was not going to be a battle he would fight because he had other fights currently running he would prefer to be winning. IN Christ always, Tamara | ||||||
386 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | Tamara Brewington | 203935 | ||
OK be a Berean... First things first, Mathew 24:4-7, Jesus says there will be wars and rumors of wars and that these things must happen. I don't believe that means He is endorsing war, the text just doesn't support that theory by the very wording. Jesus saying something must happen is of course prophecy, a true statement of future fact. But just like below that verse where He says in verse 15, therefore when you see the Abomination of Desolation which was spoken of through the Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place(let the reader understand), Jesus is not endorsing something evil, like Daniel He is saying it will happen, not saying it is a righteous thing, in fact Jesus is calling it evil at the same time as saying it will happen. Second, Job's wife was using a euphimism(as Strong's also inidcates), saying sarcasticaly, Job why don't you bless God and die?. She could not have meant why don't you praise God by blessing Him and then die, because Job was suffering... Third, whatever was normative to OT saints is not necessarily normative for NT saints. OT economy and NT economies are two very different things. When Paul speaks under the plenary inspiration(all the scriptures are God breathed and the very choice of the author's words is inspired by the Holy Spirit) about something it has the same level of authority as when Jesus speaks about something, or when Peter speaks about something. We need to be careful about how we look at the body of scriptures to get the proper context of each before we say they go together. Comparing the garb of the priesthood in Leviticus 8:1-13 to men's heads being covered in I Corinthians 1:1-16 is to talk about the proscriptions given to two different groups of people under two different religious economies. On the one hand you have that only the priests in both OT passages you mentioned are the men wearing a covering and second we as NT Christians don't follow the laws and proscriptions for conduct set up in the OT. The NT church made a complete break eventualy from all of the traditions of the OT religious communnity. It has been established by studies of history that women of the OT culture as well as women of the NT culture were all wearing veils, or shawls, which includes Sarah, Hannah, Mary, Priscilla. Paul's church community relfected this practice as he stated, if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. By looking closely at Paul's I Corinthians account men were to have their hair shorn and women to have their hair long, contrary to some practices in the OT and Paul says this is the practice of all the churches. If you want to realy throw Mathew 15:1-9 in the mix realize, then the context, it was about breaking from OT tradition, which goes more to supporting Paul's teaching in I Corinthians than it points to breaking an NT new teaching. Also the exact context is that the Pharisees are guilty of making a tradition of Corban, which was not given to them by Moses, but which they made up on their own. That is not the context of Paul setting forth how just as Christ is head of the church and just as man is the head of women, women are over the angels in rank and therefore ought to wear a symbol of authority. As well the context is that Paul is setting forth that just as it is improper for a women to go about with her hair shaved off, because in that time that meant you were a temple prostitute (see a few history books on this the Greeks and Romans and the rest of the pagans did not share this practice, but the Jews did), if you had long hair with it uncovered you were a Jewish prostitute (again see a few history books on this). The principle is that since man is in the image of God his head should be uncovered and with short hair and since a woman is made for man she ought to have a symbol of authority over her long hair to attest to the angels that she is keeping her prope abode as being under the authority of man. The real question remains to be answered, is this a moral proscription to all Christians everywhere at all times, or is it merely to be taken as an historical practice not normative for all Christians? It seems that Paul is making a moral issue out of it and when we like to say something can't be applicable to now because the times have changed, we may be misapplying scripture to make it fit today's norms. This is called transference where we take what was proscribed then and change its application to fit now, which is putting into scripture - eisegesis, rather than pullig out of scripture which is exegesis. Still wearing that hat and still looking for an answer to the original question... God Bless and thank you, Tamara | ||||||
387 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | Tamara Brewington | 203967 | ||
Hey Carlos the wearing of hats my good man does not fall in the same category as something to apppease law practicers of Christianity. It was a moral issue and the question remains if that is to be seen as merely an historical practice, or normal for all Christians at all times. God Bless, Tamara | ||||||
388 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | Tamara Brewington | 203968 | ||
Say John the length of my questions have little to do with how important they might be and everything to do with the considerations of text that are driving the need for the question... As far as I knew we were all engaged in theology in one form or another because we are all engaged in here in a discourse about God, which is what theology is... I have a tendency to let the scriptures outline the question in an attempt to let things trickle from the top down rather than try to drive my understanding from what society is currently willing to do which is driving things from the bottom up. So in light of that am I realy taking up so much precious space on this forum? I thought there was lots and lots of space and time out here in web site world, page after page... Yeah all things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable... I am starting to believe not many people in here actualy intend to wrestle very much with the scriptures in here... I am also getting the impression that people don't always appreciate a well though out point because it is just too darn long... What has all things being lawful got to do with a moral issue, which wearing hats was to Paul, but no longer is to Christians? Just a thought my dear brother in Christ...Tamara | ||||||
389 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | Tamara Brewington | 203977 | ||
Well, well, well, you have decided to reveal yourself. Paul had Timothy circumsised because he was(partialy) Jewish in order make himself and Timothy a Jew to the Jews that they might win some. And Paul went and took a vow at Jerusalem in order appease the Jerusalem church and the Jewish population in Jerusalem(which backfired). Paul did indeed use Mosaic law in these instances in order to win some and to appease some. Later, while at Corinith he deals with another moral issue, the order in the church regarding the headship of Christ to man and man to woman and woman to angels. In the first instance he uses wisdom to be all things to all men in order to proclaim the gospel. In the second instance he uses bad judgment in a thwarted effort to appease the Jews both believers and unbelievers. In the thrid instance he does something different, he is not making an appeal to conscience based on the use of Mosaic Law. Instead he appeals to conscience based on guidelines he received from the Holy Spirit for a moral response on the part of Christians. This is a different type of appeal and the hat was definitley a symbol, but not the same type of symbol as a vow of purification or circumcision as it did not stem from the same religious economy. It is arguable that circumcision should be considered a higher moral issue seeing as how Paul says he would rather those who compel others to do so as a means of salvation should rather mutilate themsleves. And seeing as how Paul said if anyone had an inclination to be contentious about lenght of hair and head coverings we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. This made it an imperitave at the time. So the question stands is it normative for today as a moral imperative, or is it an historical phenomena? Following a moral imperative from the Holy Spirit is not legalism is it? And it is not uncommon for Christian practice of moral obligations to offend those who are perishing or those who don't like to hear that things that aren't the cultural norm are correct behavior as Christians. See why my pastor said he had other bigger battles to fight? Some folks answered me saying I took up too much space and time with this and made a lot of jokes... Interesting you didn't find it trivial. Hats don't save of course, hats don't confer grace either that I can see. But it is not unimportant to be obedient, my aim is to get under the headship of Christ in all areas. He is Lord of my life. You ain't being obtuse, just circumspect. Your humility is fine... God Bless, Tamara | ||||||
390 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | Tamara Brewington | 204025 | ||
Dear John, I have repeatedly tried to attach the scriptures by going up to where it says in two different drop downs to do so. Every time I do my screen snaps out, even though I have not clicked go and I lose my page and have to redo the whole thing. So perhaps you could be so kind as to instruct me how to better use this feature, please.. I would not like to have the last word John, and I don't think this is a chat room. All my long questions have everything to do with putting the scriptures in context with my question and are not intended to take up space or to chat. What I have been consistently looking for is a chance to learn from someone else the answers to my questions, if there are any answers. What has consistently been happening is that I have been getting replies that are not being backed up with scriptures, which goes back to your point, that this is not a chat room, but is a forum for Bible study. And that is exactly, if you were to go back through each and every question that I have asked I have used this site for. And even though I was not able to sucsessfully attach a scripture, I have included in each and every questions the scripture and sometimes scripture in question. And to my knowledge some of my notes in reply are about as long as my questions and part of why is I am quoting the scriptures in them and exploring them in my answers... I actually do wear a hat all the time, I gave up wearing a bed hat, because obviously I can't possibly be praying or prophesying while asleep. Please laugh with me, I had to laugh at myself John... Obviously in I Corinthians 11:5 Paul is talking about women participating in the churh out loud in the congregation. Especially if you consider that they were prophesying, that wasn't silent. I am aware of the passage where Paul is telling the ultra-spiritual women to shut up and sit down because they were causing a disturbance in the congregational worship. Consider this passage with me about whether or not Paul had female ministers, not Pastors, but ministers; Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea, that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well. Ok, note the word diakonos, there are many other times this word is used in the NT and in a lot of cases it is translated minister instead of servant(we all know a minister is a servant), but the translators decided, in harmony with the scriputre you mentioned because Phoebe was a woman, to say servant. However, the word there is in the masculine referring to a female and Paul did not make a mistake and he tells the church that when she arrives to give her whatever she needs. Now, it can't be that Paul was merely talking about housing and food, because he says she was working with him in ministry and he calls her a minister, there is no way to get around it she was a minister. Albeit she was working under the authority of Paul, a man, in keeping with the concept of headship, she was not an overseer like Timothy. Consider another one with me; Acts 18:24-26 where Priscilla and Aquilla were both teaching Apollos together. Although Priscilla was teaching Apollos under the authority of her husband Aquilla, she was indeed teaching. Also interesting is that Paul consistently lists Priscilla first whereever he speaks of this husband and wife team, he may have had a reason to do so. Last, but not as important, God made Deborah a judge over Israel with full authority, rule and rights over all of Israel including the men and they all followed her, an acception to the norm for then, I grant you. Do you see what I tried to do here as I have cosisitently done? I keep on presenting either a question based on the text I cite or quote, or a reply based on a text I cite or quote. This is not chat, it is Bible study and I believe the intent, if not the content is within the guidelines set forth in this site. I am sorry you are so offended that my questions, and maybe my answers seem to darn long. I tried to be concise, some of the questions were not simple, life situations may seem simple, but I am asking about the scriptures that attend to those situations and am interested in what the Bible has to say as to the over arching principle of a thing. And my concern about hats is not pendantic about an outward show of conformity, it is about an inward desire to be obedient to God in all things as He is the ultimate head of the church. I hope I am still teachable to you. God bless you John as you continue to teach... You sister in Christ, Tamara |
||||||
391 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | Tamara Brewington | 204116 | ||
Thanks Val. God Bless, Tamara | ||||||
392 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | Tamara Brewington | 204118 | ||
Thank you whoever you are! God Bless, Tamara | ||||||
393 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | Tamara Brewington | 204145 | ||
Dear Doc, this is Tam, just caught on to how the threads work. Interesting that you and Val chose to say the things I am finding here, but were both unwilling to say them directly to me... As I said to John, I hope I am still teachable to you... If I see a scripture that applies to something I ask something or use it in a reply which is why the thread got so long (John complained to me that I took up too much space and was making a big deal out of nothing important). If someone mentions a scripture to me I say something in return if I see something about that scripture... I wish you had chosen to correct me if you felt I was treating the original scripture as a mere external practice in order not to see my own hearts rebellious nature. You out of every one I did not expect to find something like this here. | ||||||
394 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | Tamara Brewington | 204146 | ||
Dear Val, I finally found out how to use the threads and found your comments to others about what I said. Yeah your comment made me think back to something I said to John, that my pastor was teaching about this but was unwilling to make a fight about it because he had other bigger fights to fight (not me, the other women were fighting about it in Bible study and believe me the majority do not wear hats). No one in my church is required to wear hats, nor do I advocate others wear hats just becuase I do. I am sorry you can't see over the hats in your church, hats should not be fine huge things with braided pearls, that ain't modest. I wonder if you thought I was advocating hats from your comment here about putting stumbling blocks? Or that becuase I was concerned about maybe being obedient to excersising the symbol the same way we do baptism or the Lord's supper (I know it ain't on that level honey, but its the priciple). I thought Doc said something interesting about sin and was very surprised that he actually thinks I am walking around wearing a hat and not examining my heart just because I wear a hat. I didn't expect that kind of bias in here especialy from him. John made himself clear, to him it was a big waste of time and a laugh, funny thing about John, he made his strongest comments to me, rather than to the rest of you. Knowledge does puff up so does judging one another's motives. I doubt any one of you took me seriously as someone who was honestly seeking to understand something no one in all their alofness has bothered to answer yet. The question stands, is it just normal to first century Christians, or as Paul describes should we consider it to be a moral issue. When we take scripture and decide it doesn't apply anymore because society has changed that is called transference, taking scripture and changing its application to fit what we believe based on what society is doing today. And that was the basis of my question, not strife causing, not pride, not an unwillingness to examine my heart. I got another notice from you and am trying to comply by numbering the contexts of my questions, the scriptures, if any, and my questions. Now I would like to say, I appreciated it when you told me what you thought... | ||||||
395 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | Tamara Brewington | 204253 | ||
Hey Lionheart long time no hear! Ok Lionheart, but since I only found out that folks were getting ruffled in here after a couple of posts you will have to excuse me... No one in my congregation is getting ruffled, they had one heated debate which I stayed out of, trying to understand the passage. So I can keep weariing the hat out here, but can't speak about it in here anymore. And it ending up being that in here they were derisive towards me and deciding that me talking about whether or not it was an historical issue or a moral issue that we now set aside was being concerned with external conformity and lacking in internal examination, rather than a valid question. What a crock to decide that that is the case for me without actually knowing me... Anything automaticaly becomes a matter of the weak and the strong as soon as someone gets ruffled feathers in here over another's practices of Christianity. Now that being said, if they thought I was weak why did they pass judgment on my opinions as the passage says? What does that say about who was weak? Paul also says, I Corinthians 10:29,30 I mean not your own conscience, but the other man's; for why is my freedom judged by another's conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks? So in here I won't be talking about this any more unless others want to talk about it. But outside of here it's a non issue and I don't have to change out here AND I DON'T GO AROUND ADVOCATING HATS, that was never the case in here or out of here. I received an email from a Torah Observant Christian from the forum who stated that they got a bunch of flack for being a Sabbath keeper and for being Torah Observant. This person no longer posts very much because of being talked about in notes not directed at them (which is what also happened to me) and because of derisive comments. What happened to them and what happened to me is unacceptable behavior according to the rules of this site. If you go all the way through the posts you will see unwarranted humor, which is discouraged by this site, and derisive and or challenging comments intended to put me in my place. That is unacceptable behavior again. God, Bless, Tamara God, Bless, Tamara |
||||||
396 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | Tamara Brewington | 204259 | ||
Yep | ||||||
397 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | Tamara Brewington | 204260 | ||
Yep | ||||||
398 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | Tamara Brewington | 204276 | ||
Thanks Lionheart, I need prayer somehow I just offended Azure... About something totaly different, I said hardly anyone was willing to school me how to use this site when I first came. She seemed to take it that I meant no one was willing to school me when I first came to this site in a note full of instructions how to navigate this site to someone who is new as of today. She sent me the post numbers from when you schooled me and when she schooled me. Yikes! God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
399 | Should Women Wear Hats? | 1 Cor 11:4 | Tamara Brewington | 204279 | ||
Lionheart thanks for that, I don't want to be spoiling the forum for folks, that is the last thing I would want to do. I don't want to expound, stand on principle at the expense of acting without love, or disgruntle the saints. God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
400 | Let This Post Stand For A While. | 1 Cor 11:5 | Tamara Brewington | 204208 | ||
I respectfuly ask that this post go unanswered for a while so that others who catch the thread of the subject about hats will read it before they post notes about the original post and subsequent notes. I am not insulted, just dismayed at the lack of respect the subject generated, it is a legitimate Bible study subject and in and of itself does not generate debate. But Christians who are opposed to the practice become judgmental and devicive if it comes up. 1)This is a disclaimer. 2)There has been much thread about hats. 3)The original question was whether or not Paul intended it to be a moral issue (contrary to popular current beliefs about whether it is or is not in the church today) for all Christians at all times, or whether it is to be understood as purely an historical event. 4)The context of the question and exploration into the entire passage concerning this was not posed to foster dissent among Christians whatever the believe about it, create an ongoing debate, make sarcastic remarks about those who don't believe it is necessary, or imply that external symbolism mattered more than internal examamination. 5)There was outright derision, unwarranted humor, and judgmental comments posted, which is not in keeping with this site's guidelines. 6)The question posted was consistently igonored or glossed over, over and over again, by everyone except user Carlos who was the only one interested in answering the actual question. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ] Next > Last [28] >> |