Results 241 - 260 of 275
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Tamara Brewington Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
241 | God has a backside or is it His anger? | Exodus | Tamara Brewington | 204023 | ||
Ok Steve thanks I agree, so in light of this response do you see why perhaps I think of both Moses and us getting changed into states of glory because of seeing God's glory? I keep thinking about the angels, who have spiritual bodies which have fronts, backs, sides and wings, although some of them have four front sides... Is it possible then, that God was not simply using anthropormorphisms, but that He actually has a front back etc.? God bless, Tamara | ||||||
242 | When we see God will talking change us? | NT general | Tamara Brewington | 204022 | ||
Ok Steve I hear you, but you got me wondering from looking at your texts there about this part; but we know that when He appears we shall be like Him because we shall see Him a He is... And what does it mean to see Him as He is? Notice it does not say we will understand Him and be changed, it says we shall be like Him becaue we shall see Him as He is... What will we see then, is the question? Will we see Him in all His glory? Will that change us? This goes to another question I had about Moses seeing the glory of God and it changing him or was it a little talk(now I ask you, didn't Moses have a myriad other talks face to face with God without getting changed, what was the real difference between talking one time or another other than seeing the backside of God in all His glory?). The relationship with Jesus is already happening and we are already being changed from glory to glory, one day we will reach a final state of glory at the rapture. Yes we are going to put off the imperishable and put on immortality, but so will unbelievers get an immortal body capable of withstanding the awfull throes of eternal damnation instead of enjoying the eternal presence of God. We already understand Jesus to the extent that we are saved, as walk with Him we get closer and closer, but we won't actually finally be changed until we see Him with our eyes as He is. Maybe I got it wrong... God bless, Tamara | ||||||
243 | Know any scriptures for Depression? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 204020 | ||
Thanks Steve, Tamara | ||||||
244 | Speaking to God not glory, Moses shines? | Ex 34:29 | Tamara Brewington | 204019 | ||
Thanks, Tamara | ||||||
245 | Knowing gay minister unequally yoked? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 204018 | ||
Dear Quvmoh, Yeah I agree whole heartedly that the Bible condemns homosexuality out right and the qualifications for a minister/ overseer are the husband of one wife... The issue was most definetely self evident, although I wonder just how evident it is to the professor, he says he is just now getting ready to tell this minister that he is in rebellion against God. Gotta wonder why that would take three years to say... As to the verse about being unequally yoked; II Corininthians 6:14-16 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? The context is any relationship, not just marriage. Paul of course tells us in another passage this; I Corinthians 5:9--11 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolators, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler - not even to eat with such a one. Somehow this professor thinks he will win this man by hanging out with him and being his friend. And after three years of heated face to face and email discussion the professor has not taken it to the church (although they may not be in the same church), or taken a second brother with him to confront this man on his sin; Mathew 8:15,16 If your borther sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. God bless and thanks for your reply, Tamara | ||||||
246 | Wisdom has to be believed to get saved? | Rom 10:17 | Tamara Brewington | 204016 | ||
My Dear Azure, you are right about me needing to pray some more for this professor. We had about two weeks of debate about this issue via email because I went out evangelizing with the man and went to a fellow students house where we with unbelievers. In the first instance the professor was giving people theological arguments to try and prove that there is a God without proving that Jesus is God out in the park. If he could convince people that there is a God, then and only then, would he give them the saving message of the gospel. In the second instance we were gathered together, believers and unbelievers studying Mathew 7:1-5 discussing what a log in your eye means and what a measure of judgment is and the unbelievers were never given the saving message of the gospel. This is in my mind a great travesty, a lost opportunity and is besides being unequally yoked to unbelievers in ministry and is also equippig unbelievers with Godly wisdom as if they were already saved. In the class the contxt was talking about what is necessary to happen to an unbeliever in order to get saved and his reply was that first you have to have the knowledge of Christ's atonement, then you need to understand the wisdom derived from that knowledge in order to believe and be saved. And the scripture he gave was Colossians 1:9,10, which as you saw does not apply to unbelievers, but to believers. I agree with you that Romans 10:14-17 applies better than what he said, you need to hear the message of a saving faith in Christ and as saving faith comes by hearing the message. According to verse 14, then they can believe once they have heard. Obviously they have to understand the message in order to believe it, but where does grasping the wisdom that the message contains beyond the grasping simple knowledge of the simple message become a necessary requirement? The wisdom that is in the message of a saving faith of Christ can get pretty deep, you mean to tell me a person has to understand all that to get saved? That would include election, predestination, all of the doctrine of salvation, the doctrine of God, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the doctrine of Christ and on and on. This man has gone so far as to say that the wisdom that Jesus taught in the parables and the Sermon on the Mount and so on has the power to draw people to a saving faith in Christ. Azure, I have confronted this professor over and over, I am so done... God Bless, Tamara | ||||||
247 | Solomon's judgment of Adonijah and Joab | 1 Kin 2:13 | Tamara Brewington | 203981 | ||
I hear you Carlos, problem, Joab wasn't sinless, which is why it did not occur to me as a parallel. Although it seems right that God did desert him as he commited wrong, not a shadow of Christ who didn't and was deserted becuase he took on sin. But I see how you are making the parallel there... The blood was definetely shed with cause because Joab had killed men without just cause as Solomon relates. Trying to understand what you meant by 'blood being shed without cause'? God Bless, Tamara | ||||||
248 | 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 | ||||||
249 | Gift of Wisdom and gift of Knowledge? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 203973 | ||
Tam, Thanks again John.. | ||||||
250 | Cultural, Evangelistic, Dominion Mandate | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 203971 | ||
Hey Doc, care to drop me a number for any of these posts if you know em? Tam | ||||||
251 | Panteles in Heb.7:25 means???? | Heb 7:25 | Tamara Brewington | 203970 | ||
Say mike I got something for you you might alrady have, but maybe not.. Check these tools out I use em all the time, the first one is just a site, the other three are free downloads that have Bible study resources like the Bible with the Strong's attached to the OT and NT, about 20 translations of the Bible and one resource has the English transliteration of the Greek and Hebrew written out in Greek and Hebrew word order. Just save each download to your desktop and then go there and run each one, an icon will appear on your desktop, skip everything that costs money and scroll down to the free stuff when downloading. That reference for full ended was in the Strong's as the first reference. God Bless Tamara www.blueletterbible.org http://www.scripture4all.org/download/download_ISA20.php www.e-sword.net http://www.forananswer.org/Top_General/E-Sword_Modules.htm |
||||||
252 | 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 | ||||||
253 | 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 | ||||||
254 | who was the oldest man | Ps 90:10 | Tamara Brewington | 203966 | ||
Dear Azure its the same as when God said to Adam, in dying you shall surely die. The death was not just spiritual, Adam starting dying until he died, God was gracious in not making him physicaly die right away, but death still came along. Same thing with these men, they may have been born after the flood, but what is important is that God's decree that men would no longer live more than 120 years eventualy went into effect, it did happen... God bless, Tamara | ||||||
255 | Acts 13:1 | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 203965 | ||
I am late catching on how this site works and did not see this note you left me, sorry for the delay writing back. I have actualy had the priveldge of working for an SDA who was a very good person and have had the pleasure of talking about this concept with a number of SDA. What they all like to ignore is that the Bible both OT and NT use the word sleep as a euphimism for death and this is not news, this is old. Just becuase one says that a particular verse is being taken out of context and someone does not like it does not mean that it isn't. Ok Solomon seemed to have no concept of an afterlife, but Job did - after my flesh is gone and I die I will see my Redeemer, and David did - my soul shall not see decay, and so did others in the OT. All of the passages in the NT like Jesus talking about Jairus daughter being asleep and Lazarus being asleep prove that this was just a familiar phrase of speech meaning death in the time of Jesus... I think we do others a discervice if we aren't willing to defend the faith and there are people who don't like it because they disagree on some of the minor and major points about what Christians believe. We should be willing as Christians to talk about the hard passages and the easy passages in order to get at what scripture has to say. Let me ask you something, is showing what a text means in the language the people were speaking at the time shooting down someone else's theology? Or is it bringing out something that is there to be seen in the text if one is willing to remain open to a new view? And if something truly has no basis in scripture as to what the author's intent was or what the particulars of his audience is, is pointing that out shooting down theology, or clarifying it? I am not going to touch the works bit with a ten foot pole becuase you don't seem willing to discuss it for real yourself and I am not here to judge anyone, that is not the point of doing theology or talking about theology. The point of discussing theology is to clarify what one believes about God as theology is the study of God. I am and have been engaged and so is everyone esle in here, including you, been having discussions about God, and that is part of doing theology, not tearing down theology. Why shouldn't you be willing to defend the works position if that is what you believe? There is nothing wrong in taking a stance, we are adults here and should be able to discuss things honestly and without reserve as Christians who love one another. I can be tolerant of your differing beliefs and love you at the same time as disagreeing strongly with you, that is one facet of Christian love. Don't assume that just because someone has a strong opinion on something that they haven't talked to people who believe that other view or that they are being intolorant of others. There is a warning in here against being deviceve with one another, I don't think that stating what we believe is the truth should be seen as deviceve. I think deviceveness comes in when we say things that are purposefuly harmful or hurtful to another Christian about what they believe, not pointing out a difference or saying we find no basis in scripture for this or that or that something is out of context. God bless, Tamara | ||||||
256 | Gifts of prophecy and tongues passed? | Rom 16:7 | Tamara Brewington | 203963 | ||
There are several qualifications missing from your list and a misunderstanding of what is meant by the original founding work of the inception of the Church in first century and the continuation of the established church after the first century through out the whole world. Qualification one; Paul's first and most important claim to apostleship is that He personaly met the risen Christ on the Damascus Road. This leaves out everyone who did not meet Christ after He had risen and or asceneded, that is everyone after the first century, none of whom can honestly claim they met Christ in the flesh or like Paul did. If they do run around claiming it they would have a very hard time proving it, Paul had proof, there were people there who saw the light and heard a voice, there was his eyes and Ananias. The rest of the 11 apostles met the risen Christ in the flesh and saw Him ascend into heaven. Qualification two; is that Jesus personally chose the 12, from the original 11 to Paul, He directly commissioned them face to face to be His personal witnesses. No one past the first century can make the claim that Christ came to them face to face, if they are making that claim it will be hard to prove it. Qualification three; is that each apostle went and began the church, not continued the church growth, they began the church were before it did not exist on earth, not in a place or two, on the earth itself. It started at Pentecost and then 4 groups of people were brought into the church by the apostles that represent the whole world then and now, the Jews to whom it was promised, the Samaritans who worshipped the right God the wrong way, the Gentiles who were unbelievers or God fearers, those who had received the repentance of John and the baptism of John who had not yet heard the gospel. No one after the first century brought a new type of group in, they were all either pagans, in which case they were Gentiles, or they were people who repented of sin but did not yet hear the gospel, or they worshipped the right God the wrong way, or they were Jews, there are no other groups waiting to get in that don't fit inside one of these groups. Anyone who goes around claiming that they are doing church founding haven't got the correct conception of what the apostles were exactly doing. Any one can establish a new church somewhere and grow a membership, that does not make you an apostle because the apostles brought the church itself as a new creation into being, not a new continuation of work that has gone on before in various other places for centuries. The end of God signifying that He was providing for the church by having apostles is that thier work is finished, they brought the church into being on the face of the earth itself as a living body of Christ. The church is here and growing it doesn't need to be founded all over, just continued. Another proof is that Jesus has not come back as the risen Christ to anyone and told them to go be His witnesses. It is one thing to say that we are all commissioned to be His witnesses to go make disciples it is another to have Him appear to you like to Paul, or like to the 11 and be told to go bring a group that has never been brought in, like the Gentiles, the Jews, the Samaritans, the repenters and baptized of John. No one can make that claim any more. If you look closely at the qualifications you will see that the 500 don't qualify because Jesus did not personaly commission them or give them a group to go bring in and that applies to anyone today who claims to have had a divine revelation of Christ telling them they are an apostle today too. There is a definite demarcation between the initial founding of the church as I have described and its continuance past the first century, historicaly and in scripture because the qualifications are in the scripture and history shows it was finished being founded by the end of the first century. Your answer was more than reasonable, I will have to search for if you answered about the other two gifts somewhere... By the way Romans 16:7 says that these people were notable amongst the apostles as in they were associated with the apostles, it does not say they were apostles. One more important point before I forget, a trouble passage; Acts 1:25, 26 where the aposltes drew lots to chose a new apostle to replace Judas. Theologians take this seriously stating that this man is in fact qualified as a apostle the aformentioned above not forgoing because Peter is said to be speaking with authority as head of the apostles and only he would know if this man had met the risen Christ and the use of lots goes way back to the OT from the priesthood. But the intersting thing is you never hear of this man again one way or the other and he is said to be an acception in being qualified by Peter and the Lord and not the norm by which to judge qualifications by. Say, next time why don't you share what the Spirit dropped on you? Wew, God Bless, Tamara | ||||||
257 | Gifts of prophecy and tongues passed? | Rom 16:7 | Tamara Brewington | 203964 | ||
There are several qualifications missing from your list and a misunderstanding of what is meant by the original founding work of the inception of the Church in first century and the continuation of the established church after the first century through out the whole world. Qualification one; Paul's first and most important claim to apostleship is that He personaly met the risen Christ on the Damascus Road. This leaves out everyone who did not meet Christ after He had risen and or asceneded, that is everyone after the first century, none of whom can honestly claim they met Christ in the flesh or like Paul did. If they do run around claiming it they would have a very hard time proving it, Paul had proof, there were people there who saw the light and heard a voice, there was his eyes and Ananias. The rest of the 11 apostles met the risen Christ in the flesh and saw Him ascend into heaven. Qualification two; is that Jesus personally chose the 12, from the original 11 to Paul, He directly commissioned them face to face to be His personal witnesses. No one past the first century can make the claim that Christ came to them face to face, if they are making that claim it will be hard to prove it. Qualification three; is that each apostle went and began the church, not continued the church growth, they began the church were before it did not exist on earth, not in a place or two, on the earth itself. It started at Pentecost and then 4 groups of people were brought into the church by the apostles that represent the whole world then and now, the Jews to whom it was promised, the Samaritans who worshipped the right God the wrong way, the Gentiles who were unbelievers or God fearers, those who had received the repentance of John and the baptism of John who had not yet heard the gospel. No one after the first century brought a new type of group in, they were all either pagans, in which case they were Gentiles, or they were people who repented of sin but did not yet hear the gospel, or they worshipped the right God the wrong way, or they were Jews, there are no other groups waiting to get in that don't fit inside one of these groups. Anyone who goes around claiming that they are doing church founding haven't got the correct conception of what the apostles were exactly doing. Any one can establish a new church somewhere and grow a membership, that does not make you an apostle because the apostles brought the church itself as a new creation into being, not a new continuation of work that has gone on before in various other places for centuries. The end of God signifying that He was providing for the church by having apostles is that thier work is finished, they brought the church into being on the face of the earth itself as a living body of Christ. The church is here and growing it doesn't need to be founded all over, just continued. Another proof is that Jesus has not come back as the risen Christ to anyone and told them to go be His witnesses. It is one thing to say that we are all commissioned to be His witnesses to go make disciples it is another to have Him appear to you like to Paul, or like to the 11 and be told to go bring a group that has never been brought in, like the Gentiles, the Jews, the Samaritans, the repenters and baptized of John. No one can make that claim any more. If you look closely at the qualifications you will see that the 500 don't qualify because Jesus did not personaly commission them or give them a group to go bring in and that applies to anyone today who claims to have had a divine revelation of Christ telling them they are an apostle today too. There is a definite demarcation between the initial founding of the church as I have described and its continuance past the first century, historicaly and in scripture because the qualifications are in the scripture and history shows it was finished being founded by the end of the first century. Your answer was more than reasonable, I will have to search for if you answered about the other two gifts somewhere... By the way Romans 16:7 says that these people were notable amongst the apostles as in they were associated with the apostles, it does not say they were apostles. One more important point before I forget, a trouble passage; Acts 1:25, 26 where the aposltes drew lots to chose a new apostle to replace Judas. Theologians take this seriously stating that this man is in fact qualified as a apostle the aformentioned above not forgoing because Peter is said to be speaking with authority as head of the apostles and only he would know if this man had met the risen Christ and the use of lots goes way back to the OT from the priesthood. But the intersting thing is you never hear of this man again one way or the other and he is said to be an acception in being qualified by Peter and the Lord and not the norm by which to judge qualifications by. Say, next time why don't you share what the Spirit dropped on you? Wew, God Bless, Tamara | ||||||
258 | Gifts of prophecy and tongues passed? | Rom 16:7 | Tamara Brewington | 203962 | ||
There are several qualifications missing from your list and a misunderstanding of what is meant by the original founding work of the inception of the Church in first century and the continuation of the established church after the first century through out the whole world. Qualification one; Paul's first and most important claim to apostleship is that He personaly met the risen Christ on the Damascus Road. This leaves out everyone who did not meet Christ after He had risen and or asceneded, that is everyone after the first century, none of whom can honestly claim they met Christ in the flesh or like Paul did. If they do run around claiming it they would have a very hard time proving it, Paul had proof, there were people there who saw the light and heard a voice, there was his eyes and Ananias. The rest of the 11 apostles met the risen Christ in the flesh and saw Him ascend into heaven. Qualification two; is that Jesus personally chose the 12, from the original 11 to Paul, He directly commissioned them face to face to be His personal witnesses. No one past the first century can make the claim that Christ came to them face to face, if they are making that claim it will be hard to prove it. Qualification three; is that each apostle went and began the church, not continued the church growth, they began the church were before it did not exist on earth, not in a place or two, on the earth itself. It started at Pentecost and then 4 groups of people were brought into the church by the apostles that represent the whole world then and now, the Jews to whom it was promised, the Samaritans who worshipped the right God the wrong way, the Gentiles who were unbelievers or God fearers, those who had received the repentance of John and the baptism of John who had not yet heard the gospel. No one after the first century brought a new type of group in, they were all either pagans, in which case they were Gentiles, or they were people who repented of sin but did not yet hear the gospel, or they worshipped the right God the wrong way, or they were Jews, there are no other groups waiting to get in that don't fit inside one of these groups. Anyone who goes around claiming that they are doing church founding haven't got the correct conception of what the apostles were exactly doing. Any one can establish a new church somewhere and grow a membership, that does not make you an apostle because the apostles brought the church itself as a new creation into being, not a new continuation of work that has gone on before in various other places for centuries. The end of God signifying that He was providing for the church by having apostles is that thier work is finished, they brought the church into being on the face of the earth itself as a living body of Christ. The church is here and growing it doesn't need to be founded all over, just continued. Another proof is that Jesus has not come back as the risen Christ to anyone and told them to go be His witnesses. It is one thing to say that we are all commissioned to be His witnesses to go make disciples it is another to have Him appear to you like to Paul, or like to the 11 and be told to go bring a group that has never been brought in, like the Gentiles, the Jews, the Samaritans, the repenters and baptized of John. No one can make that claim any more. If you look closely at the qualifications you will see that the 500 don't qualify because Jesus did not personaly commission them or give them a group to go bring in and that applies to anyone today who claims to have had a divine revelation of Christ telling them they are an apostle today too. There is a definite demarcation between the initial founding of the church as I have described and its continuance past the first century, historicaly and in scripture because the qualifications are in the scripture and history shows it was finished being founded by the end of the first century. Your answer was more than reasonable, I will have to search for if you answered about the other two gifts somewhere... By the way Romans 16:7 says that these people were notable amongst the apostles as in they were associated with the apostles, it does not say they were apostles. One more important point before I forget, a trouble passage; Acts 1:25, 26 where the aposltes drew lots to chose a new apostle to replace Judas. Theologians take this seriously stating that this man is in fact qualified as a apostle the aformentioned above not forgoing because Peter is said to be speaking with authority as head of the apostles and only he would know if this man had met the risen Christ and the use of lots goes way back to the OT from the priesthood. But the intersting thing is you never hear of this man again one way or the other and he is said to be an acception in being qualified by Peter and the Lord and not the norm by which to judge qualifications by. Say, next time why don't you share what the Spirit dropped on you? Wew, God Bless, Tamara | ||||||
259 | Gift of Wisdom and gift of Knowledge? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 203936 | ||
Thanks John, you got me to thinking about Exodus 28:3 where people were given the spirit of God to do craftsmanship for the making of the tabernacle. And Ephesians 1:17 where it says, that the God or our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of the revelation in the knowledge of Him. But what confused me John was how Paul talks in I Corinthians 2:1-8 that the wisdom of God is Jesus Christ and His crucifixion, not the wisdom gained from knowledge and wondered if that had any bearing on the gift of wisdom? I should have mentioned that in my first go at it. But thanks a bunch, God Bless Tamara | ||||||
260 | 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 | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [14] >> |