|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 12, 2008 23:28:06 GMT -5
Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. 25 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? 26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
How many times can someone act in an unloving way and still be counted as having truly loved? 49%?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 12, 2008 22:55:36 GMT -5
"When the law becomes a burden" "If it is a burden to wear a veil" "The veil is a burden" | Mat 11:30 My burden is light 2Co 11:9 I was not a burden to anyone 2Co 12:13 I myself did not burden you 2Co 12:14 I will not burden you 2Co 12:16 I did not burden you 1Th 2:9 not to put a burden on any one of you 2Th 3:8 in order not to burden anyone of you 1Ti 5:16 do not burden the assembly Rev 2:24 I am not casting another burden on you |
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 12, 2008 22:31:49 GMT -5
IF Someone who is sinning is doing something unloving to the one they love AND Someone who is sinning is doing something unloving to the one they don't love THEN Sin is not dependent on love.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 12, 2008 22:06:10 GMT -5
This is what it sounds like you're saying:
Christian veiling is a symbolic thing. Some symbolic things are optional. Therefore christian veiling is optional.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 12, 2008 18:39:40 GMT -5
Someone who is sinning = someone who is not loving God.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 12, 2008 1:52:25 GMT -5
We can be imperfect and love Jesus at the same time but we can't consciously choose wrong (sin) and love Jesus at the same time. If the initial condition of forgiveness is repentance then wouldn't repentance be even more urgent after once receiving the initial forgiveness? If your wife disobeys you, she is not being your wife in her heart at that moment. Marriage is not a one time decision. If she did not repent or continued to willfully disobey in a habitual manner it would make the intention of her heart questionable wouldn't it? No such thing as kinda married or kinda committed.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 12, 2008 1:30:55 GMT -5
Hello my friend, I'm not upset.
We've got a problem here though: You're trying to put me or anybody under law... That is absolutely ridiculous. Literally - I chuckled a couple times.
It sounds as though your saying that if the church does not abide strictly to the letter of 1Corinth 11 they are sinning against God. "Dishonors Christ and the image and glory of God" is how Paul put it. Your problem is with Paul, not me. I'm not twisting his writings.
All I'm trying to tell you that the church has always fulfilled the spirit of the tradition/custom of the veil, and that is all that matters. That sounds like a gnostic method of interpretation. It's twisting the passage to say that it teaches the spirit of the veil and not the letter. It's not the Torah, it's the apostle Paul. The "letter" and the spirit agree. The letter and spirit say to honor Christ and the image and glory of God BY properly using the veil. If it was as you say Paul would have addressed it in the same way that meat and veggies was addressed or holy days, etc. Paul was well aware of the difference between the letter and the spirit. The Holy Spirit was well aware that there could come a time when certain cultures discarded the veil. Both Paul and the Spirit in him would have clearly shown in the passage that it was only a concession based on world culture. Address the passage itself. If you can show from the passage that it was a mere cultural consideration and you can debunk my entire understanding of it then I'm wrong. You know I'll admit it if I'm wrong. You've seen me do it. Why on earth would I be spending so much time with you on this if I had been presented evidence that I was wrong?! You think I just want some guy in Iowa to teach his wife about an empty custom so I can sleep sound at night! haha! That wouldn't make much sense would it. No. You are my friend and I am willing to do whatever I have to, as long as you are willing to hear me, to share with you what I believe to be true. Look at the state of the so-called churches in this country! Do you seriously expect that two men living hundreds of miles apart are going to immediately agree on every doctrine and ordinance? It sure could happen but I'm not surprised if it doesn't! It never even occurred to me, for instance, to question the sinful flesh thing! But if we are willing to hear the truth then God will not hide it from us. I could've gone to my grave thinking I had an excuse for my sin in my nature but God didn't let that happen! I thank Him for that! Now if I'm preaching something wrong I'll be glad to find out. So far in this discussion I've been more and more convinced that you misunderstand me entirely and the passage really says what I thought it said. It's actually been very encouraging for me as far as my understanding of this tradition. However for your sake I am in pain because I desire to share that encouragement with you but you think I am trying to make you a slave! A slave to laws!
What does God care if a woman is veiled, but in her heart is irreverence for her husband? What does a husband care if a woman is veiled, but in her heart she dishonors him? I think you've inadvertently created a straw man here by assuming a false dilemma. You're making me work my logic textbook pretty hard. The straw man is that I am advocating against the spirit of the law. I am not doing that. All I've been doing is promoting obedience to an ordinance Paul taught. The false dilemma you've assumed is that promoting outward obedience is somehow contrary or neglectful of the spirit of obedience, the inner motive. In effect you are saying someone can either strictly adhere to veiling OR they can hold the inner motive that Paul gives for veiling (the spirit of veiling). That is a false dilemma. Strict adherence to the tradition does not in any way negate the spirit or motive of the tradition. Instead it is the natural fruit of the motive. That it how Paul presents it. He basically says: You should obey this to the letter BECAUSE of the spiritual motive. Paul tells them what the proper reaction to the "spirit" of the ordinance is: the ordinance itself! This is not like the Pharisees who accused Jesus of breaking Sabbath when he healed a man on the Sabbath. They were directly violating the spirit of the law which itself was written in their law. Therefore He held them accountable for disobedience. If the general use of the veil or head-covering was in direct violation to God's law then amish, mennonites, muslims, etc. would all be guilty of transgressing the spirit of God's law. They are not at all guilty on account of making general use of veiling. If a woman refused to run into a burning house to save her child because it might burn her veil THEN she would following the letter of an ordinance at the expense of obeying the weightier matters of God's law.
Look what the Lord Jesus said to the Pharisees: Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.
Why should they have to tithe herbs? Isn't that just the letter of the law? There's nothing wrong with the letter of the law. Also the letter of the law does not usually come into contradiction with the spirit of the law. The general use of the veil does NOT violate the law of love. Otherwise amish, mennonites, muslims, women with cancer, nuns, etc. are all guilty of violating the law of love because of their veils! That would be a ridiculous accusation to make against them. Their are plenty of christian women who are wearing veils without being a nun or muslim or amish. People being unfamiliar with veiling are probably curious and ask them why they wear it. They might wonder if they belong to this or that group. I don't think anyone is being HARMED by their veiling themselves though. Just like the man in the third youtube video was saying that if a woman is walking around half naked no one speaks up! So what is the harm of wearing the veil? Obviously we should speak up when women are half naked but that is not the point. The distinction between the letter of the ordinance of veiling and the spirit of the ordinance of veiling creates a false dilemma because only in very rare situations would the ordinance itself come into conflict with God's law of love, like the burning house example I mentioned above.
The straw man occurs when you bring up these ideas: "but in her heart is irreverence for her husband" "but in her heart she dishonors him?" Not once did I suggest that a woman should be those ways. I never promoted obedience to what Paul said at the expense of the inner motive. I've promoted the obedience AND the inner motive. I brought in examples of people who obey the same thing with even weaker motives than the epistle of Paul. They are like the sons of the Rechabites therefore because they have obeyed a custom of ordinary men when we have disobeyed a tradition from the Holy Spirit of God. Therefore they put us to shame in that matter, even though they are not "God's chosen people" like the american churches think they are.
Would you have your wife wear a veil to her death? I would rather die than dishonor Christ by praying with my head covered. If I was confronted in some kind of martyrdom situation where men were giving me an ultimatum of death or disobedience, I know for a fact that death would be the right choice. If I was a woman and my veil was taken from me would that mean that I could not pray? I don't think so. The veil is for prayer and not prayer for the veil. If there was a godly woman and she had a choice in the matter then she would rather die than dishonor her husband. But Paul commands the veil for prayer and prophesy. The obvious result is that keeping the veil on in general becomes much more practical, otherwise it must be redone every time a women wishes to pray. It is also preferable to the women who follow the tradition to maintain the veil for the sake of modesty and to continue in reverence even when not praying. On top of that the testimony of history shows that wearing the veil has been the common usage apart from prayer. Paul himself uses the example of nature saying that a woman's long hair is given her as a covering which shows us that she ought to be veiled. His specific teaching was regarding times of prayer because that would be the LAST time you would want to go against the example of nature. However for the sake of modesty, and the passage may confirm this itself, it remains proper for the woman to remain covered in general. Let's not get hung up on that while not in agreement on the veil for times of prayer though. If a woman starts wearing it when she's praying to God then we could talk about the rest of the time.
Do you suppose that God cares more of the outward veil of the head, or the spirit of the veil from the heart? Here's the false dilemma and straw man again. It does not have to be one or the other nor am I promoting one at the expense of the other.
Quote: ...how learned are you in the doctrines of theology? I've been in study for about 20 years now. Well how many years of study would be a satisfactory answer? If I've been studying for 21 years will you take me more seriously? If I've been studying for 21 days will you take me less seriously? What is the point of asking me how "learned" I am in "doctrines of theology"? Doctrines of theology just means the bible. I don't even use the word theology cause it makes knowing God sound like an academic science. I don't call learning about you and your ways "Darinology". That's because it would sound impersonal and degrading. But that's a personal matter. I don't condemn people for using the word, maybe in the future I'll speak up about it more. My point is what is your point in asking me that?
Do you think I have not come up against this chapter? My impression or guess was that you came across it and studied it until you came across the cultural relativism misinterpretation and did not sufficiently examine the passage itself to rightly discern the truth of that interpretation. In other words I didn't get the impression that you had given it much thought or taken it very seriously but that was based on the fact that you were repeating yourself in your argument against my position without introducing any propositions that were not immediately inferred in your argument to begin with. It didn't and doesn't seem that the argument has any convincing points. However, I could be wrong but I must assume that I understand correctly unless I find that I have not been thorough in my studying or find that someone else understands it better than I do.
I've prayed about all my studies and come up in the truth. Is it possible then that God is answering your prayer through this discussion? Maybe your initial understanding is like Ishmael and now you have Isaac. What do you think, is that possible?
I tell you that if I saw this to be kept by the letter, I would indeed and in truth. I'm grateful to God in my heart for your obedient spirit and I hope that my way of presenting this does not get in the way of the message itself.
For he is not a christian, who is one outwardly; neither is that veiling, which is outward on the flesh: He is a christian who is one inwardly; and the law/tradition/custom of the veil is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter.... WHAT?! Are you trying to say that Muslims are not christian?! haha, just kidding.
Here's another example of the error: For he is not a christian, who is one outwardly; neither is that baptism and the Lord's supper and giving to the poor, which is outward on the flesh: He is a christian who is one inwardly; and the law/tradition/custom of the baptism and the Lord's supper and giving to the poor is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter....
If you interpret like a gnostic you can do all kinds of weird things with very simple passages. We can't make that kind of distinction between the letter and spirit of the law UNLESS the spirit of the law is truly being violated by adherence to the letter. Like I said, that's obviously not the case with women who wear veils, therefore the separation of letter and spirit is unjustifiable.
I'm not offended at all. I appreciate that you are willing to continue discussing it. I did not like using stronger questions like I did but it seemed like you were going to walk away from sorting this out. Peace my friend!
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 11, 2008 20:40:28 GMT -5
"We don't hear what Abraham hears. We don't see what Abraham sees." God please have mercy on this country.
I should start praying for President Elect Barak Obama daily. This sounds like serious social reprogramming stuff.
Good for President Bush though!
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 11, 2008 20:11:33 GMT -5
That's kind of interesting. Just the idea of him going on a long journey with his family helps to encourage my faith that he was a real human being. I've gone on long trips with my family before.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 11, 2008 19:58:21 GMT -5
I'm not talking about salvation. You sound like you think I'm stupid.
On a scale of 1 to 10 how seriously do you take me?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 11, 2008 19:18:28 GMT -5
my mom was a sunday school teacher, sunday school is a joke though, children should be taught of God's ways every day. When you lie down, when you get up, going in, going out What are dad's so busy doing that women would be left to teach "sunday school"? Of course women can teach their own children! says so in proverbs. of course women can teach women, unless you want to teach your own daughter about feminine things? older women should instruct younger women like it says in the bible
no teaching men no having dominion over men no being noisy, especially in the assembly
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 11, 2008 16:59:03 GMT -5
AH! Sorry about the women's clothing ads!
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 11, 2008 16:56:34 GMT -5
Logic: Would you be persuaded if someone was telling you that a custom is actually a law?First. Why would I not be persuaded? Only if they were wrong. If I thought something was a custom and found out it was a law, of course I would be persuaded. Though there is an expression "The man persuaded against his will, will keep the same opinion still." But what do our wills have to do with what is true? So YES. Absolutely. If you showed me something that I thought was an optional custom was actually a command I would be obligated to circumcise my will, to throw it away, to obey the command. Here is an example of something many people treat as if it were a custom: 1Co 14:34 Let your women be silent in the assemblies,How many people obey this now? I have never been to an assembly where they obey this. Maybe they think it is just an old fashioned custom? for it is not allowed to them to speak, but to be in subjection,That's not very feminist, enlightened, and modern! Maybe it's just old-fashioned silliness? as also the Law says.Well it's a good thing Jesus came to destroy the law! Otherwise our short-haired, pants-wearing wives might give us a good lashing with their tongues for teaching them to obey this! 1Co 14:35 But if they desire to learn anything, let them question their husbands at home; for it is a shame for a woman to speak in an assembly.Just like it's a shame for them to pray or prophesy unveiled. If they won't keep silent in the assembly, make them stay home or in the baby room. If they won't wear the veil, chop off their hair. If they don't want their hair shaved off then let them be veiled. 1Co 14:36 Or did the Word of God go out from you? Or did it reach only to you?This is THE WORD OF GOD. This is what GOD'S LAW says. This is what Paul the teacher of the gentile nations appointed by the Lord Jesus says. 1Co 14:37 If anyone thinks to be a prophet, or a spiritual one, let him recognize the things I write to you, that they are a command of the Lord. 1Co 14:38 But if any be ignorant, let him be ignorant.A command of the Lord. This is the same letter that instructs them to properly use veiling so they will not dishonor Christ Jesus and not dishonor their husbands and fathers. The transgression of Adam was through him exalting the fickle wishes of his wife above the command of God. Should a man decide for himself that this is a mere custom? Should a man wait until he feels convicted to take it seriously? Isn't that how calvinists "get saved"? Wouldn't a man naturally feel convicted AFTER he took it seriously? Second. What you can see from the tables below is that the word custom is not suitable for veiling. The word paradosis (meaning ordinance, tradition, law) is the suitable word. Veiling is an ordinance, tradition, law that ought, must, should (opheilo) be held, kept, retained (kateccho). It is not a sunetheia (a custom or usage). English | Strong # | Greek & Definition | Notes | | | Here are some of the words that Paul uses about the things he has taught them. | | ordinances | G3862 | paradosis: transmission, that is, (concretely) a precept; specifically the Jewish traditionary law: - ordinance, tradition. | The verbal and written traditions of the apostles. See examples below. | keep | G2722 | katecho: to hold down (fast), in various applications (literally or figuratively): - have, hold (fast), keep (in memory), let, X make toward, possess, retain, seize on, stay, take, withhold. | "keep the ordinances" This is source of the word 'catechism'. kata (down) + echo (hold), poetically "echoing down the halls of history" | | | Here is a word he uses to teach veling. | | ought | G3784 | opheilo; opheileo: to owe [money]; figuratively to be under obligation (ought, must, should); morally to fail in duty: - behove, be bound, (be) debt (-or), (be) due (-ty), be guilty (indebted), (must) need (-s), ought, owe, should. | Do it. | | | Here is a word he would use to describe veiling. | | comely | G4241 | prepo: Apparently a primary verb; to tower up (be conspicuous), that is, (by implication) to be suitable or proper (third person singular present indicative, often used impersonally, it is fit or right): - become, comely. | Fitting. It does not mean subjective visual appeal. Comely = Right. Not comely = Wrong. | | | Here are some words Paul uses to teach that men should not veil themselves. | | indeed ought not | G3303 G3784 G3756 | men (μέν): A primary particle; properly indicative of affirmation or concession (in fact); usually followed by a contrasted clause with G1161 (this one, the former, etc.: - even, indeed, so, some, truly, verily. Often compounded with other particles in an intensive or asseverative sense.
opheilo; opheileo: to owe (pecuniarily); figuratively to be under obligation (ought, must, should); morally to fail in duty: - behove, be bound, (be) debt (-or), (be) due (-ty), be guilty (indebted), (must) need (-s), ought, owe, should.
ou: A primary word; the absolutely negative (compare G3361) adverb; no or not | It is forbidden. | | | Here are some words he uses to describe a man wearing a veil or having long hair. | | dishonoureth | G2617 | kataischuno: to shame down, that is, disgrace or (by implication) put to the blush: - confound, dishonour, (be a-, make a-) shame (-d). | Not something a christian man wants to do to the Lord Jesus, nor a christian woman to her father, husband, etc. | shame | G819 | atimia: infamy, that is, (subjectively) comparative indignity, (objectively) disgrace: - dishonour, reproach, shame, vile. | Wrong. | | | Here is a word he suggests to describe a woman having her hair chopped off. | | shame | G149 | aischron: a shameful thing, that is, indecorum: - shame. | in my town: a lesbian | | | Here are some words he uses to describe a woman unveiled. | | dishonoureth | G2617 | kataischuno: to shame down, that is, disgrace or (by implication) put to the blush: - confound, dishonour, (be a-, make a-) shame (-d). | This is definitely not something a christian man wants to do to the Lord Jesus, nor a christian woman to her father, husband, etc. | custom | G4914 | sunetheia: mutual habituation, that is, usage: - custom. | No implication of law or necessity. A habit. |
Third. For a women to pray or prophesy unveiled is kataischuno. It is disgraceful, causing to blush, dishonorable, confounding. Let her be shaved first, Paul says. Behold the Rechabites of our time. Jer 35:5 And I set bowls and cups full of wine before the sons of the house of the Rechabites. And I said to them, Drink wine. [/color] Fourth. Shouldn't a man be concerned first with whether he himself is persuaded then afterward with whether others are persuaded? 2Th 2:15 So, then, brothers, stand firm and strongly hold the teachings (paradosis) you were taught, whether by word or by our letter.
2Th 3:6 And we enjoin you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to draw yourselves back from every brother walking in a disorderly way, and not according to the teaching (paradosis) which you received from us. 2Th 3:7 For you yourselves know how it is right to act like us, because we were not disorderly among you;
2Th 3:14 But if anyone does not obey our Word through the letter, mark that one, and do not associate with him, that he be shamed. 2Th 3:15 But do not count him as one hostile, but warn him as a brother. 2Th 3:16 And may the Lord of peace Himself continually give peace to you in every way. The Lord be with all of you.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 10, 2008 15:26:54 GMT -5
You just watched me admit gnosticism a couple weeks ago. Who is it that won't persuade or be persuaded?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 10, 2008 13:35:57 GMT -5
Michelle, Can you give more detail about the situation(s)?
Is there a christian man who provides for you? Are you usually with a faithful brother?
Do you mean a stranger or someone you live with?
Tamar, king David's daughter, rebuked her brother Amnon twice. That's in 2Samuel 13. There was no man with her to speak up against Amnon.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 10, 2008 8:53:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 9, 2008 23:40:51 GMT -5
This is what a woman's long hair would say if it could talk:
"I'm supposed to be covered with a veil." (verse 15)
: )
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 9, 2008 16:24:15 GMT -5
1Ti 2:12 But I (Paul) permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. 1Ti 2:7 ....I was appointed a herald and apostle (I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie), a teacher of the nations, in faith and truth.
"the nations" means us. Nations means openairoutreach users and their friends and families.
I (Paul) was appointed....a teacher of the [openairoutreach users and their friends and families] But I (Paul) permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.
no teaching no having dominion no being noisy
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 9, 2008 15:34:55 GMT -5
"Was David sinfully made or wonderfully made? Wonderfully made. I WONDER why God made us with a sin nature."
I like that one.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 9, 2008 4:59:23 GMT -5
The church did not adopt the veil. It was born with it. The Lord Jesus built his church with it. Paul's teaching is based on God's ordering of His kingdom. None of the cultural argument properly esteems the reasons that Paul gives for not disregarding the veil. It's also completely founded on non-biblical speculation and postulation as far as I can tell. The passage interprets itself. It doesn't require any knowledge of ancient culture or modern culture in any country. I think someone could grow up in the middle of the woods and find this passage and understand that it is a clear universal imperative.
1Co 11:3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. You couldn't possibly come up with a weightier foundation for this teaching. This has absolutely nothing to do with what the customs of unbelievers are. This statement is the foundational premise to the entire argument. If this is merely a cultural consideration then Paul will have to build an argument for consideration, conscience, etc. from a foundation of the hierarchy of God's kingdom. In other words Paul would have to show that God's structure of authority is a good reason to conform to changing customs of the world.
1Co 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having anything down over his head shames his head. The words "every man" end the argument. It is so clear that Paul could have said "every man.....shames his head because Christ is the head of every man." The connection between "every man" (pas aner) in verse 3 and in verse 4 is unmistakable in my opinion. The reason a man should not have his head covered when talking TO or FOR God is because Jesus Christ is the head of every man.
Right away the possibility of a smooth transition from the hierarchy of authority to a cultural consideration is destroyed by this simple reasoning. Christ is man's head therefore man should not cover his head. (unless it's cold out or too sunny and you're not praying or prophesying) There is absolutely nothing about cultural consideration and Paul has already bridged the gap between the foundational premise of authority to the outward manifestation that should be obeyed. It's already too late for the cultural argument.
1Co 11:5 And every woman praying or prophesying with the head unveiled dishonors her head, for it is the same as being shaved. "Every woman." He doesn't say "every one of your women" or "every women among you". Just every woman. A woman with no veil is like a bald woman. This is obviously dishonorable, shameful, contrary to nature, etc. The reason woman should cover her head is to honor her head which is man. If she doesn't cover her head it is like being bald. A woman with no veil is like a bald woman. The reason is that the man is the head of a woman. Therefore if she has no authority on her head it is exactly as if she is bald.
1Co 11:6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn, or to be shaved, let her be veiled. It's better for a woman to be bald than to not wear a veil. If she won't wear the veil then let her be bald. Since this is obviously shameful she should wear the veil.
1Co 11:7 For truly a man ought not to have the head covered, being the image and glory of God. But woman is the glory of man; Paul already said a man shouldn't have his head covered. Now he's saying it twice. "...truly...ought not to..." Here's a similarly non-cultural reason given for the same outward practice. So far that's two spiritual reasons and zero cultural reasons. There are two facets to the second reason.
Should the image and glory of God be covered? No.
Should the glory of man be covered? Yes.
1Co 11:8 for man is not of the woman, but woman of man; "flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone" Woman is after man, woman is the glory of man, woman is under man's authority.
1Co 11:9 for also man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man; "it is not good for man to be alone" Woman's purpose is to serve man according to God's will.
1Co 11:10 because of this, the woman ought to have authority on the head, because of the angels. Woman was not made for angels to lust after, she was made for man and man is for God. [And] now the manifold wisdom of God [should] be made known to the rulers and to the authorities in the heavenlies through the assembly. [That Christ is the head of every man and His body the temple of God,] to [whom] be the glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus, to all the generations of the age of the ages. To God be the glory in His temple. Therefore the glory of God should be uncovered and the glory of man covered. (Gen 6; Eph 3)
1Co 11:11 However, man is not apart from woman, nor woman apart from man, in the Lord. 1Co 11:12 For as the woman is out of the man, so also the man through the woman; but all things are from God. The submission of the woman to the man is not ultimately to glorify man but to glorify God. Man's glory should be covered in modesty.
1Co 11:13 You judge among yourselves: Paul calls on many witnesses but not one of them is the customs of the unbelievers:
1) Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
2) Man is the image and glory of God. But woman is the glory of man.
3) Because of the angels.
4) Their own consent/judgment.
5) The testimony of nature.
6) The unanimous practice of the churches of God.
is it fitting for a woman to pray to God unveiled? This is rhetorical, but not just fluff. He wants them to consider it and understand what he's saying. He could've just said "No veils? No hair." or "Get with the program" but that's not the way God wants to run things.
"Is it fitting?" It means this: It is not fitting for a woman to pray to God unveiled.
"Fitting" is the same word used in these verses: Mat 3:15 But answering, Jesus said to him, Allow it now, for it is becoming to us this way to fulfill all righteousness. Then he allows Him. Eph 5:3 But let not fornication, and all uncleanness, or greediness, be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 1Ti 2:10 but what becomes women professing fear of God, through good works. Tit 2:1 But you speak things which become sound doctrine: The message is: Do things that are fitting. Do not do things which are not fitting.
1Co 11:14 Or does not nature herself teach you that if a man indeed wears long hair, it is a dishonor to him? Even if I don't understand why, I can be assured that the answer is Affirmative. I didn't understand it at first and I'm sure there's more I could understand about it. But it's impossible to ignore that the answer he's looking for is YES. It is a dishonor for a man to wear long hair. I learned this one when I was a kid. Boys have short hair - Girls have long hair. Then when I became disobedient, rebellious, and morally corrupt I grew my hair long.
1Co 11:15 But if a woman wears her hair long, it is a glory to her; because the hair has been given to her instead of a veil. In other words, she should really have a veil. Even the natural use of hair says so. Paul has appealed to five witnesses up to this point and not a single one is conformity to the world's customs. The first three reasons are not even capable of being altered by human beings nor do they change with time.
1Co 11:16 But if anyone thinks to be contentious, we do not have such a custom, nor the assemblies of God. Even though he presented it with such language as to gently involve them in the train of thought rather than bluntly command them, they are still not left without a firm judgment to settle any disputes.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 8, 2008 16:40:33 GMT -5
Hi Joe and Logic,
I don't think there's any doubt about it. I've seen quotes like those too. If I had a wife who honored God and her husband by dressing right I would be a happy man. Look at what an idol the glory of woman has become in our society and look at the state of things.
"Keep your beautiful hair for your husband." That's what I think God wants to teach us. A woman's hair is a special part of her. It is romantically attractive without a doubt. Just like a woman's bosom, legs, etc. I've seen young girls showing off their bodies like they think it's nothing. It makes me cry to know that I've seen parts of them that I was not supposed to see. Those are parts of their bodies that have special purposes and are not for strangers' eyes. I think a woman's hair is like that too.
I also realized that a modest woman would put lustful, dishonorable men to shame. They would be convicted in their dishonorable un-manliness by a woman of virtue.
Look at all the pictures of Jesus' mother Mary. They've usually got her head covered in the pictures. I think that's just what Paul is saying is proper for Godly women. That it is part of modesty and piety that women are to express outwardly.
Peace
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 8, 2008 0:11:44 GMT -5
- Is sin a choice or a substance? a choice - If sin is hereditary, is righteousness hereditary? n/a - Do we inherit the sin of Adam alone or all of the sins of all of our parents? n/a - Do babies deserve hell? n/a - Do babies go to hell when they die? no - Is homosexuality human nature? no - Is there a difference between physical depravity and moral depravity? a choice - Is there a difference between temptation and sin? a choice - Is there a difference between inheriting temptation and inheriting sin? n/a - Does God form our human nature in the womb? yes - Was David sinfully made or wonderfully made? equivocation - How can it be justice for personal guilt to exceed personal choice? n/a
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 7, 2008 15:07:32 GMT -5
According to the bible, it is impossible to truly repent and not trust Jesus. I agree it's obvious. Children could understand it. Stop doing bad things, Jesus loves you.
Peter warned us two thousand years ago what the enemy was doing with Paul's writings. All these false teachers use emotional manipulation and straight-up lies to brain wash people into thinking that being loving should be discarded along with animal sacrifice. They preach against Christ in the name of Christ. How much more evil can you get?
Where did this false repentance come from? Was it Luther? Obviously the Roman's watered down the message with their whole program. I know Hitler had plans to eradicate Christianity because it conflicted with the morals he wanted to infuse into his people. Also feminism, eugenics, abortion, the birth-control bomb, sexual immorality. These are all programs that Hitler was deliberately propagating into the countries he wanted to conquer. That's exactly what has happened here in America. The false Christianity is like the icing on the cake because people become completely cemented into rebellion and cite God as the one who justifies them. It's wicked Antichrist stuff. Menno Simons compared the false teachers of the reformation era to the hordes of locusts spewing out of the bottomless pit. He compared the smoke to their foul teachings that have obscured and darkened the bright shining of the gospel. It's gotten pretty dark now if you ask me. It's a good thing God hears prayer because I think people would never find the truth in this mess without His direct guidance.
So my question is how did faith and repentance come to be seen as two things that can be separated? How did people come to replace God with the image of the beast and worship it?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 7, 2008 14:22:43 GMT -5
Would the Holy Spirit allow it to fall out of usage? Of course not. True obedience to God has fallen out of usage. It doesn't mean the Holy Spirit allowed it. Regardless of who thinks they are the church or not, Paul and the Holy Spirit saw fit to record this passage and preserve it for two thousand years. So here is your wake-up call if you want to look at it that way. If the Corinthians needed further instruction on it then why wouldn't you or other people today? Paul and the Holy Spirit anticipated the instruction/reminder would be met with contention just like it is today.
More importantly though, you repeated your theory but you didn't address my question.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 7, 2008 4:12:06 GMT -5
"This is why I prefaced inability with the word PRACTICAL. I understand that Jesse is saying that they will not obey and not that they cannot obey. Yet he also says grace is necessary for sinners to will to obey. So free will is not sufficient. The influence of the Holy Spirit is required."
I think the influence is hard to escape. Our very nature is predisposed to be in a right relationship with our creator. The entire creation speaks of His character. Our consciences within us guide us daily. The effects of sin cause our whole being to cry out for help. God hands men over to their wicked desires if they stubbornly persist in them. Even their foolish rebellion becomes their punishment which in turn should lead them to seek their creator.
It seems like there's this idea that the sinner has to wait for God. But I think that it is actually God who is waiting (and not passively) for the sinner to respond.
Here are some verses from John that I chopped up to show the Lord Jesus' pattern of soteriology. My understanding and experience is that when a person stops resisting God they come face to face with the gospel.
Joh 16:8 ....that One will convict the world concerning sin, and concerning righteousness, and concerning judgment. sin = unbelief righteousness = faith in the resurrection judgment = God's justice and wrath (sin, righteousness, and judgment = gospel)
Our response: If you love Me that one who loves Me the one that loves Me If anyone loves Me
keep My commandments He that has My commandments and keeps them he will keep My Word
God's response: And I will petition the Father and He will give you another Comforter that He may remain with you to the age [you] shall be loved by My Father and I shall love [you] and will reveal Myself to [you] and My Father shall love [you] And We will come to [you] and will make a dwelling place with [you]
The pattern of responses reminds me of an antiphonal duet, like the Song of Songs. It is a little funny and odd to me that there is a word like "soteriology" to describe all this.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 7, 2008 1:32:46 GMT -5
In 1Corinth 11, the veil is not a law of God, but a social, cultural custom/tradition, you can not persuade me otherwaise.
Why do you say it is not a law of God but a "social, cultural custom/tradition"? There are writings of Paul's where he specifically says that something is a concession or optional. Do you see anything in this passage that shows that to be the case about the veil?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 7, 2008 1:22:51 GMT -5
"I have tried hard to maintain the free choice of the human will, but the grace of God prevailed."
Yuck! That sounds satanic.
There was a comedy sketch I saw once where a blind black man in the south was a leader of a KKK group (they never knew he was black cause he always wore the white hood at the meetings). He was a militant racist and did not know that he himself was black. When he found out that he bore the image of that which he hated he killed himself in his warped zeal. Obviously that's not really funny. But it sounds exactly like this Augustine quote.
People hate God so much that they hate that they are made in his image and with "what little they have" (the reluctant knowledge of free will that is unavoidable) they put themselves to death (spiritually). That part of the quote "but the grace of God prevailed." That's just the white hood of false humility they put on to cover up the nature they are ashamed of. But it is God's image they reject at the cost of their own lives.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 6, 2008 17:54:35 GMT -5
Are we starting to go in circles?
The passage couldn't really be any more clear. There's no room to decide for yourself whether it's relevant or important.
If my wife wears a veil, but dishonors me in any other way, that vail would mean nothing. I'd rather her honor me in the more practical ways which truly tell me that she honors me. What kind of reasoning is that? How about if my wife yells at me that's fine as long as she doesn't cheat on me? As long as we do the important things we can forget about the rest? That's treating the word of God subjectively.
The Lord's Supper is not optional. Since when are God's commands optional? If you deliberately refused to not do something the Lord Jesus instituted and commanded you would ALREADY be condemned because of unbelief. It would simply be and outward expression of a rebellious heart.
I think there's a bigger point that is being missed here. Paul says we should do it. He says every man, every woman. The reasons he gives are not local reasons. He doesn't say "because of the corinthian angels."
It was clearly commanded and not optional. There is no suggestion that it is merely a custom/tradition. I believe you are calling it that unjustifiably.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 6, 2008 14:07:00 GMT -5
You haven't provided a solid reason out of the passage itself that allows you to lump it in with dietary customs and holy days.
Instead the passage itself provides reasons why you can't just do that with it.
It sounds like you're just saying "No. I don't want to. Nobody else does it."
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 6, 2008 1:00:30 GMT -5
You know I actually see what your saying, I'm borrowing this line from you "If you understood you would agree" but I know that it will never happen. You're getting caught up on other people. What does it matter whether other people obey? Jesus says "You follow me."
I agree with you and all that, You must not understand a lot of what I've been saying if you think you agree with me. however, if through all the revivals that has come & gone with no one being convicted about it, where do you get that idea from? and it still has not come about even outside of any revivles, What are you taking about? There are plenty of women who are obedient in this. Where do you expect to see them? on TV? at a club? it is most doubtful to start now. It never stopped in the first place. All that's happened is that a couple of generations have been told it don't matter. Just like they were told all sorts of things don't matter. I asked my wife and she wouldn't either.
The way I see it, if God realy wanted it to continue until now through out the world's Christian Churches, He would have kept it on His peoples hearts to cary on the tradition/custome. What do you think I'm doing! It IS on my heart. It's not like I grew up Amish. Also it has been carried on until very recently in the countries which have recently morally degenerated to a whole new degree like America.
He would have made the concept more prevalent through out the New Testament scriptures instead of having just one passage in the entirety of it all which seems to be cultural. The law required the wife to be covered which I showed you. You want an entire chapter devoted to head covering? The history of the professing church testifies that we are the oddballs, not them. A woman's hair is romantically attractive to a man. Why should she be showing it to the whole world? Look around you. Woman's hair is one the MOST glorified objects in our society. More than EVER it ought to be covered. It has become an idol. Please be willing to consider that the reasons Paul gives for it are not cultural at all but are permanent reasons that exist unchangingly like the sun and the moon. It all comes down to the convictions of ones heart. I could say that about a lot of things. Some people say that about "turn the other cheek" 1Corinth 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? If you look closely at the entire passage you will see that Paul is not actually leaving it up to them to decide at all. That is a misunderstanding of that verse. 1Co 11:13 You judge among yourselves: Similar to 1Co 10:15 "I speak as to prudent ones; you judge what I say. " "Think about it. Have understanding. Know what is right and what is wrong." 1Co 11:3 "But I want you to know.." Philemon 1:8-9 "Therefore, though I might be very bold in Christ to command you what is fitting, yet for love’s sake I rather appeal to you."
I would say, not any more. I don't see it as all that improtant compared to the more weighty things. There was a professional wrestler called "the rock" and he used to say something like this: "it doesn't matter what you think, it only matters what the rock thinks" I don't have a conviction about it. I still do think it is cultural and there is nothing wrong with that. Anything that's in disagreement with God's ways is wrong.
1Th 4:1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. :2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. There is no commandment for veils, it is only a custom/tradition. It's right in front of you. I do not understand how any person can read 1-16 and not see it plain as day. There is nothing "cultural" about the passage. The entire church followed it as a command until what... a hundred years ago or so? Even the orthodox church has followed it for 2000 years. Our practice is the glitch in the tradition. If it were relative that would be reason to change in itself.
Paul says, "keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you"(1Corinth 11:2 ), there is no instance were he did to anyone else but them, and only bringing up the fact that he did to the Corinthians. Are you going to suggest that the angels were only Corinthian angels? The other churches were obeying, only Corinth wasn't. That's why Paul had to write to them about it. Isn't the evidence is right in the passage?
I don't see any solid reason to believe that it's ok to interpret it as you have. Does it seem to you that I am understanding the reasons you've been giving? Have my responses been relevant?
|
|