|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 5, 2008 19:45:05 GMT -5
God has never lost his meaning, the veil has.Even if the whole world says it has that doesn't mean that God says it has. How would the people who don't know God have the same meaning of a veil as God does? We should speak in their language for them to understand. Use what the veil means in their own language.You're thinking of it as a tool for evangelism but that's not the primary reason Paul gives. It certainly could be a tool for evangelism in this country where it stands out more and would probably give people the opportunity to answer questions about their faith. The meaning of a veil is "hiding" as in ones glory. Men shouldn't hide the glory of God but should hide their own so God's will have the prevalence. In other words, we must decrees while increes the Name of Jesus in all that He said and done.Yes. Paul says one way we should do that. How do we get America to change their meaning of the veil,Same way we "get" them to change their meaning of human sexuality. so that if we start waring them, they will know what it means,They'll know. without them thinking it's some kind of oppression of women as we think the muslims do by making their women ware veils?Rebels always call authority oppression. Or keep them from thining we are some kind of cult by changing customes like the Amish.The amish didn't change customes. I don't follow any group who goes by a name other than Christ. Mr Amish and Menno Simons are not to be followed, only the Lord Jesus. But in this respect the Amish have acted with honor, in that they have not been easily swayed by our ungodly culture regarding fashion. You can't just change the meaning of a veil and think the whole culture will follow.But that's exactly what has happened. Are we going to adopt His ways? We the church could, but our witness to that will be irrelevant,God's ways are never irrelevant. misunderstoodToo late for that. and uneffective to the public.That depends on "the public". But like I said it's not simply a tool for evangelism. That's not the primary focus in the passage. I think detrimental to the church to ignore this passage. I believe that the people who have formulated this idea of it being irrelevant are probably people who dislike authority. I don't mean you. I'm talking about the divinity graduates who make a career out of the scripture. I don't know what else is on this website but it has a good in depth examination of the passage and arguments for and against and a timeline of history regarding the veil. www.kingshouse.org/headcovering.htmI also believe that forsaking the use of the veil has had an impact of the divorce rate among professing christians. It goes hand in hand with "feminism" which, among other things, has hit our country like a five ton bomb. I watched a show on TV once about a civillian massacre in China where the military had mowed down a bunch of protesters. The students at the university where the event had started only a few decades earlier did not even know much (if anything) about the event. Google, Yahoo, and other search engine companies got busted by our government because they had agreed with the Chinese government to filter content that would allow the Chinese public to know what had happened. It is a good example of how duped people can be by assuming that the way things are presented to them by their culture is an acceptable norm. I think it is a very (spiritually) beautiful thing and I believe that is exactly why God ordained it and why Paul expounded on it.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 3, 2008 17:24:31 GMT -5
thank you friend, Jesus gave a good example of what leadership (government) was all about when he washed his friends' feet. So God's law and Jesus washing feet both come from the same heart. Same ultimate motive.
Government is an impersonal sounding word for some people. Probably because we live in a cold, lonely world.
God showing his justice through the cross comes from the same heart that was willing to die on the cross.
Psa 85:10 Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace kissed each other.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 3, 2008 13:34:52 GMT -5
"The problems are not personal, but governmental"
I can see how that phrase would sound strange. John said God is Love, not God is Law. However I don't think God being "governmental" would be impersonal. The purpose of God being "governmental" would be His personal loving ways. It seems like a misleading contrast. I think Olson and Pratney meant "not personal" as in "not selfish". God's government is HIGHLY personal.
Sorry for butting in if that doesn't help!
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 2, 2008 23:05:06 GMT -5
if the WILL is truly FREE, there would by definition be some men who have never sinned. By definition it would be possible, not inevitable. Are we talking odds here? Not sure what you mean. I don't believe in "odds" because it's statistical guesswork. I just meant that the same way free will doesn't mean anyone HAS to sin, it also doesn't mean anyone HAS to NOT sin. But both would be possible. But neither would be inevitable. Odds are just a guess based on past experience. The "odds" are that after I exhale I will inhale afterward. But it's not guaranteed just because I think it is "likely". That's just subjective. Inductive Logic according to my textbook. You probably knew that.
I don't understand it yet. John says if we say we have not sinned we're lying. How does he know? Maybe, because all men back then weren't brought up in a Christian family wouldn't know Christ in order to stay sinless. I say that they weren't brought up in a Christian family, because it is reasonable to date the letter somewhere between a.d. 85 and 95. Jesus crucifixion was no earlier than that of the spring of A.D. 30 based on the Passover of that time. Therefore, the odds of any one being brought up in a Christian family with-in 50 years of John's 1st letter and the "Upper Room experience. This is most likely how Paul could have said, "all have sinned". I would say that now it is more likely for one to be sinless, because of being brought up knowing Jesus; having really good parents. I've never heard an opinion like that before. I think I've come close to considering it but it never "solidified" in my mind. I'm not sure what I think of it. Is it scriptural? I imagine God must certainly WANT it to be the case.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 2, 2008 20:08:31 GMT -5
We don't actually know that anybody has [sinned] it is only taken for granted. We may know by Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God I know that this is speaking only up to when it was written, but how did Paul know? Since Paul could say it, we may. I think Paul was also specifically using that to break down the barrier between Jew and Gentile. Chapter 3 is all about that.
About that false dilemma thing: Since a world without sin is not inevitable, the question comes as: Why is it that every single man & woman chooses to sin and that Paul's could actually have said that "all have sinned" with out empirical knowledge? Why is it that 100% of mankind will always CHOOSE to sin without fail? Does the bible say they WILL always choose sin? According to free will it is possible for someone not to sin.
this is why The question spawns the false doctrines of original sin, Total Depravity, sin nature are so prevalent. People will not accept the answer of FREE WILL, because if the WILL is truly FREE, there would by definition be some men who have never sinned. By definition it would be possible, not inevitable.
I don't understand it yet. John says if we say we have not sinned we're lying. How does he know? If he knows, and it applies to people today also, then the open future thing falls apart, doesn't it? Seems like the free will thing would fall apart too. But free will goes hand-in-hand with accountability as far as I can tell. Accountability cannot be denied, so freedom of choice cannot be denied, so how can John know that everyone would make wrong choices?
(I know what 'false dilemma' means cause I've pulled out a Logic textbook I had since we started talking, your name reminded me I had it.)
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 2, 2008 18:44:58 GMT -5
God doesn’t want a creation with sin, but since we have one, it proves that God couldn't have made a world without sin. Since He couldn't, sin must be inevitable.
Ok, I think I get it. God does not want a creation with sin. = True We have a creation with sin = True Therefore God could not have made the world without sin = Trick Question
That's a false dilemma because whether or not "moral agents" sin is not dependent upon how God made the world or his ability.
I'll try to insert the false premise: God does not want a creation with sin. = True We have a creation with sin = True The existence of sin (in a world with free will) depends on God = False Therefore we can draw conclusions about God's ability = False
So God created a world where sin is possible, not inevitable. By definition, sin cannot be inevitable because it requires free choice.
That which doesn't exist can be known. Can you give me an example in the bible that involves free will?
What do you think of this question? 1) But how do you know that I have [sinned]? That's what I got stumped by. Do I know? Does the bible say I can know? I thought it did. That's the hardest question I've come across in all this original sin, free will, open future, etc.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 2, 2008 17:03:53 GMT -5
God has never lost his meaning, the veil has. Even if the whole world says it has that doesn't mean that God says it has.
What does a veil have relevance with today in America? Not socially relative. Please answer the question. It's missing the point. The question should be: "What does a veil have relevance with in God's word?" That would make an excellent title for 1-16. (Not "What does a veil have relevance with in Corinth, America, Timbuktu, etc.?")
Verse 16 states that the churches do not have such a custom back then; this means that the consensus of the churches today must matter also Not Logical How so? Paul use the consensus of other church, why is it ilogical for us to do the same? It does matter, but not in the way you were saying. If the consensus is the foundational reason (which it's not, it's an emphasis to Paul's command) then the fundamental reason has been violated when people disobeyed. Unless the entire church in one day all decided to switch their consensus with a unanimous vote, implying that the consensus is a primary foundation to the argument doesn't make sense.
If a woman came to church today in America, we would think she has a Muslim back ground or ethnicity, which would prove the cultural aspect. Not Logical How so, it is a fact that is what people tend to think. That's true people think that but it doesn't logically prove there's a "cultural aspect" to the primary reasons behind Paul's argument.
It is true, legnth of air does not matter. God commanded the man who committs to the "Vow of the Nazerite" to grow his hair long, it is not a sin to have long hair for a man. God commanded men to sacrifice animals. Does that make it ok for you? Are you allowed to offer a bull as a burnt offering? How about circumcising yourself with a rock? Is that honorable? In the old testament the veil was over the face of Moses. Christ, the head of man, was not yet revealed, uncovered, etc. I wasn't under the impression that the Nazerite vow remained in the new testament for Christians.
As long as one does not look like the opposite sex, they would be proper. How could it change over time without someone violating your rule? Good question if it was an original custom from the very beginning. Scriptures regarding Adam and Eve was never spoken of as with veiling Eve; not even Noah's wife. Your assuming that veiling women is the original custom.
Gen 24:64 And Rebekah lifted her eyes and she saw Isaac. And she dismounted from the camel. Gen 24:65 And she said to the slave, Who is this man walking in the field to meet us? And the slave said, It is my master. And she took the veil and covered herself. (1851 BC?)
Num 5:18 And the priest shall cause the woman to stand before Jehovah, and shall uncover the woman's head, and shall give into her hand the food offering of memorial; it is a food offering of jealousy; and in the priest's hand shall be the bitter waters which cause the curse. (1446 BC?)
Son 5:7 The ones watching who went about the city found me and struck me; they wounded me; those keeping the walls lifted my veil from me. (950 BC?)
Isa 47:1 Go down and sit on the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon; sit on the earth; a throne is not to the daughter of the Chaldeans; for they shall not again call you tender and delicate. Isa 47:2 Take millstones and grind meal; uncover your veil; strip off the skirt; uncover the leg; pass over rivers. Isa 47:3 Your nakedness shall be uncovered; yea, your shame shall be seen. (750-700 BC?)
1Co 11:10 because of this, the woman ought to have authority on the head, because of the angels. (50 AD?)
The dates aren't really the point. It's the example of the scripture. There are a lot of better ways he could've written that passage if he was trying to back it up with the reasons you suggested. Paul says right there in the first 15 verses where he gets his reasoning from. Then in verse 16 he puts the nail in the coffin of any disagreement.
You are wrong in that wearing a veil in today's church in our society would accomplish & mean a representation of chastity. They would not suggest respect and submission to their husbands or father's, because that is not how people would interpret a veil, not in today's church in our society. How people interpret things does not define what they represent before God. Some people take "This is my body. Take it and eat." to represent cannibalism. That doesn't mean it actually represents that. Some people act like curse words don't represent anything or that using Jesus' name as a curse is meaningless. It doesn't make it meaningless.
Why would you care if your wife wore a veil or not? Are you going to adopt a foreign custom, what a veil means from another culture from another time? The questions should be "Why does God care?" and "Are we going to adopt His ways?"
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 2, 2008 13:06:53 GMT -5
I'm still not sure what specific things you thought were unworthy thoughts.
God is omnipotent. He CAN do anything. God is omniscient. He CAN consider anything.
God is omnipotent. He DOESN'T HAVE TO do everything. God is omniscient. He DOESN'T HAVE TO consider everything.
I'm not saying that God is lacking in awareness. Just that I don't see any reason why He wouldn't be free to choose what he considers.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 2, 2008 1:44:43 GMT -5
"How can you say Jesus is the only way to heaven?"
People who grow up with cartoons and tv might have a picture of heaven that is totally ridiculous and boring. Sitting on a cloud with a halo and wings...Wouldn't earth itself be more interesting than that?
The Lord Jesus IS heaven. He said "this is everlasting life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent." He also said "No one comes to the Father except through Me." Also, In the book of Psalms it says "Whom have I in Heaven? And I have no desire on earth besides You."
Could someone arrive at eternity with God without heading straight for Him? No. If you don't head in the right direction you won't end up in the right place. If you're not aiming for Jesus Christ you won't reach Him. If you don't end up where Jesus is, you won't be in heaven. There IS no heaven without the Lord Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 1, 2008 22:18:14 GMT -5
the verse the verse has a theme of authority in God's kingdom not a theme of blending in with their culture
sorry it was so repetitive. I had to hack it all up to understand the difference between what we were thinking.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 1, 2008 21:28:38 GMT -5
The Angels
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.
1Co 11:10 ....the woman ought to have authority on the head, because of the angels.
Eph 3:10 so that now to the rulers and to the authorities in the heavenlies might be made known through the assembly the manifold wisdom of God,
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 1, 2008 21:02:07 GMT -5
Your Interpretation
The topic of the passage is not prostitution. However, if we find out what hair represents in 1Corinth 11:, we may apply this chapter today... ...what a veil meant back then as to not being a harlot... The passage is not about prostitution. The unveiled head [in America] would not show anyone that she is looking like, or being a harlot. The passage is not about prostitution. harlots were unveiled. They still are. But the passage is not about prostitution.
The message is not just Paul's opinion. However, Paul is using the "custom" of other churches as a back-up to his opinion. His opinion was correct at that time & culture. Paul didn't say it was an opinion.
Paul's reasoning is not based on social/cultural relativity. The consensus among the churches today would have nothing about hair length or veils, it does not matter at all Not socially relative.Because veils have no meaning today as they did back then. Not socially relative. I wouldn't know how to apply verse 14 any other way in today's society. Not socially relative. What does a veil have relevance with today in America? Not socially relative.With today's society, covering ones head means nothing. God also means nothing to today's society. That doesn't make him socially relative only to the early church. Who in our culture wears a veil? Not socially relative. What would one think if someone wore a veil? Not socially relative. No one has any custom in America, not even any of the "churches of God" which are here. Not socially relative. Is it still the custom of the churches of God today? Not socially relative.
Misc stuff I disagreed with 10 For this cause ought the woman to have authority on her head because of the angels (no one really knows what this means). Wouldn't matter. Verse 16 states that the churches do not have such a custom back then; this means that the consensus of the churches today must matter also Not Logical If a woman came to church today in America, we would think she has a Muslim back ground or ethnicity, which would prove the cultural aspect. Not Logical. Therefore, the length of hair or of covering ones head does not matter for today. Not Logical.As long as one does not look like the opposite sex, they would be proper. How could it change over time without someone violating your rule? If people from a few generations ago saw us now they would probably think we all look the same. They would probably also think most of the women looked like prostitutes and most of the men like homosexuals. There would be no way for such a dramatic change without the rule you suggested being broken. It's like saying life evolved from nothing.
My Interpretation what would a woman wearing a veil accomplish & what would it mean in today's church in our society?.. ...What would it mean? Veils represent chastity.. ...They also suggest respect and submission to their husbands or father's. Yes, but modern-day America doesn't care about chastity, respect, submission to husbands or fathers, etc. They aren't even taught about it because their parents think it's old fashioned. How would you think covering your head would dishonor God? Christ is the head of man. Man is the image and glory of God. How would your wife dishonor you by not covering her head? Woman is the glory of man. The glory of man should be covered. (Some also think a woman should cover her glory (her hair) for the sake of modesty and dignity. I at least agree that women (and men) would benefit greatly from learning how to keep themselves in modesty and dignity.)
I read it well before I heard that cultural relativity theory that relies on extra-biblical research. I had no problem understanding the passage just the way it read. The concept of prostitution didn't even enter my mind because Paul was clearly spelling out the reasons for the whole thing right there. The only thing that didn't completely click was the phrase "no such custom" but once I realized it was referring to the proposed custom of nakedness it made the whole passage real solid. The passage was never wanting in clarity without the historical research that I later heard. That theory contradicts the plainness of the whole message.
The passage explains itself without having to do research about ancient prostitution just like "The LORD your God is One" explains itself without having to study anthropological views of monotheism.
The overall context is authority not what is appropriate relative to your society. There is no reason in the passage to conclude that what Paul is saying is less than 100% applicable for all times.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 1, 2008 19:10:12 GMT -5
"So, in creating a world with free will, sin was inevitable even though avoiding sin personally is possible."
"Free Will" and "Inevitable Choice" can't go together.
I think the open future thing addresses some of this by saying "what hasn't happened yet, doesn't exist."
I thought there WAS more to Jesus' death and resurrection than the atonement. I don't totally understand what. Jesus only became like us because we sinned?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 1, 2008 14:18:08 GMT -5
"It wouldn't be the fact that Christ was crucified [that would have significance for the sinless man], but that He is the one to keep them from sin."
You mean by example?
"There would be no significance [of the cross], the baby [who died] would not need the atonement."
Is the atonement the only significance of Jesus' death? And what about his resurrection too? Since He is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Doesn't that mean that God intended Jesus' death to have universal significance beyond the atonement? Did God always intend for Jesus to be the firstborn from the dead regardless of whether men sinned or not? So he would be the first of many brethren? Is that what you were saying about Christ keeping them from sin?
I keep thinking of this butterfly thing and I think there's more going on here. If so, wouldn't it apply significantly to babies who die as well as a hypothetically sinless individual?
I can understand why someone who believes in original sin would be skeptical without understanding the answers here.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 1, 2008 11:36:59 GMT -5
these are all questions I've been asking recently.
"Why do we not have a perfect body if we havent sinned?" A butterfly starts out as a caterpillar. A living plant starts out as a dead seed. 1Co 15:42 So also the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. Here is faith and hope before only love remains. I think our perfection requires we be willing to sacrifice everything. Without suffering how could we be tested and approved for eternal life? It says Jesus was perfected by sufferings. Heb 5:8 though being a Son, He learned obedience from what He suffered Heb 5:9 and having been perfected, He came to be the Author of eternal salvation to all the ones obeying Him, Jas 1:4 But let patience have its perfective work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing. Remember the man born disabled so that the glory of God might be revealed in him when Jesus healed him? I think Romans 8 is dealing with this topic too. It seems that passing from corruption to incorruption is how God intended us to be brought into Christ. I don't totally understand it (if that's even possible now) but the ultimate purpose is love.
"After a person sins then repents is he made morally perfect again?" A truly repentant person is committed to obedience. I think the nature of true repentance is deciding to be morally perfect.
"what happens when he sins again?" Why would he sin again? Isn't it like saying "After I join the army, what happens when I disobey my orders?" or "After I get married, what happens... etc" I think that's why circumcision is used metaphorically in the bible. No one would ever do that to themselves unless they were seriously committed like Abraham. Didn't he use a sharp rock? That's pretty serious if you think about it.
But the new testament has a lot about reaching out to a brother who sins. I don't completely understand the guidelines yet though.
"Also what does this verse mean?" Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
"As" judgment came to each man who freely chose to sin "Even so" the free gift may came to each man who freely chose righteousness
Roman's five is making figurative comparisons. Some people think it's talking about "original sin". I did too until recently and it prevented me from properly understanding the figurative comparisons that Paul was making.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 1, 2008 10:38:21 GMT -5
"These thoughts are unworthy of believers..."
debonnaire, do you mean the entire thread or something in particular?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 1, 2008 4:07:23 GMT -5
Here are a couple problems from another forum that I don't know the answer to yet.
1) But how do you know that I have [sinned]? 2) If I were able to [live a life without sin], I wouldn't need Jesus' death.
Should someone assume that any given adult has sinned? If someone did not ever sin, which free-will makes possible, what would the significance of Christ crucified be in their life if it was not an atonement for their sin? What is the significance of "the cross" for a baby who dies before birth?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 1, 2008 2:50:02 GMT -5
Can a christian regret a choice apart from someone else ruining the outcome of their choice?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 1, 2008 2:43:42 GMT -5
Can a morally perfect person regret the intelligence of a choice they made with good intentions? Or...Do morally perfect people ever make uninformed decisions?
A couple verses I was thinking about led to this question: In proverbs it says - In all you do get understanding In James it says - If a christian lacks wisdom in anything God will give it to them
If we are commanded to be prudent and wise as serpents, God always makes wisdom generously available, and no one who trusts in him will be put to shame, then how would it be moral perfection to make an unwise choice? Would it be possible to regret a wise choice made with right intentions? Or only possible to dislike circumstance resulting from a morally perfect and wise choice? That wouldn't really be regret then would it?
Can a christian regret something they did?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 1, 2008 1:35:56 GMT -5
To sum up that train of thought in a personal way:
Does God even consider the possibilities of all the horrible things we are capable of doing? Or does he reject considering serious error when we have shown faith?
I've been afraid to commit my whole heart to God because of constant thoughts of what if I did this or that after I made a commitment? In my case I'm guilty of cowardice. But if God is not even thinking that way about me (because he is loving and hopeful) then why should I put up with thoughts like that?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 1, 2008 1:25:16 GMT -5
Since love hopes and believes all things, could there be some possibilities that God is not even willing to consider? For instance the child sacrifice that "did not enter his mind"? Obviously he was capable of dealing with it when it happened but maybe he wouldn't even have considered such a thing beforehand? That would mean that there was a whole series of possibilities branching off of that sin that God had not previously considered prior to it being done. And if that was true it would mean that God throughout eternity past had never considered the precise state of things as they are right now (that having happened). I'm watching greg boyd's 13 part video on open theism and he's using the chess player analogy. But there are no options for abominable tragedies and wickedness in chess. So there's no reason to not consider every move. But in real life, with moral choices, you wouldn't consider how to handle finding out your child was a cannibal or something horrible like that unless you had serious reason to consider it. Does that apply to God? God would only consider possibilities for the purpose of love right? It's not like he doesn't control his thoughts. Is God's intelligence and wisdom subordinate to his perfect will? I don't mean to divide God up into parts or anything like that.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 30, 2008 23:20:29 GMT -5
"Omniscience: God has all the knowledge that there is." In other words the past and the future don't even exist. The past can be remembered and the possibilities of the future can be analyzed.
What does God know about my future thoughts and choices? Sometimes I've felt like things were kinda pointless in a way since God knows all of my thoughts already. Is that why it's so easy for Calvinists to think babies go to hell? Because they feel devalued by God's omniscience? Reminds me of the "eye of sauron" from "the lord of the rings" books. Any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 30, 2008 22:35:09 GMT -5
"Time must be a natural attribute of God" Excellent. That's helpful. Is there any direct scripture that deals with this? I know it seems obvious. I just think there would be something direct about it being an "attribute" of God.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 30, 2008 22:28:25 GMT -5
"Doesn't the universality of sin prove that universal inheritance of a sinful nature?"
That seems like a very common complaint. The error is examining choices through the lens of cause and effect. Some people don't understand what a "choice" is and choke on all sorts of scripture as a result. (eg. The fact that God forgives all the sinners who repent and believe Jesus doesn't prove that he HAS to.)
"...the Gnostic's said that the flesh was sinful, instead of an instrument that could be used either way.."
It's like all these churches take all these baby christians and start cramming meat down their throats until they can't even swallow the simple milk of free-will and being able to make choices (like repentance). That's graphic, but it's not as bad as what's actually happening to people. They need spiritual CPR or something.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 30, 2008 22:09:12 GMT -5
Just some thoughts. Sorry if this is off topic. (this time thing is new to me) I've always heard "God is outside of time" But this stuff is really interesting. How could God be "outside of time" if he is longsuffering? Doesn't longsuffering require time? Also without time there cannot be any verbs. If God can DO anything it means he is "in" time in a sense. I don't think that God is bound by a dimension of time though, like a prisoner. The existence of time must be an expression of God's character in some way. Time and Love must be closely related. I don't want to say that love is dependent upon time because it sounds like it belittles God. Maybe love would not even consider not dwelling in or experiencing time because it serves the purpose of love. Maybe love is glorified by time. Like how older couples celebrate 50 years of marriage and everyone feels warm and fuzzy about it.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 30, 2008 21:50:47 GMT -5
Even at a glance the context of the whole passage is authority and reverence, not cultural relativism.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 30, 2008 21:26:58 GMT -5
Hi Logic!
Where in Chapter 11 does it say that hair represents cultural tradition? Paul uses hair as an analogy for the veil.
Our culture does lots of things. That doesn't mean anything.
There is not a an international consensus among professing Christians regarding covering. Most commentaries I've read actually support it. But there could be lots of commentaries that don't. If you can show me how verse 16 says what you think instead of what I think then I'll have to admit I don't understand verse 1-16 correctly.
That's not true unless you mean it should be locally relative. But Paul's statement about ALL the assemblies of God doesn't sound locally relative. The history I've seen on it actually suggests that covering WAS the custom and that would also support that the "such a custom" refers to nakedness, not covering, unveiling, etc.
My impression is that a handful of generations has decided that for themselves. I don't think that makes it true.
I believe we can already apply it. Many people do without even questioning it. Some people just don't want to, in my opinion, or they genuinely think Paul is saying that it doesn't matter.
If you combine that idea with Peter admonition against braided ("done up", styled) hair you would naturally end up with androgyny. We already have androgyny. Do you think all women should use hair spray and highlights to separate the sexes?
I have not seen any indication in verse 1-16 that hair is symbolic in that way. Where in verses 1-15 is it suggested that Paul is trying to get them to conform to cultural norms? Why do you think my understanding of verse 16 is wrong?
Peace, Ben
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 30, 2008 19:04:07 GMT -5
good point emmanuel everyone who doubts God does so at their own expense it is impossible to try and use reason against the author of reason with out hurting yourself
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 30, 2008 13:28:57 GMT -5
1 Corinthians 11:1-16
I believe verses 13-16 go together as one line of thought. People misinterpret verse 16 at the expense of the fifteen verses before it. Verse 16 does not contradict or nullify the first fifteen verses. Verse 16 is in emphatic agreement with the first fifteen verses.
13 You judge among yourselves: is it fitting for a woman to pray to God unveiled? 14 Or does not nature herself teach you that if a man indeed wears long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 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. 16 But if anyone thinks to be contentious, we do not have such a custom, nor the assemblies of God.
I formerly thought that "such a custom" was referring to covering. I don't think it refers to covering at all. The opposite practice of nakedness (not covering) is the matter in question (verse 13). Below, I've substituted the word "nakedness" for "A woman praying to God unveiled".
Why the word nakedness?
- 1) it eliminates the word "not" in "not covering" providing a simplified, non-negative subject (ie. less words, more clear)
- 2) to offset any western cultural bias
Here's a rough analogy for cultural bias: A man looks at a map of the world and memorizes the shape of the continents. A fish looks at a map of the world and memorizes the shape of the oceans. A concave border to the man is a convex border to the fish. The man and the fish would both have to 'take a big step back' to see things the other way.
- 3) I believe that it is an accurate and appropriate word
This is what I understand the passage to be saying: 13 Think about it (on your own): is nakedness a good idea? 14 Obviously 15 not. 16 But if anyone disagrees (saying nakedness IS a good idea), we do not have such a custom (as nakedness)
This message is in perfect agreement with and strongly concludes verses 1-16 as a whole. I do not believe this is twisting the passage but rather untwisting my interpretation.
If the rules of Greek grammar dictate that the word "such" is referring to covering instead of nakedness, then I'm wrong.
ps - thank you for this website and the helpful links
|
|