Christ's Commandments

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K

kennethcadwell

Guest
#81
Perhaps the issue is that rebellious people reject the Word of Almighty, and make up whatever feels good to them.
It is that great falling away that the Lord spoke about in the last days, that many will fall away to deceptions of false teaching. It is sad to see churches teaching their members that Jesus 3 1/2 years of His earthly ministry where He taught how we are to walk and the commandments to follow under the new covenant, were done away with at the cross. Pretty much saying His earthly ministry means nothing to us. Then some of these like the new age church go as far and teach other ways to heaven besides the Lord Jesus. Crazy deceptions going on, and at a bigger and higher rate then in the past, and people are falling for it.
 
K

Karraster

Guest
#82
It is that great falling away that the Lord spoke about in the last days, that many will fall away to deceptions of false teaching. It is sad to see churches teaching their members that Jesus 3 1/2 years of His earthly ministry where He taught how we are to walk and the commandments to follow under the new covenant, were done away with at the cross. Pretty much saying His earthly ministry means nothing to us. Then some of these like the new age church go as far and teach other ways to heaven besides the Lord Jesus. Crazy deceptions going on, and at a bigger and higher rate then in the past, and people are falling for it.
reminds me of the verse about receiving the love of the truth, who won't recieve it will be sent strong delusion. I think we all have been deceived in different ways, because we've inherited so many lies. We have to humble ourselves and keep searching for truth, and when we find it obey it.
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#83
Continued From Post #74

-
CC: 75

75) 1Cor 7:10-11a . . Unto the married I command-- yet not I, but the Lord
--let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her
remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.

Supposing one of the spouses sleeps with somebody during the separation?
Is the other spouse supposed to still make an effort to reconcile? NO!
According to the lord and master of New Testament Christianity;
unfaithfulness dissolves the marriage bond.

†. Matt 19:9 . . I say unto you: whosoever shall put away his wife, except it
be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery

Q: May a woman put away her husband for a cause other than fornication?

A: No; of course not; that would be a double standard.

Q: But why are only the husbands targeted in Matt 5:32?

A: The Lord's audience was primarily Jewish and lived under the terms and
conditions of Israel's covenanted law. Under that law, the husbands typically
initiated divorce rather than the wives.

†. Matt 19:7-8 . . They say unto him: Why did Moses then command to give
a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses
because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives:
but from the beginning it was not so.

The Lord's comments were based upon the passage below:

†. Gen 2:24 . . For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be
united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

There is no mention of divorce in the wording of that decree, nor is there
any mention of polygamy either. In point of fact, if I'm understanding the
Lord correctly, prior to rules regulating Christian church officers at 1Tim 3:2,
it was okay for every man to have more than one wife just so long as they
didn't divorce the first simply in order to take up with a second.

According to Matt 19:7-8, Moses premised divorce settlements upon the
hardness of men's hearts rather than upon the hardness of their heads. In
other words; Moses decreed divorce settlements as a safe-guard against
men discarding their unwanted wives like chattel. A proper divorce separates
a woman from her husband with at least a measure of her dignity intact and
also ensures she isn't dumped without fair compensation; in other words:
mandatory divorce settlements force men to respect women as human
beings rather than yesterday's newspaper.

Q: So then; God permits divorce?

A: Webster's defines "permission" as: formal consent; viz: authorization.

Were God to authorize divorce for any cause other than unfaithfulness; then
according to Matt 19:9, God would be condoning adultery. And not only
would He be condoning adultery, but He would also be inconsistent with His
own one-flesh decree at Gen 2:24. The point is; people get divorced
regardless of God's decree at Gen 2:24. Because of that ugly little fact of
life; God requires that if people just have to get divorced; that it be done in
such a way as to protect the women; especially their reputations. If a man
dumped his wife without something in writing, future suitors might assume it
was because she was unfaithful.

Q: But doesn't Gen 16:1-4 and Gen 30:3-10 indicate that God permits
adultery?

A: I am unable to locate wording in either of those passages clearly
indicating that God granted Abram permission to marry his half sister and/or
to sleep with Ms. Hagar; and I am also unable to find wording in either of
those passages clearly indicating that God granted Jacob permission to sleep
with his wives' maids.

FYI: When the Bible's God stands by and does nothing to prevent sin, it
should never be construed to indicate that He condones it because the
Bible's God prefers not to micro-manage intelligent creatures. For example:
the Bible's God could easily have prevented Cain from murdering his kid
brother Abel. Does that eo ipso indicate Cain had God's consent to murder
his kid brother? No. The Bible's God also could have prevented Judah from
sleeping with his daughter-in-law Tamar to produce an illegitimate child who
subsequently ended up in the Lord's biological genealogy. Does that eo ipso
indicate Judah had God's consent to commit incest? No. In some
jurisdictions; silence is construed as consent. Beware applying that kind of
logic to the Bible's God.

Anyway; before meeting my wife in 1979, I was active in a very large
single's group in a church in San Diego. One of the girls in the group had
supported her ex while he was in medical school. You know the story: after
graduation, Mr. Gray's Anatomy dumped her.

That girl was level-headed, young and pretty, had no children from a
previous marriage, drove her own car and had a job. In other words, she
was a good bet; but her conscience wouldn't permit dating since she was
convinced that Christians are married forever. Wishing to be helpful, I
pointed out that if her ex was sleeping with somebody, then Matt 19:9 made
her available. (No, she couldn't accept it; at least not right then anyway. I
sincerely hope she changed her mind some day before the aging process
ruined her looks.)

==================================
 
Last edited:

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#84
Continued From Post #83

-
CC: 76

76) 1 Cor 7:11b . . Let not the husband put away his wife.

There is of course an exception to that rule.

†. Matt 19:9 . . I say unto you: whosoever shall put away his wife, except it
be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery

Fornication in the case of a married woman is adultery; which, in the
economy of God, is a capital crime.

†. Lev 20:10 . . And the man that committeth adultery with another man's
wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the
adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

†. Deut 22:22 . . If a man be found lying with a woman married to an
husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the
woman, and the woman.

Even though there is no death penalty in the USA for adultery that I know
of; the Bible accounts adulterers to be dead-men-walking, leaving the victim
of infidelity free to divorce and remarry. It could be said that in cases of
infidelity, divorce papers are the adulterer's death certificate.

Q: But aren't Christians exempt from Lev 20:10 and Deut 22:22?

A: They are exempt from the death penalty as per those two divine laws
because Christians are not covenanted with God to comply with them.
However; according to Rom 13:1-4 they are not exempt from civil laws that
execute adulterers.

In addition, believers are not exempt from discipline as per Heb 12:5-13. To
see just how extreme that can get, feast your glims on Acts 5:1-11 and
1Cor 11:27-30.

==================================
 
Dec 27, 2014
157
2
0
#85
-
Hello; and welcome to a grass-roots collection of well over 400 specific
items-- beginning in the book of Acts and concluding in the book of
Revelation --stipulating the Lord's rules of conduct for each and every
Christian in the whole world regardless of their denominational affiliation.

Some Christians regard any and all commandments as a throw-back to
Israel's covenanted law. But let me assure them the commandments in my
collection are not those of the first covenant, but those of the second; viz:
Christ's law rather than Moses' law.

†. 1Cor 14:37 . . If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let
him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the
commandments of The Lord.

†. 1Ths 4:1-2 . .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. For ye know what commandments
we gave you by the Lord Jesus.

Buen Camino
/

=========================================
The two Scriptures that you quoted in the OP were both from Paul's writings.
Perhaps you should call them Paul's Laws????
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#86
-
The two Scriptures that you quoted in the OP were both from Paul's writings.
Perhaps you should call them Paul's Laws????
Paul's laws are Christ's laws.

†. 1Cor 14:37 . . If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let
him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the
commandments of the Lord.

†. 1Ths 4:1-2 . .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. For ye know what commandments
we gave you by the Lord Jesus.

=================================
 
Dec 27, 2014
157
2
0
#87
Paul's Gospel in Doubt?

-


Paul's laws are Christ's laws.

†. 1Cor 14:37 . . If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let
him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the
commandments of the Lord.

†. 1Ths 4:1-2 . .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. For ye know what commandments
we gave you by the Lord Jesus.

=================================
I don't know if we can have complete confidence in everything Paul wrote.
Paul had doubts about the Gospel he preached.
Why did Paul doubt the gospel he preached?

Paul said that he received his gospel directly from Jesus.
11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:11-12

But when Paul met the Apostles in Jerusalem he had doubts concerning his gospel.
1 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain. Galatians 2:1-2

Don't you think it is strange that on the one hand, Paul claimed that he received his gospel directly from Jesus. But on the other hand he found it necessary to submit his gospel to the Apostles in private for fear that he had been preaching in vain?

I don't want to sidetrack your Thread into a discussion on Paul but IMO Jesus' Laws should be red letter verses.

 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#88
Continued From Post #84

-
CC: 77-81

77) 1Cor 7:12 . . If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be
pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

78) 1Cor 7:13 . . And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not,
and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

Christians are of course strictly forbidden to marry non-Christians (1Cor
7:39, 2Cor 6:14-18). But even if a potential spouse is a Christian, you may
want to think twice before tying the knot if the other does not believe the
same things and/or the same way. Marriage is hard enough to keep intact
without introducing religious division into the home right out of the box.

It's very common for marriages to start off okay, and then later on to
become religiously divided; like for instance when one of the spouses gets
converted at a Luis Palau crusade. As long as the situation doesn't cause
intolerable friction in the home, the couple should stay together.

†. 1Cor 7:14-15 . . For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife,
and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your
children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

According to Matt 19:9, divorce and remarriage are holy only if one of the
spouses has been unfaithful. So; if a believing spouse divorces their
unbelieving spouse for any other reason than infidelity, and remarries; then
as far as God is concerned, any children produced in the believing spouse's
second marriage will be illegitimate.

Q: Why isn't spousal abuse cause for a believing spouse to divorce an
unbelieving spouse? After all, according to 1Cor 7:15, God has called
believers to peace.

A: Because according to Matt 19:9 the only acceptable cause for divorce is
infidelity. Other than that, the only acceptable alternative is separation.
(1Cor 7:10-11)

It isn't unusual to encounter unbelievers employing clever sophistry to
circumvent Matt 19:9. I highly recommend letting their smooth words go in
one ear and out the other because there is no peace to be obtained by
disobedience.

†. John 16:33 . .These things I have spoken to you, that in me you may
have peace. In the world you have tribulation

One of the "things I have spoken to you" is Matt 19:9. If believing spouses
heed Jesus' instructions, they will have peace. If not; then I think they
should pretty much expect to be out on their own.

†. 1John 1:5-7 . . And this is the message we have heard from Him and
announce to you, that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If
we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we
lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the light as He Himself is
in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His
Son cleanses us from all sin.

79) 1Cor 7:15 . . But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a
sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

In other words: If an unbelieving spouse initiates divorce for whatever
reason; then the believing spouse is in the clear to remarry; but of course
not until the unbeliever starts sleeping with somebody.

80) 1Cor 7:25 . . Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but
I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.

Paul was an inspired man. Though in this instance he doesn't claim to speak
as God and/or speak for God; it's to be expected a man like him would know
the Lord's mind on certain issues without having to ask. That's a pretty
advanced degree of spirituality when somebody's thoughts are God's
thoughts; especially when they are 110% confident that their spiritual
counseling is accepted in Heaven. Too many Christians are wishy-washy.
They have an annoying habit of pontificating their opinions as the God's
truth; when in reality they haven't the confidence to stand up and announce
themselves infallible.

81) 1Cor 7:26-28 . . Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for
you to remain as you are. Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you
unmarried? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned;
and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.

The "present crisis" relates to circumstances that make it difficult and/or
inadvisable to settle down and raise a family, e.g. Jer 16:1-4 and Matt
24:19-22. However, if people are already engaged, Paul says not to break it
off, and quick to point out that marriage, overall, doesn't displease God;
after all, according to Gen 2:18-24 men and women were intended to be
couples rather than solo individuals.

I've heard it said that a man without a woman is only half a man. No, it's far
more correct to say he's handicapped. He may not know he's handicapped,
but when the right girl finally comes along, he'll wonder how he ever got
along without her. In other words, procreation is only secondary in marriage.
The primary purpose of marriage is companionship; viz: if your spouse isn't
your best friend, then your marriage is doomed to be rocky.

I caught a few moments of a televised interview with Valerie Bertinelli one
day and the moderator was asking questions about her 24-year marriage to
Eddy Van Halen. Valerie said it was okay at first until one day, after the
magic wore off, she realized that she and her husband were never really
friends. Valerie was your typical star-struck scatter-brain when she married
Eddy, and too late she realized marrying a man while under the heady
influence of hero-worship is a terrible mistake.

==================================
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#89
Continued From Post #88

-
CC: 82-83

82) 1Cor 7:36 . . If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin
he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought
to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get
married.

We have a saying in America that goes like this: So and so married what's
her name and made an honest woman out of her. Well, most grown-ups
know what that means without me having to say so. The point is: if a
Christian man and his Christian significant other find themselves on the
brink of exceeding the limits of propriety, it's time to tie the knot.

And then too there's the so-called biological clock that stalks women during
their productive years. It's cruel, unthinkable, and utterly selfish and
psychopathic of a man to keep a girl on hold during those years if and when
he's fully aware that she's longing to settle down and have a family of her
own. A man who does that has no clue what the word "honor" means.

83) 1Cor 7:39 . . A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But
if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must be
in the Lord.

When people sound-bite a verse like that one out of context, they run the
risk of coming to some very false conclusions; and one of those is that
Christians can never, under any circumstances, divorce and remarry while
their spouses are alive. Well, obviously they can, under certain
circumstances (e.g. Matt 5:32). However, a Christian ex-wife has to be
careful not to re-marry outside her faith as that would be like jumping from
the frying pan into the fire. (cf. 2Cor 6:14-18)

==================================
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#90
Continued From Post #89

-
CC: 84-90

84) 1Cor 7:17 . . But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath
called every one, so let him walk.

It isn't necessary to follow in Mother Teresa's footsteps in order to serve
Christ faithfully and effectively. Even just keeping a civil tongue in one's
head, and complying with the laws of the land count.

85) 1Cor 7:18a . . Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become
uncircumcised.

It was of course impossible to physically reverse circumcision in that day.
However, there did exist a procedure to ceremoniously reverse it. (cf.
1Maccabees 1:15)

86) 1Cor 7:18b . . Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be
circumcised.

The circumcision in question is ritual circumcision; specifically Judaism's;
which was originally instituted to join a man to Abraham's covenant. (Gen
17:4-14). It was later incorporated into the covenant that Yhvh's people
agreed upon with God at Sinai. (Lev 12:2-3); which is why Paul made this
next statement:

"I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated
to obey the whole law." (Gal 5:3)

The "whole law" to which Paul refers is the covenant that Yhvh's people
agreed upon with God as per Deut 29:9-15. What he's saying is: the
covenant isn't a buffet where diners pick and choose what they want and
leave the rest. No; it doesn't work that way. If a man chooses to undergo
circumcision to become a Jew; well he not only becomes a Jew, but he
becomes obligated to comply with the Jews' covenant; which is a fatal error.

Obligating one's self to the covenant; also obligates God to lower the boom
on one's self with any number of the curses listed at Ex 34:6-7, Lev 26:3
38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69 seeing as how the covenant is a
contractual agreement. If God were to fail to honor His covenanted
obligations; He would be in breach of contract; viz: one's obedience
obligates God to bless; while one's disobedience obligates God to curse.

†. Deut 27:26 . . Cursed be the man who does not uphold the words of this
law by carrying them out.

"cursed be" is grammatically present tense; in other words: disobedience
incurs instantaneous curses upon one's self-- no delay and no waiting
period. Now the scary thing is; though the curses are instantaneous, it is
God's sovereign prerogative to let those curses snow ball till they finally
trigger an avalanche of the wrath of God. He may delay taking action on
those curses; but the covenant does not allow Him to clear them off the
books.

†. Ex 34:6-7 . . Then Yhvh passed by in front of Moses and proclaimed:
Yhvh, Yhvh God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding
in loving-kindness and truth; who keeps loving-kindness for thousands, who
forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the
guilty unpunished.

In other words; the covenant permits God to grant reprieves; but it does not
permit Him to grant acquittals.

Take for example Yom Kippur (a.k.a. the Great Day of Atonement). Even
when the ritual is done properly in full accordance with the covenant-- which
necessitates a Temple and a fully functioning Levitical priesthood --the
people's sins don't just evaporate. They're ritually transferred to an animal
called the escape goat; which is not put to death. In other words: the escape
goat escapes justice and becomes a fugitive; leaving punishment for the
people's sins pending and still on the books; which is a technicality easily
overlooked.

Bottom line is: Yom Kippur-- when done properly in full accordance with the
covenant --is a day for washing off the contamination of one's sins (Lev
16:30) but not a day for acquitting them. Yom Kippur is actually a day to
remember that the curses contractually due one's sins are hanging over
their head like a sword of Damocles; and the slender thread suspending that
sword will be severed when the sinner stands before God to face justice;
which in my opinion is why God instructed His people to "afflict your souls"
on that day. In other words: pity yourselves, because they certainly have
good reason to.

Q: If 1Cor 7:18b is a hard and fast rule, then why did Paul circumcise
Timothy at Acts 16:1-3?

A: That wasn't done to initiate Timothy into Judaism, but rather, so that the
Jews wouldn't make an issue of Paul associating with an uncircumcised
Gentile, thereby self-rendering themselves tone deaf to the gospel.
Similarities to that very same problem exist today; for example: people
obsessed with the King James English translation of the Bible. They will not
listen to a teacher, not even a Spirit empowered teacher, unless he quotes
from the KJV.

87) 1Cor 7:20 . . Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was
called.

In other words: Bloom where you're planted. There's no need to quit your
job and sell your home in order to run off to God knows where and start an
orphanage in some third world country. God can make use of you right
where you are; and that goes for growing in grace and knowledge of God
too.

I once knew a really good Catholic man who felt guilty never going out as a
missionary to a foreign land to help people less fortunate than himself. Well,
I assured him that somebody has to stay back here in the States and hold
down a job in order to earn the money needed to finance missions already in
place.

The ratio of soldiers in the rear compared to the ones at the front is
something like 6÷1. It takes a massive support base to keep guys on the
line out there facing off with the bad guys; all the way from workers in
state-side factories manufacturing war materiel, to the sailors, soldiers, and
airmen moving men and materiel over land and seas, to the doctors and
nurses staffing MASH facilities, to the men and women driving supply trucks
to the front. We can't all be in the doo-doo. Somebody has to be in the rear
with the gear.

So take comfort in knowing that if you're involved in the effort, then you're a
part of the effort; and will be rewarded accordingly. (cf. 1Sam 30:1-25 and
Matt 20:1-16)

88) 1Cor 7:21-22 . . Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned
about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. For he who is called in
the Lord while a slave is the Lord's freedman. Likewise he who is called while
free is Christ's slave.

In Paul's day, not all slaves were lifelong slaves. Some were what's called
indentured slaves; which Webster's defines as a person who signs and is
bound by a contract to work for another for a specified time especially in
return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance. That actually pretty
much describes the situation for the garment workers that used to labor in
sweat shops located on Guam and Saipan back when Senate Majority leader
Tom DeLay was in office.

Some indentured slaves back in Paul's day were also in-service in lieu of
settling their debts with money, or some other considerations; e.g. property
and/or goods and possessions. In "civilized" countries like the USA people
simply file for bankruptcy but that was not an avenue of escape for most
people in Paul's day.

Bottom line is: it's not a sin for believers to be in slavery; but it's more to
the Lord's advantage for them to be free; so he's saying if given the
opportunity to be free: take it.

89) 1Cor 7:23 . .Ye are bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.

The point is; whether bond or free, every believer is indentured to the Lord.
But it is his wish that believers remain free rather than make a habit of
indenturing themselves to humans primarily because a free man's labor
earns him wages: a portion of which can be donated towards the Lord's
work; while a slave earns no wages to donate towards the Lord's work. Also;
a free man is at liberty to move about and make himself a bit more
versatile; while a slave's movements are pretty much limited to their human
master's jurisdiction.

90) 1Cor 7:24 . . Brethren, let each one remain with God in the situation in
which he was called.

In other words: if you're a slave; don't become a runaway slave. Whether
indentured or permanent; bite the bullet: stay put and make the best of it;
always keeping in mind that whether slave or free you answer to a higher
master.

==================================
 

Josefnospam

Senior Member
May 29, 2014
324
55
28
#91
And this is his commandment. "that we believe Jesus Christ is the son of God and love the brethren" 1st John 3 This says a lot.

Believe him and don't forget to love the brethren.............................
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#92
Continued From Post #90

-
CC: 91

91) 1Cor 8:4-13 . .We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and
that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in
heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet
for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for
whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all
things came and through whom we live.

. . . But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to
idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed
to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not
bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we
do.

. . . Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not
become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience
sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be
emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother,
for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against
your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against
Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never
eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

1Cor 8:4-13 can be said to be a codicil to the 14th chapter of Romans.

Putting this into a modern context is pretty simple; e.g. here in Oregon we
have tavern-style restaurants; viz: a section of the tavern is a bar, and
another section is dedicated to dining. The bar sections usually host State
sanctioned gambling machines too and typically off-limits to minors.

Suppose you have Christian friends who seriously feel it's wrong to dine in a
tavern-style restaurant because of the alcohol and the gambling. Though
you yourself might be comfortable in your own mind that there is no sin in
dining at taverns, your friends are not so sure. So if you were to take them
to a tavern, they would be committing sin in compromising their conscience;
and you would be committing sin by knowingly leading them in a situation
that causes them to make that compromise.

†. Rom 15:1-3 . .We may know that these things make no difference, but
we cannot just go ahead and do them to please ourselves. We must be
considerate of the doubts and fears of those who think these things are
wrong. We should please others. If we do what helps them, we will build
them up in the Lord.

A pertinent example is Hooters; where the waitresses are cute buxom girls
filled out in all the right places clothed in short shorts, and clingy tops; so
that the situation is a double whammy of babes and alcohol. Supposing your
Christian buddy seriously feels it's wrong to dine at Hooters? Then you would
be wrong in taking him there for a burger even if you were convinced in your
own mind there is nothing wrong with Hooters because you would be leading
your Christian buddy into a situation that causes him to feel guilty.

The Bible says that Christians should accommodate others to their
edification (edification means to build someone up as opposed to tearing
them down), Well, when we please ourselves to their detriment; that's being
selfish. Some guys feel that cute buxom girls and yummy gams are a God
send, while other guys regard them as the Devil in disguise. The correct
route here is to accommodate the more sensitive conscience.

This is one of those situations that requires that each individual to be
convinced in their own mind whether Hooters is wrong for themselves or
okay for themselves (Rom 14:5) and God forbid that Christians should
criticize a fellow Christian who frequents Hooters because this is indeed one
of those gray areas; and just who are you to legislate the rules for others in
gray areas (Rom 14:3-4). It's unfortunate that there are some very
imperious, domineering Christians out and about who see nothing wrong
with bullying others to compromise their convictions just so long as they get
their own way and everybody conforms to their way of thinking.

For example: it is my own personal feelings that Luke 22:35-36 makes it
okay for Christ's followers to own guns for self defense. Well; a rather
opinionated Christian in one of my Sunday school classes sneered at me for
feeling that way and proceeded to pontificate that Jesus' instructions were
only "preparatory" for the upcoming confrontation with Judas and the crowd
that came with him that night to arrest Jesus. Okay; that's fine with me if
that's the way he feels about it; but sneering at me for feeling my way about
it was really out of line.

=================================
 
Last edited:

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#93
Continued From Post #92

-
CC: 92-98

92) 1Cor 9:7-12 . .Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants
a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not
drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't
the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses : Do not
muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain. Is it about oxen that God is
concerned?

. . . Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us,
because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to
do so in anticipation of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed
among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?

Detractors sometimes find it necessary to criticize the Bible's Jesus for free
loading and imposing on people's hospitality wherever he went. But when
you think about it; the Lord earned every so-called free meal he ever got.
His miracles healed and/or cured thousands of people in Israel during a time
when health care and medical technology were all but non-existent. His
countrymen owed the Lord a huge national debt of gratitude; just as the
Hmong family next door owed Walt Kowalski a debt of gratitude for
protecting them from gang-bangers in Clint Eastwood's movie: Gran Torino.

93) 1Cor 9:13-14 . . Don't you know that those who work in the Temple get
their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is
offered on the altar? In the same way, The Lord has commanded that those
who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

The above refers to the Levitical priests of Moses' covenanted law. The "food
from the Temple" is the showbread, which is supposed to be baked fresh
every day and displayed on a special table. The previous days' showbread
isn't thrown out; but rather, divided amongst the priests. It can also be used
as emergency rations in special cases. (cf. 1Sam 21:1-6 and Matt 12:1-4)

As for the Altar; a number of the sacrifices and offerings the priesthood's
constituents bring are dedicated to not just sustaining a friendly association
with God, but also to nourishing the priests. (e.g. Ex 29:31-32, Lev 2:1-10,
Lev 7:11-15)

In other words: pitch in and help provide your church's full-time pastor with
a decent standard of living. This is not optional; no, it's something that "the
Lord has commanded."

94) 1Cor 9:24-25 . . Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but
only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who
competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown
that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever.

The "prize" that Olympians won back in those days wasn't much. No
medals: just a simple garland for the head consisting of a wreath made with
wild olive leaves from a sacred tree near the temple of Zeus at Olympia. In
time the leaves dried out and crumbled.

The important thing to note in 1Cor 9:24-25 is that the prize isn't a pass into
the kingdom of God. No; the prize is an award rather than a wage; and
there is more than one kind; e.g. Php 4:1, 1Tim 4:8, Jas 1:12, 1Pet 5:4, Rev
14:14.

95) 1Cor 10:6-7 . . Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is
written: The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to play.

The Bible doesn't provide much detail at Ex 32:1-6 as to what went on in
camp while Moses was up on the mountain. But one thing we know for sure
is that there was a golden calf; and the "eat and drink" to which the apostle
refers was a ritual where people sacrificed to the calf and afterwards
consumed the sacrifice as an act of communion with it; sort of like an old
fashioned Passover.

"to play" in Ex 32:6 is from the Hebrew word tsachaq (tsaw-khak') which
means: merriment; viz: pagan songs and dances dedicated to the calf; a
kind of worship revelry; the likes of which in the ancient city of Corinth no
doubt culminated in a drunken orgy. Apparently some of the religions in the
Roman world were pretty wild and sensual, and as a result; very popular. In
comparison; Christianity was dull and boring. Those pagan religions really
gave you your money's worth, while Christianity has very little to offer in the
way of entertainment, except maybe for Catholicism. David Letterman says
they put on a pretty good show.

96) 1Cor 10:8 . . Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them
committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.

That event took place at Num 25:1-9. The fornication he's talking about
wasn't believers with believers. It was believers with unbelievers. In other
words; Christ's followers need to avoid getting romantic with unbelievers lest
unbelievers lead his followers down the primrose path into something
shameful and very unbecoming.

97) 1Cor 10:9 . .We should not test the Lord, as some of them did-- and
were slain by snakes.

That event took place at Num 21:5-9. It's noteworthy due to the fact that
Christ appropriated it at John 3:14-18 to illustrate the necessity, and the
efficacy, of his crucifixion. But anyway, the lesson is that it's not a good idea
to complain about the quality of God's providence.

98) 1Cor 10:10 . . And do not grumble, as some of them did-- and were
killed by the destroying angel.

That incident took place at Num 14:2-38. The "grumbling" grew into a pretty
large anti-God protest. Anon it became violent and within a hair's breadth of
culminating in Joshua's and Caleb's assassination. That was a very grave
moment in Israel's history.

Anyway, Yhvh's people were of the opinion that God assigned them an
impossible task; one that would result in everybody's deaths had they
attempted to obey His orders; viz: a suicide mission. Joshua and Caleb tried
to convince them it wasn't a suicide mission; and that with God on their
side; they would not only survive; but easily succeed. They refused to listen;
and thus became resolutely insubordinate.

Now; the obvious fatal error in their thinking was simply a lack of belief that
God would assist them to conquer the land. In point of fact, they didn't
believe God was able to in spite of all His amazing displays of supernatural
power in rescuing them from Egyptian slavery; and that's what made their
unbelief all the more inexcusable. Most of us today have never seen God in
action; we've only heard tell of His exploits; but Yhvh's people were
eyewitnesses.

Putting this in a modern context:

It isn't unusual for Christians to complain that a number of Christ's
commandments are too difficult. Nobody can keep them so what's the point
in even trying. Well; that complaint is reasonable, I'll admit; but it's also
insubordinate; and worse; it's contagious. If they want to give up trying to
comply with the Lord's wishes; fine; but they really ought to keep their
discontent with his wishes to themselves in order to avoid kindling large
scale rebellion and discontent in the ranks; which will quite effectively end
up thwarting their church's work for the Lord.

==============================
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#94
Continued From Post #93

-
CC: 99-100

99) 1Cor 10:11-12 . .These things happened to them as examples and were
written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has
come. So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall!

Their unbecoming conduct didn't bring about the return of Yhvh's people to
Egypt. However, their conduct did cause them to "fall" that is: fall out of
favor with God; resulting in a number of them dying before their time. That's
still a risk.

†. Rom 8:13 . . For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by
the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

There's nothing mystical about the flesh. It's just Biology 101; viz: according
to that passage; the flesh and the body are one and the same.

Your body's flesh is the source of your human nature and it isn't all that
difficult to define. Webster's says its (1) the ways of thinking, feeling, and
acting that are common to most people, and (2) the nature of humans;
especially the fundamental dispositions and traits of humans. In other
words: the flesh is just simply that which comes natural to humans as
opposed to that which comes natural to God.

The word for flesh is sarx (sarx); which essentially indicates the meaty
parts of either man or beast. The meat of the human body would of course
include all of its organic tissues; including the 3-pound lump of flabby stuff
housed within everyone's bony little skull sufficing for a mind; viz: your
brain is that part of the human body that produces your personality; and
that's really scary.

According to Rom 8:13, I am the person who the organic tissues of my body
have made me. In other words; the "me" that I am today can easily be
transformed into another "me" by little more than a blow to the head. I once
read the story of a woman who was in a very bad auto accident that left her
in a coma for a while. When she came to; the woman was someone else
Her favorite foods were no longer her favorite foods. Her favorite colors were
no longer her favorite colors. She preferred different fashions, different kinds
of music, different hair styles, different kinds of entertainment, and even her
mannerisms were different. She came out of the coma with a whole new
personality. The woman was so unlike her original self that neither her own
children nor her own husband recognized her. They could legitimately ask:
Where is our mother; and what have you done with her?

What happened? Well obviously her brain function changed. The auto
accident had somehow altered its activity; subsequently making her into
another woman. It's somewhat disturbing to realize that we are who the
organic tissues of our bodies have made us; and that those same organic
tissues can make us become someone else; and there is not one thing we
can do to stop it.

Anyway; Rom 8:13 isn't speaking of just one deed; but a life continually
steered by one's natural impulses; in other words: an accumulation of deeds
that individually might be tolerable; but when synergic become quite
insufferable. For example in Gen 15:15-16 God said to Abraham: You,
however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. In
the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of
the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.

There are Christians out there apparently unaware they are gradually filling
up-- via one act of human nature at a time --a book of seemingly
insignificant deeds that when combined become a force to be reckoned with.
This sort of reminds me of the old Blue Chip Stamp days. One Blue Chip
stamp alone was insignificant; but when shoppers filled the pages of a Blue
Chip Stamp book with individual stamps, then those heretofore insignificant
individual stamps could be redeemed for some pretty nifty stuff. In point of
fact, that's how I got my very first baseball glove.

Filling up the pages of a "deeds of the body" book one act of human nature
at a time may take a while; and because of that Christians are easily lulled
into thinking they're getting away with them; sort of like cooking a frog to
death by starting with cold water and gradually heating it to the boiling
point. Poor dumb ol' frog never sees it coming.

100) 1Cor 10:14 . .Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry.

There's that word "flee" again; which in many of its applications in the New
Testament means to run for your life. So you can see that idolatry can have
very serious consequences.

There's more to idolatry than just bowing and/or praying to sculpture and
art. It's possible to be an idolater without even being especially religious.

†. Col 3:5 . . Don't be greedy for the good things of this life; for that is
idolatry.

Greed then, is one of the characteristics of an idolater. In other words:
idolatry is a personality issue rather than only a religious issue. Even
atheists qualify as idolaters if they have a greedy personality; e.g. Wall
Street's investment bankers and commodities traders. Their "golden calf" is
profit.

It's okay to want the good things in life: after all; God has given us richly all
things to enjoy (1Tim 6:17). It's the insatiable desire for good things that
makes people idolaters; in other words avarice; which is never content; no,
avarice always wants more, more, more, more, and then some. Nowhere is
that more rampant than corporate greed which will walk over the dead
bodies of its employees if that's what it takes for a better quarterly report.

I'm not exaggerating. Made-in-China goods merchant Wall-Mart used to take
out life insurance policies on its employees-- not for the families; but for
itself. In other words; it named itself the beneficiary on those employee life
insurance policies so that when one died, they recovered some of the wages
and benefits they had to pay the employee while they were alive and
working for them.

The policies are called COLI (corporate-owned life insurance) policies. But
they're better known in the insurance industry as "dead peasant" and/or
"dead janitor" policies. Wall-Mart isn't the only big business doing this sort of
thing. An attorney for the Hartford Life Insurance Co. estimates that one
fourth of the Fortune 500 companies have them, which cover the lives of
between 5 million and 6 million workers. COLI policies seem to me a
ghoulish way to make a buck; but then it should surprise no one that
idolaters have no sensibilities to speak of seeing as how they revere not
God, but rather the power, the prestige, and the comforts of wealth.

==============================
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#95
Continued From Post #94

-
CC: 101-105

101) 1Cor 10:24 . . Nobody should seek only his own good, but also the
good of others.


That's not saying it's wrong to seek your own good; just wrong to seek it at
the expense of others' good; viz: selfish ambition might be an acceptable
modus operandi in professional sports and big business; but it's totally
unacceptable in one's association with other believers. And there is nothing
new in that; I mean after all; it's just another way of expressing the so
called golden rule; which states: "All things whatsoever ye would that men
should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the
prophets. (Matt 7:12)

It's interesting to note that if people weren't so hard-hearted; there would
be no need for laws that force people to do right by their fellow man.

I once took a city slicker friend out shooting in the Oregon woods with a
cowboy style six-gun. In typical wrangler fashion he yelled yahoo and fired
the six-gun up into the air before I could stop him. It then became
necessary for me to remind my friend that bullets eventually come down and
can quite possibly hit someone off in the distance; maybe even a child.
Drive-by shooters know this, but they're typically psychopathic so it's to be
expected they don't care where their bullets go. However, I should hope no
Christian reading this is psychopathic; but will think about their words and
actions before those words and actions impact an innocent person's life in a
way that's not easily repaired.

102) 1Cor 10:25-26 . . Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising
questions of conscience, for the earth is The Lord's, and everything in it.

A percentage of the meat sold by vendors in Corinth was either blessed by,
or dedicated to, heathen deities. Paul instructed his friends to avoid asking
which was which since it doesn't matter to the Bible's God if the foods
Christians ingest are religiously tainted without their knowledge: and since
it's the Lord's earth, then if He says it's okay; then it's okay.

103) 1Cor 10:27 . . If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to
go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.

In other words, this is one of those Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell situations.

104) 1Cor 10:27-29 . . But if anyone says to you "This has been offered in
sacrifice" then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and
for conscience' sake— the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours.

If you go ahead and dine in someone's home where you know in advance
the food is either dedicated to, or blessed by, a heathen deity, or that when
they say grace around the table it will be to a god other than your own, or to
a sacred personage that you do not accept; then your host is quite possibly
going to come to the conclusion that his religion is just as valid as yours if
you don't protest.

This is not saying that Catholics and Protestants can't eat together and/or
pray together around the table; nor is it saying that Christians and Jews
can't eat together and pray together around the table: not when Catholics,
Protestants, and Jews are all praying to the same God: just from a different
perspective.

I will say this though: if you are a Catholic host, and your guests are either
Protestants or Jews; then for God's sake DO NOT pray around the table to
the Lord's mom and/or to one of Catholicism's many patron saints. That is
extremely offensive to Protestants and Jews, and totally unnecessary
anyway when you can just as easily say grace to the one God common all of
you.

105) 1Cor 10:31 . . So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all
for the glory of God.

==============================
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#96
Continued From Post #95

-
CC: 106-107

106) 1Cor 10:32-33 . . Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the
Gentiles, nor to the church of God: even as I please all men in all things, not
seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

Some Christians have a really nasty propensity of taking advantage of every
opportunity to ridicule Judaism's beliefs and practices. God forbid! Don't ever
forget the lord and master of Christianity is a Jew, a son of Abraham, Isaac.
and Jacob; and takes those kinds of insults very personal. If you don't
believe me just feast your glims on Matt 25:31-46 where the sole criteria
determining which Tribulation survivors go to hell or enter the kingdom is
how they treated the Lord's countrymen.

107) 1Cor 11:1 . . Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

In the Catholic religion, a "saint" is a role model for others. Well, 1Cor 11:1
lists two models for everyone regardless of their denominational affiliation :
Mr. Paul, and his master Messiah Jesus.

†. John 13:14-15 . . If I then, your Master and Mentor, have washed your
feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an
example, that you should do as I have done to you.

Here in the USA people sort of look down on service occupations; for
example housekeepers, sweat-shop seamstresses, yard maintenance, car
washers, gas pump attendants, and fast food and farm labor. But yet those
are very good examples of the proper attitude. It's ironic that capitalists-- by
means of predation, exploitation, plunder, and profits --strive to be on top;
while Christians are supposed to be striving to marginalize all that the
capitalist values and be down low.

†. Matt 5:3 . . Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven.

†. Matt 5:5 . . Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

==============================
 

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,365
186
63
#97
reminds me of the verse about receiving the love of the truth, who won't recieve it will be sent strong delusion. I think we all have been deceived in different ways, because we've inherited so many lies. We have to humble ourselves and keep searching for truth, and when we find it obey it.
I am still rooting out deception 44 years after being converted and baptized.
 

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,365
186
63
#98
And this is his commandment. "that we believe Jesus Christ is the son of God and love the brethren" 1st John 3 This says a lot.

Believe him and don't forget to love the brethren.............................
This says a lot also...

1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

2Jn 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

Written by the same John.
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#99
Continued From Post #96

-
C: 108-112

108) 1Cor 11:3 . . But I would have you know, that the head of every man
is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is
God.

It never seems to fail that somebody will actually attempt to refute Paul's
statement by quoting another of his own statements.

"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were
baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew
nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ
Jesus." (Gal 3:26-28)

(chuckle) Paul pitted against Paul; the clash of the titans, only in this event,
both titans are one and the same titan. Yes, both genders are one in Christ;
but then Jesus and God are one also, yet there is a hierarchy in the Divinity
because "the head of Christ is God"

109) 1Cor 11:4-5a . . Every man who prays or prophesies with his head
covered disrespects his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies
with her head uncovered disrespects her head

That's a little tricky seeing as how the word "head" can refer to somebody's
skull, and it can also refer to somebody's superior. So to clarify this a bit,
I'm going to revise some of the above a little.

"Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disrespects
Christ. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered
disrespects men."

Christian women aren't required to cover their hair all the time; only
whenever they pray and/or prophesy; especially in the presence of men.

No doubt this chafes a number of women whose heart's ambition and joy is
to demean men and assert their independence, but if they don't want to
cover their hair when praying and/or prophesying out of respect for men,
then they should at least woman-up and do it out of respect for Christ's
wishes.

†. John 14:15 . . If you love me, you will comply with what I command.

†. John 14:21 . .Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one
who loves me.

†. John 14:23-24 . . If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching . . He who
does not love me will not obey my teaching.

†. John 15:14 . .You are my friends if you do as I wish.

110) 1Cor 11:5b-6a . . it is just as though her head were shorn. If a woman
does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off;

In other words: if Christian women want to be treated equal to Christian
men, then they should go all out to imitate Christian men by first of all
getting themselves a man's haircut, and leave their hair short all the time
like a masculine lesbian; viz: a butch a.k.a. a dyke.

111) 1Cor 11:6b . . If it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or
shaved off, she should cover her head.

Okay then: if Christian women would be somewhat embarrassed to show up
in church looking like a man and/or a dyke, then then they have only one
other option; and that's to show up in church looking like women. But in
order to retain their femininity whenever they pray and/or prophesy; they
are simply going to have to cover their hair with something or heaven will
have no choice but to assume the worst about them.

112) 1Cor 11:7-10 . . A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the
image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not
come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for
woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the
woman ought to have a token of authority on her head.

The koiné Greek word translated "angels" is aggelos (ang'-el-os) which is a
nondescript word that just simply indicates a messenger. In other words;
aggelos doesn't always indicate a celestial being but can just as easily
indicate a human being, for example Matt 11:10, Luke 7:24, Luke 9:52, and
Jas 2:25.

The identity of the "angels" in 1Cor 11:10 is probably best understood as not
the holy angels of Heaven, but rather the angels of Rev 2:1-3:22; which
aren't spirit beings, but rather, human beings; in other words: church
supervisors; viz: the pastors. In other words: a woman praying and/or
prophesying with her hair exposed is an arrogant way of telling the pastor
that he's no better than she is; which of course displays an insolent attitude
towards the hierarchy that humanity's maker established in the very
beginning.

The wording of Gen 1:26-28 suggests that women were created in the image
of God; they actually weren't; no, according to Paul, they were created in
Adam's image. Where Adam was created directly from dust in the image and
glory of God; Eve wasn't, no she was manufactured not from dust, but from
the organic tissues of an already existing man (Gen 2:21-13). So then, since
Eve was, organically, Adam's first child, then all women, including the Lord's
mom, are subordinate to men due to the principle of primogeniture.

So then, contrary to feminist humanism's rabid protests, women will never
be equal to men in the natural order of things. No, they will always be
daddy's little girl. Ergo: women aren't from Venus after all; no, they're
actually the progeny of Mars.

(Kelly Ripa once made the remark that guys should always pay the
restaurant tab for their dates because women are the ones who have the
babies. Well, my question is, who gave birth to Eve? Since women owe their
existence to Adam, then maybe they should be the ones paying the tab.)

Anyway, what this boils down to is that hair coverings are not costumes or
uniforms; but rather: an indication that the covered Christian women
accepts that she owes their existence to a man, and that women were not
created to be served by men, nor were they created equal to men, nor were
they directly created in the image of God as men were; but they were
created from a man, after the man, in the image of a man, and for the
express purpose of supporting a man. (Gen 2:18-23, Gen 3:16)

When a Christian woman covers her hair with something while praying
and/or prophesying, she's declaring her subordination not just to men, but
even more importantly to Christ. This is probably a mite difficult for
American women since their culture encourages them to compete with men,
to stand up to men, and assert not only their equality with men; but also
their independence. Subordination to men really chafes some women, even
those piously wearing the Christian label; and really puts their professed
devotion to Christ to the acid test. American Christianettes who accept their
place in the creator's scheme of things are pretty rare.

OBJECTION: You've taken those passages out of their appropriate historical
context. In no way are Christian women of today required to cover their hair
in church; nor are Christian women subordinate to Christian men in any
way. That was a mandate given to a particular people in a particular place in
a particular time. And what about Paul's comment : "But if any man seem to
be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" (1Cor
11:16)

RESPONSE: The "custom" Paul spoke of was the practice of heathen women
praying and/or prophesying with their hair exposed in some of the Roman
world's pagan religions. And in point of fact, some of those heathen women
were actually cult prostitutes.

Basically what Paul is saying is that if the pastors of the Christian churches
in Corinth were to allow their Christian women to pray and/or prophecy in
church with their hair exposed, everybody would have to assume they were
immoral. And not only that, but none of the rest of the Christian churches in
the Roman empire were allowing their women to pray and/or prophecy with
exposed hair, and none of the synagogues were allowing their women to do
it either. So; had the Christian churches at Corinth allowed their women to
pray and/or prophecy with their hair exposed; they would have not only
been the exceptions; but also the odd balls and people would quite naturally
begin to wonder what was the matter with supposed followers of Christ
acting like that.

†. 1Cor 11:13 . . Judge in yourselves: is it proper that a woman pray unto
God uncovered?

The answer of course is NO; it isn't proper-- it's insolent, it's inappropriate,
it's disrespectful; and it's conduct unbecoming for women professing to be
followers of Christ and worshippers of mankind's creator. Christian women
ought not to be telling the world they're equal to men, or that they're cult
prostitutes; no; they ought to be telling the world that because of Christ;
they're different; and their hair coverings-- whether a simple scarf or a
stylish hijab --have a pretty amazing story of their own to tell that goes all
the way back to the opening chapters of Genesis.

==============================
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
Continued From Post #99

-
C: 113

113) 1Cor 11:27-30 . .Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord
in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood
of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and
drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the
body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many
among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

The koiné Greek word for "unworthy" is anaxios (an-ax-ee'-oce) which
means: irreverently; which Webster's defines as: lacking proper respect or
seriousness. In other words "sacrilege" which is gross irreverence toward a
hallowed person, place, or thing.

"sinning against the body and blood of the Lord" is very similar language to
1Cor 6:18, which states: The immoral man sins against his own body. There,
as here, we're not talking about suicide and/or homicide; were talking about
degradation; which Webster's defines as the act of treating someone or
something poorly and without respect.

People sin during the Lord's supper when they fail to take it seriously that
the elements represent his body-- not his glorified body; but the one that
was crucified; viz; his disfigured, bloodied body.

†. Isa 52:14 . .There were many who were appalled at him-- his appearance
was so disfigured beyond that of any man, and his form marred beyond
human likeness.

What do you suppose went on during those three hours of thick darkness
around the cross? Well; I'll tell you what went on because I'm not authorized
to keep it a secret. The things that the Romans did to Christ were merely a
warm up for the main event. When the darkness came; that's when God
stepped into the ring; and the gloves came off. When the darkness lifted,
people saw a Jesus so beaten and bloodied beyond recognition that they
couldn't even tell he was the same man.

I have to wonder how ever a father could do something like that to his own
son; especially do that for a world that wouldn't even appreciate that the
injuries God inflicted upon His own son were for their benefit.

"A man ought to examine himself" is an imperative to make double sure that
one's heart is in the right place when consuming the elements. Some people
gulp them down as if they were nothing more than a snack of hot wings and
cold beer during a Super Bowl game instead of a sacred reminder of what
God's son endured to ransom their souls from the wrath of God. Those
people have to expect that a very insulted father is going to come down on
them for that-- maybe not with sickness, maybe not with death, and maybe
not right away; but eventually with something; and really, who can blame
Him?

==============================