Christianese that just needs to stop
- Thread starter Misty77
- Start date
-
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.
*hops over the controversy*
One very Biblical phrase of picturesque speech is, "Hedge of Protection". Every time I think about the phrase, I sorta giggle inside. Can you imagine being a non-Christian, or not initiated into Christian-speak and hearing it for the first time? When I first did, it seemed illogical, because I have never thought of hedges being particularly protective.
Yeah, I get it that in an agrarian culture, where sheep are raised they are helpful and protective... still makes me giggle.
One very Biblical phrase of picturesque speech is, "Hedge of Protection". Every time I think about the phrase, I sorta giggle inside. Can you imagine being a non-Christian, or not initiated into Christian-speak and hearing it for the first time? When I first did, it seemed illogical, because I have never thought of hedges being particularly protective.
Yeah, I get it that in an agrarian culture, where sheep are raised they are helpful and protective... still makes me giggle.
Last edited:
Save the marriage I agree with however in God's eyes and Biblical reason are valid. God knows and sees through our eyes because Jesus understood what it is like to be human but at the same time he sees the bigger picture he can see what no one else can.
And as for biblical reason the bible is God's word more specifically it's the very map of his heart, so if our reason for something as Christians isn't biblical then isn't from his heart
And as for biblical reason the bible is God's word more specifically it's the very map of his heart, so if our reason for something as Christians isn't biblical then isn't from his heart
A
People simply point to the bible and say their definition of modesty is God's definition. But, in reality, scriptural modesty (and yes it is a real biblical teaching positing objective morality) can be applied in various ways to different cultures. Imo, you're right about that.
As usual, Christ taught the right place to begin:
"...first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also." -Matthew 23:26
When I read passages like 1 Peter 3:3-4 and 1 Timothy 2:9-10 in their historical context, I'm struck by how most women in that culture did NOT wear immodest clothing.
Here's what a typical woman in the first century Roman world would have worn daily:
^The stola and yes they wore underwear too.
First century Hebrew women were even more conservative in their dress. Jewish woman typically wore an ankle-length tunic with a head veil. She added a face veil whenever outside her home and the only time she let her hair show in public was on her wedding day.
So in the historical context, it seems to me that Paul is not dealing with half naked women invading Christian assemblies but rather addressing an economic modesty within a new worldview (Christianity was new at the time) and environment that were very liberating environment for women in antiquity (Christian epistemology dispelled a low view of women).
I see primarily a teaching that Christian women not flaunt their wealth through expensive clothes, braided hair and gold jewelry but seek God's spiritual riches instead.
As usual, Christ taught the right place to begin:
"...first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also." -Matthew 23:26
When I read passages like 1 Peter 3:3-4 and 1 Timothy 2:9-10 in their historical context, I'm struck by how most women in that culture did NOT wear immodest clothing.
Here's what a typical woman in the first century Roman world would have worn daily:
^The stola and yes they wore underwear too.
First century Hebrew women were even more conservative in their dress. Jewish woman typically wore an ankle-length tunic with a head veil. She added a face veil whenever outside her home and the only time she let her hair show in public was on her wedding day.
So in the historical context, it seems to me that Paul is not dealing with half naked women invading Christian assemblies but rather addressing an economic modesty within a new worldview (Christianity was new at the time) and environment that were very liberating environment for women in antiquity (Christian epistemology dispelled a low view of women).
I see primarily a teaching that Christian women not flaunt their wealth through expensive clothes, braided hair and gold jewelry but seek God's spiritual riches instead.
A
Oh how far we've strayed. Pornography streams into home across Western Civilization and many of our so-called "leaders" dress like this on television:
^ I can only guess how much a diamond necklace like that costs.
Private jets, 13 mansions and a $100,000 mobile home just for the dogs: Televangelists 'defrauded tens of million of dollars from Christian network' | Daily Mail Online
^ I can only guess how much a diamond necklace like that costs.
Private jets, 13 mansions and a $100,000 mobile home just for the dogs: Televangelists 'defrauded tens of million of dollars from Christian network' | Daily Mail Online
Oh how far we've strayed. Pornography streams into home across Western Civilization and many of our so-called "leaders" dress like this on television:
^ I can only guess how much a diamond necklace like that costs.
Private jets, 13 mansions and a $100,000 mobile home just for the dogs: Televangelists 'defrauded tens of million of dollars from Christian network' | Daily Mail Online
^ I can only guess how much a diamond necklace like that costs.
Private jets, 13 mansions and a $100,000 mobile home just for the dogs: Televangelists 'defrauded tens of million of dollars from Christian network' | Daily Mail Online
Here's what a typical woman in the first century Roman world would have worn daily:
I can't see much in 'scripture' specifically demanding what we in the 21st Century term 'modesty'.
In all probability Yeshua was crucified naked - although I guess he didn't have much choice.
.
Matthew 6:25 and Luke 12:22-23 Then Jesus said to his disciples: "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?"
Mark 14:51-52 "A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind."
John 19:23-24 "When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, ... "Let's not tear [the undergarment]," they said to one another. "Let's decide by lot who will get it...." Many paintings and films depict Christ's crucifixion with Him wearing a loin cloth, but this is consistent neither with scripture nor with the normal method of a Roman crucifixion.
Actually, in the Greco-Roman world in which Yeshua lived, nudity was common-place.
Most 'sporting events' were conducted naked.
I'm an editor, in other words, a word expert. I'm calling out the manipulative language that you are posting by engaging my brain, not my emotions. Your words are blame-shifting because they fault the recipient as being "sensitive" instead of being introspective to realize error in your word choices.
Calling someone emotional (or other allusions to it) is an attempt to discredit them. It's an emotional abuse tactic, and it's something that I have studied extensively.
Calling someone emotional (or other allusions to it) is an attempt to discredit them. It's an emotional abuse tactic, and it's something that I have studied extensively.
We are called to: Exhort one another, Encourage one another, Bear one another's burdens , and much more.
Many (or most) of these 'one another' ministries that we are called to require a level of intimacy that our culture tends to supress.
If, when we bravely share our true feelings, we meet with snide remarks, name calling, or criticism; we reject the opportunity to minister to each other in the love we are called to, and effectively tell God that we are not interested in being obedient!
Feelings must be accepted as real; and sharing them should be accepted as obedience! How else can we minister to each other as we are called to do.
I agree, when posting on a thread: fact, opinion, feelings, and Scripture should be separated and labeled for what they are. However, we should recognize that in principle, the sharing of all of them can be scripturally supported.
Many (or most) of these 'one another' ministries that we are called to require a level of intimacy that our culture tends to supress.
If, when we bravely share our true feelings, we meet with snide remarks, name calling, or criticism; we reject the opportunity to minister to each other in the love we are called to, and effectively tell God that we are not interested in being obedient!
Feelings must be accepted as real; and sharing them should be accepted as obedience! How else can we minister to each other as we are called to do.
I agree, when posting on a thread: fact, opinion, feelings, and Scripture should be separated and labeled for what they are. However, we should recognize that in principle, the sharing of all of them can be scripturally supported.
Last edited:
Since you brought up manipulative language, in your OP you stated, "One cannot save a marriage all by herself." Being a word expert I would encourage you to be gender inclusive with such comments and share the credit where it's often due -- arguably not as often with men as with women, but still often nonetheless.
A
Not in public it wasn't. A refusal to wear clothes in public was treated as a sign of insanity in the first century by Roman authorities and the public looked down upon it as a sign of moral deviance and extreme poverty.
The Jews especially were an extremely modest people weaned on the Mosaic Law and considered public nudity shameful. Also, it's important to understand that biblical scholars assert the word "naked" in the bible is often used to describe a man who is clad only in his undergarment, a tunic that hung to mid-calf.
Your assertion that Jews were wandering around public naked in the first century is patently false and the same goes for the typical Roman pagan.
Read: “Public Dress and Social Control in Late Republican and Early Imperial Rome” by Dr. Jonathan Edmond (historian).
"Men and women were subject to dress as a form of social control, and any deviation in terms of dress was seen as a threat to the social order and was very closely associated in Roman mentality with moral deviance” (Edmondson: 32).
The Jews especially were an extremely modest people weaned on the Mosaic Law and considered public nudity shameful. Also, it's important to understand that biblical scholars assert the word "naked" in the bible is often used to describe a man who is clad only in his undergarment, a tunic that hung to mid-calf.
Your assertion that Jews were wandering around public naked in the first century is patently false and the same goes for the typical Roman pagan.
Read: “Public Dress and Social Control in Late Republican and Early Imperial Rome” by Dr. Jonathan Edmond (historian).
"Men and women were subject to dress as a form of social control, and any deviation in terms of dress was seen as a threat to the social order and was very closely associated in Roman mentality with moral deviance” (Edmondson: 32).
Ah. When I responded to your use of the word 'feelings' in post #41, I was taking the term as 'opinions', as many here are expressing their opinion as to what Christianeze phrases they didn't care for. I never meant the term feelings to be tied in with one's emotions in the way I used it. Of course feelings play a very important part in who we are and am sorry for my ambiguity of words.
And, although Misty was perhaps too kind to mention it, it's a tactic that is often used by men toward women and women's ideas. It's a way of diminishing her idea (that there are terms that are overused to the point of meaninglessness in Christian culture) by focusing on some perceived underlying emotion (she's exasperated, frustrated, etc.)