Question on Virgin Mary
- Thread starter lightMe
- 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.
In 1 Corinthians 11 it is talking about a woman's hair and a man's hair,not a vail.
It says that a man should have short hair for he is in the image of God.It says even nature teaches that it is a shame for a man to have long hair.
It says that if a woman cuts her hair it is the same as she is shaven,but if it be a shame for her to have cut hair,let het have long hair.
It is saying that a woman should have long hair and a man should have short.
A woman should have long hair and if she cuts it,it is the shame as if she is shaved.
A man should have short hair for he is in the image of God.
Jesus had short hair for Jesus was in the image of God.
Matt
It says that a man should have short hair for he is in the image of God.It says even nature teaches that it is a shame for a man to have long hair.
It says that if a woman cuts her hair it is the same as she is shaven,but if it be a shame for her to have cut hair,let het have long hair.
It is saying that a woman should have long hair and a man should have short.
A woman should have long hair and if she cuts it,it is the shame as if she is shaved.
A man should have short hair for he is in the image of God.
Jesus had short hair for Jesus was in the image of God.
Matt
S
muslim women are forced to wear a veil, are they not?. in extreme islam not only the head must be covered but the entire body! does allah require this?
we have freedom in Christianity: we are not forced to do anything.
notice how it mentions shorn heads: a shaved head signalled one was a "temple" prostitute (pagan) - this very thing was still taking place in the church at corinth (shaven heads). paul admonished that group alot over the bringing in of their old pagan ways.
notice how it says, then, that men are not to "cover" their heads: do not muslim men wear the hijab?
A hijab or ḥijāb (Arabic: حجاب, (he-zjab)pronounced [ħiˈdʒæːb]/[ħiˈɡæːb]) is both the head covering traditionally worn by Muslim men and women and modest Muslim styles of dress in general.
The Arabic word literally means curtain or cover (noun). Most Islamic legal systems define this type of modest dressing as covering everything except the face and hands in public.[1][2] According to Islamic scholarship, hijab is given the wider meaning of modesty, privacy, and morality;[3] the word for a headscarf or veil used in the Qur'an is khimār (خمار
and not hijab. Still another definition is metaphysical, where al-hijab refers to "the veil which separates man or the world from God."[2]Muslims differ as to whether the hijab should be required on women in public, as it is in countries like IranSaudi Arabia, or whether it should be banned in schools, as it is in France and Turkey.
and
Still another definition is metaphysical, where al-hijab refers to "the veil which separates man or the world from God."
Most Islamic legal systems define this type of modest dressing as covering everything except the face and hands in public.
According to the Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World, the meaning of hijab has evolved over time:
The term hijab or veil is not used in the Qur'an to refer to an article of clothing for women or men, rather it refers to a spatial curtain that divides or provides privacy.
Along with scriptural arguments, Leila Ahmed argues that head covering should not be compulsory in Islam because the veil predates the revelation of the Qur'an. Head-covering was introduced into Arabia long before Muhammad, primarily through Arab contacts with Syria and Iran, where the hijab was a sign of social status. After all, only a woman who need not work in the fields could afford to remain secluded and veiled.[8][9]
Along with scriptural arguments, Leila Ahmed argues that head covering should not be compulsory in Islam because the veil predates the revelation of the Qur'an. Head-covering was introduced into Arabia long before Muhammad, primarily through Arab contacts with Syria and Iran, where the hijab was a sign of social status. After all, only a woman who need not work in the fields could afford to remain secluded and veiled.[8][9]
This is one area where Islam is obeying the NT better than some Christian women are.This is no Scripture in the NT that says this was just a first-century Christian custom, and Christians today do not need to obey it. People really read the Bible as they want to, not as they should. Whatever they do not like in the Bible, they ignore. Calvinists don't like 2 Peter 3:9, so they ignore it, and they ignore 1 John 2:2. Or they try to explain it away with their hyper-logical system of extreme rationalism. Such rationalism began with Thomas Aquinas in Catholicism and culminated with John Calvin in Calvinism. In any case, wearing a veil would be a good thing in today's ultra-liberal world. Men, too, need to obey God, and keep themselves unspotted from the world. Where there has been seen committed, there is need for forgiveness. I am sure that I have a need for forgiveness . But too many contemporary Christians are ignoring the traditions of the apostles and the teachings of St. Paul. Women should wear scarves on their heads in church, and whenever they pray. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
PS Men do not need to wear a head covering, as the men in Islam do. That is a tradition of men. As for the church where men wear crowns of their office, that is a sign of God the Father and not in disobedience to Scripture. Men can wear head coverings, it's just that it depends upon church ceremony and tradition, which gives us the rites of the church. Scripture alone is not enough to understand the limits of the usage of head coverings. There is no legalism about this. This is all tradition.
Hi Dude
Allah is Arabic for God. If you look in the arabic bible you will find throughout genesis God referred to as Allah.
The worship of the God of Abraham was introduced by Ishmael pbut. As time went on some clown did a catholic thing and said, look why don't we ask this idol to ask God for what we want. Eventually the idols stopped being itermediates and they started praying to them. When islam came their was 360 idols surrounding the Kabah.
Check this link out (hope it comes through)
YouTube - THE Passion of Christ, JESUS CALLED GOD: ALLAH
It is on youtube watch?v=BTSG0YzlGB8
I can't verify it is true because I don't know hebrew but I suspect if you are going to make a whole movie of Jesus pbuh speaking in his original tongue you would bring in the experts.
Allah is Arabic for God. If you look in the arabic bible you will find throughout genesis God referred to as Allah.
The worship of the God of Abraham was introduced by Ishmael pbut. As time went on some clown did a catholic thing and said, look why don't we ask this idol to ask God for what we want. Eventually the idols stopped being itermediates and they started praying to them. When islam came their was 360 idols surrounding the Kabah.
Check this link out (hope it comes through)
YouTube - THE Passion of Christ, JESUS CALLED GOD: ALLAH
It is on youtube watch?v=BTSG0YzlGB8
I can't verify it is true because I don't know hebrew but I suspect if you are going to make a whole movie of Jesus pbuh speaking in his original tongue you would bring in the experts.
D
This is also the word in Aramaic, which is what is spoken in the film. However, the disciples were all hebrew the word in Hebrew would have been Abba. Ishmael was the discarded son and your posting of Islam into a conversation of Mary is far aside. You can't verify the scriptures because you are lacking the Spirit which is actually mentioned in that clip. The HELPER Christ speaks of is the Spirit within all Christians.
I have found generally when a christian has been backed in a corner and cannot explain the errors that have been shown him, they use the You can't undestand the scriptures because you are lacking the Spirit get out of jail card to avoid further debate. It is a dishonest way to debate and this concept was introduced by Paul to explain away all the changes he was introducing to the teachings of Jesus pbuh.
D
Quite to the contrary as we have had this discussion once already and through scripture shown the need for the Spirit to discern. For greater proofs of the truth look through the Gospels as you are willing to do that much and recognise how rarely if never the disciples/apostles actually do acts pleasing to God. However, upon receiving the Spirit they are able to understand and discern the truth found in the Gospel of Christ. The whole book of Acts is then a historical account of the movement of the church upon receiving the Spirit. It was not Paul the poured out the Spirit on the apostles as he was still persecuting Christianity at the time of pentecost. Christ alone saves man, He is the way the truth and the life and none enter the kingdom but through Him. He is the son of God in whom God was well pleased.
Hi Matt
It is interesting how good a christian has become at twisting text to come out with an outcome that pleases them.
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head
It is interesting how good a christian has become at twisting text to come out with an outcome that pleases them.
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head
Post cut off again.
The Corithian verses though the intent is clear speaks of covering of the head. The verses are ambiguous enough to allow a person to dig their heals in and the verses to be interpreted as long hair. Of course if you know what the context those verses were stated in then it might be different.
Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of blessings or prayers in the presence of a bareheaded married woman since uncovering the woman's hair is considered nudity.
Ibid., pp. 316-317. Also see Swidler, op. cit., pp. 121-123.
It is clear that a married women without covering of the hair is clearly a taboo in Jewish law. Where did Jewish law of that time originate from. God. The same Jewish law that Mary and Jesus pbuh followed.
So it is dangerous that Christians have no hesitancy to change the laws of God to make christianity more marketable for our modern times.
The Corithian verses though the intent is clear speaks of covering of the head. The verses are ambiguous enough to allow a person to dig their heals in and the verses to be interpreted as long hair. Of course if you know what the context those verses were stated in then it might be different.
Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of blessings or prayers in the presence of a bareheaded married woman since uncovering the woman's hair is considered nudity.
Ibid., pp. 316-317. Also see Swidler, op. cit., pp. 121-123.
It is clear that a married women without covering of the hair is clearly a taboo in Jewish law. Where did Jewish law of that time originate from. God. The same Jewish law that Mary and Jesus pbuh followed.
So it is dangerous that Christians have no hesitancy to change the laws of God to make christianity more marketable for our modern times.
14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering(1 Corinthians 11:14-1).
This states that the covering that the woman should have is long hair,and a man should not have long hair.
Even if they do not want to believe the covering is hair,the Bible still says that it is a shame for a man to have long hair,and long hair is a glory for women to have,and would that not be sufficient enough for a woman to have long hair and a man to have short hair,so whether a person believes the covering is a veil or hair,a woman should still have long hair and a man should have short hair.
The covering of a woman and the not covering of a man is hair.A woman should have long hair and a man should have short hair.
6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered(1 Corinthians 11:6).
How can this apply to a veil,for what is it saying that if you cut the veil that it is a shame,but if you see the terminology talking of shaven and shorn,it is not talking of a veil,and shaven and shorn can only apply to something that can be shaved,which is hair.What else can it apply to.What else can be shaved that would apply to the woman's covering,that is she shaves would be a shame to her.All I can see is hair and the Bible says that long hair is given to her for a covering.
If this is the wrong interpretation do not blame me but blame Paul for saying it is hair.
To the person that said that the covering is spiritual,and the woman is to be covered,how do you know she is covered if you cannot see it,and it says the woman is to be covered and the man not to be covered,does that mean the woman is to be spiritual and the man is not to be spiritual.
15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering(1 Corinthians 11:15).
Even if they do not want to believe that the hair is the covering,they still should want long hair for the Bible says long hair is a glory to her,or does she not want glory.
The covering is talking about hair,for it says long hair is given to her for a covering.
What am I supposed to do say it is not hair to please woman who want short hair and men who want long hair,or not say it to not look legalistic,and be one of the people that the people who have itching ears that want to hear it their way,want to hear it that way.
Blame Paul if it is the wrong interpretation for he said hair is the covering,and what am I supposed to think something else.
I know we cannot understand it because how can hair make a difference in our walk with God,but since man is the head of the woman,and women should have power on their head because of the angels,which means angels are last in line of the authority structure on earth,then maybe God wants a distinction between men and women according to their hair length.
15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering(1 Corinthians 11:14-1).
This states that the covering that the woman should have is long hair,and a man should not have long hair.
Even if they do not want to believe the covering is hair,the Bible still says that it is a shame for a man to have long hair,and long hair is a glory for women to have,and would that not be sufficient enough for a woman to have long hair and a man to have short hair,so whether a person believes the covering is a veil or hair,a woman should still have long hair and a man should have short hair.
The covering of a woman and the not covering of a man is hair.A woman should have long hair and a man should have short hair.
6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered(1 Corinthians 11:6).
How can this apply to a veil,for what is it saying that if you cut the veil that it is a shame,but if you see the terminology talking of shaven and shorn,it is not talking of a veil,and shaven and shorn can only apply to something that can be shaved,which is hair.What else can it apply to.What else can be shaved that would apply to the woman's covering,that is she shaves would be a shame to her.All I can see is hair and the Bible says that long hair is given to her for a covering.
If this is the wrong interpretation do not blame me but blame Paul for saying it is hair.
To the person that said that the covering is spiritual,and the woman is to be covered,how do you know she is covered if you cannot see it,and it says the woman is to be covered and the man not to be covered,does that mean the woman is to be spiritual and the man is not to be spiritual.
15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering(1 Corinthians 11:15).
Even if they do not want to believe that the hair is the covering,they still should want long hair for the Bible says long hair is a glory to her,or does she not want glory.
The covering is talking about hair,for it says long hair is given to her for a covering.
What am I supposed to do say it is not hair to please woman who want short hair and men who want long hair,or not say it to not look legalistic,and be one of the people that the people who have itching ears that want to hear it their way,want to hear it that way.
Blame Paul if it is the wrong interpretation for he said hair is the covering,and what am I supposed to think something else.
I know we cannot understand it because how can hair make a difference in our walk with God,but since man is the head of the woman,and women should have power on their head because of the angels,which means angels are last in line of the authority structure on earth,then maybe God wants a distinction between men and women according to their hair length.
S
Dear lightMe, here is more truth regarding the ever-virgin Mary, "Facing Up to Mary"
"We do not, of course, worship Mary, for worship is reserved for the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But she is most certainly to be honored and venerated. And because Christ is our elder brother, the first born of many brethren, we honor the Virgin Mary as our Mother, our Lady, as well. Just as Eve was mother of the old Adamic race, so Mary is the true Mother of the new race, the Body of Christ, the Church. ...
"The Old Testament and the Virgin
"We know that the Old Testament is more than just an inspired account of the history of mankind, or of Israel in particular. In its pages -- indeed central to its message -- is also the prophetic record concerning our Lord Jesus Christ. He is typified throughout. Moses was a type of Christ, in that he led the people out of bondage into the land of promise. David typified Christ as King of Israel. Adam was a type of Christ as head of the human race.
"Often overlooked, however, is the fact that the Virgin Mary is also seen in the prophetic pages of the Old Testament. Most Christians are aware that the Prophet Isaiah predicts Mary's virgin conception of Christ when he writes: "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). But there are numerous other passages
"Ever-Virgin
"From the very early years of the Church, Mary was called not only Virgin, but Ever-Virgin. She was seen as never having had a sexual union with Joseph, before or after the birth of Christ. Ezekiel 44:1-2 is a passage often referred to by the early fathers in this regard. It states: "Then He brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary which faces toward the east, but it was shut. And the Lord said to me, "This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut."
"In traditional interpretation of this passage, Mary is the temple and Christ is the Prince of Peace. The gate mentioned is seen as a picture of the door of Mary's womb through which Christ entered our world. You might not find that interpretation is some of today's commentaries, but it was held by the great majority of early Church fathers, as well as many of the Reformation leaders -- notably Martin Luther and John Calvin.
"Virgin Until
"At this point, however, a very valid question can be raised. If she remained a virgin, why does the Gospel of Matthew tell us that Joseph knew not his wife until after Christ was born (see Matthew 1:25)?
"From a Scriptural standpoint, the presence of the phrase "until she had brought forth her firstborn Son", does not automatically mean that Joseph must have had a sexual union with her afterward. In both Greek and Hebrew the word until or to can have several meanings. We find it in 2 Samuel 6:23: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to (until) the day of her death". It is used again in Matthew 28:20 where the risen Christ says, "Lo, I am with you always, even to (until) the end of the age." And in Deuteronomy 34:6 we read, "[Moses was buried] in a valley in the land of Moab, but no one knows his grave to (until) this day."
"Obviously the use of the word in these passages does not imply that Michal had a child after her death, that Christ will no longer be with us at the end of the world, or that Moses' burial place was discovered the day Deuteronomy 34:6 was written. By the same token, the word until in Matthew 1:25 does not mean that Joseph and Mary began a sexual union after Christ was born. Such a teaching is found nowhere in Scripture and is contrary to the consistent voice of the entire early Church.
"Christ's Brothers and Sisters
"But doesn't the Bible also mention the brothers and sisters of Christ? Who were they and where did they come from?
"For one thing, the Scripture never calls them the sons and daughters of Mary and Joseph. In several passages the Bible speaks of near relatives as "brothers." Abraham and Lot were called brothers, although Lot was actually Abraham's nephew. And Jacob and Laban were called brothers, even though Jacob was the son of Rebecca, Laban's sister.
"Scripture is therefore silent concerning the nature of this relationship between Christ and these brothers and sisters. Early fathers differed slightly in their understanding of what the terms meant. Some, such as Saint Ambrose, believed that they were children fo a former marriage between Joseph and a wife who died prior to Matthew, chapter 1. Others taught that they were cousins. But on one point, almost everyone is in agreement: Mary and Joseph had no sexual union whatsoever, before or after the birth of Christ.
"I must say in all candor that had my betrothed been the woman chosen by the Father to bear the eternal Son in the flesh, my view of her would have been utterly transformed, and may honor for her infinitely heightened. Imagine being engaged to the Mother of God. It was so with Joseph. His betrothed was ever-virgin."
[pages 115-18: Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith. by Fr. Peter E. Gillquist. (1989). Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt.. Publishers, Inc.].
Matthew 1:24-25 ONT (Orthodox New Testament): "And Joseph, having been awakened from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took to him his wife, and was not knowing her until she brought forth her Son, the firstborn; and he called His name
Jesus". [pages 2.]. [Note #5 on Matt. 1:25: "He was not knowing her until" (ouk epinosken auten heos). Note the imperfect tense, continuous or linear action, "he was not knowing" or "he kept on not knowing." [page 76.]. The Orthodox New Testament. The Holy Gospels. Vol. 1, Evangelistarion. Buena Vista, CO: Holy Apostles Convent.
God bless and save all of us, through the prayers of the most pure Mother of God. Amen.
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington February 2011 AD