The emperor has new clothes ! WOWII?!?

[KeptByTheWord]

Out of context!

God said he would do that unless they repented. THATS WHY HE SENT JONAH

NEXT.:heeheehee

LOLO I say

Not out of context. God repented of what he said he would do, and would have done it, had they not repented.

Please show me one time I said in 214posts, It would be wrong to use something that a sinner created or made?

My surf boards are made in Australia buy a guy that has long hair and never wears shoes. But he make a good board.
I gonna ridem!:icecream

LOLO I SAy!


You are the one saying that anyone who does not believe your idea of doctrine, is hell-bound, and that is what all this is about.

And yet, while you are saying that all these people are going to hell, you are using products of their study and consecration to God, to turn around and condemn them.

[Cracker Barrel]

Not out of context. God repented of what he said he would do, and would have done it, had they not repented. That's what I said? Now your trying to claim you thought of it? LOLO!??!

You are full of double speak, You just typed that God would have done it, IN THE WORDS OF MY FRIEND' D.M.
DUUUUUHHHHH!

Besides that, are you saying God is a Lier?




You are the one saying that anyone who does not believe your idea of doctrine, is hell-bound, and that is what all this is about.

And yet, while you are saying that all these people are going to hell, you are using products of their study and consecration to God, to turn around and condemn them.

Please show me where I name anyone of these people?

[KeptByTheWord]

Please show me where I name anyone of these people?


"if the shoe fits"

[Cracker Barrel]

"if the shoe fits"

Who did I name?

[KeptByTheWord]

Who did I name?

"all these people"

... if the shoe fits

:dogpat

[KeptByTheWord]

What was the point of all this... oh yes... everyone who doesn't believe in Mr. Cracker Barrel's doctrine is going to burn. "if the shoe fits"

Ahh... well, this conversation has reached a dead end for me.

[Cracker Barrel]

Ok thanks for the clarification. Ues God has choosen to "bind" Himself by His Word. (Actually that falls under His character/attributes, truthfulness. It is impossible for God to lie.)

So then if it is impossible for God to lie, and let's take it a step further since we all believe Almighty God was manifest in the person of Jesus Christ, who said this:

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 6:37-40

So....will he indeed reject those who come to Him? Will He grant eternal life to those who believe?

He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
Mark 16:16

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:16, 18


I think we've got to ask, if God is bound by His Word, how is He violating it by saving repentant sinners if they don't speak in tongues? Seems He is doing exactly what He said.

Matthew 7:21-23
21..Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22..Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23..And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Romans 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

There will not be one atheist in hell. Everyone there will be believers.

[Jason B]

The problem is, YOUR idea of what 'simply a Christian' is does not exist in church history prior to the 1800s. So, you've got maybe a 50-100 year jump start on us (allegedly), but you're still Johnny-come-lately on the theological scene.

Was just reading through 1 Clement on my lunch break and came across this:

And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves , nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning , Almighty God has justified all men;~1 Clement 32

This is approximately first half of the second century. Long after the death of the apostles, still very early. And we see justification by faith. I've not done a full study and referenced all those who have taught such, with documentation, but I need to eventually.

However, as noted above, and in reference to your claim that what I believe is only a 50 year jump on yall, its worth noting that the 500th anniversary for the Reformation us coming up next year. Prior to that you have Hus, prior to that Wycliffe in the 14th century, teaching the basics of reformed doctrines, which of course trace back to Augustine in the 4th century, and to Clement here, and back to Paul.

I am not claiming I can produce an unbroken line, nor do i see that as a necessity. But the big difference is that throughout church history we see various people in different centuries teaching the basic doctrine of justification by faith, whereas, we NEVER, ever, find even one person or group teaching that speaking in tongues is the normative, universal, initial evidence that one has received the Spirit.

[Godsdrummer]

Was just reading through 1 Clement on my lunch break and came across this:

And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves , nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning , Almighty God has justified all men;~1 Clement 32

This is approximately first half of the second century. Long after the death of the apostles, still very early. And we see justification by faith. I've not done a full study and referenced all those who have taught such, with documentation, but I need to eventually.

However, as noted above, and in reference to your claim that what I believe is only a 50 year jump on yall, its worth noting that the 500th anniversary for the Reformation us coming up next year. Prior to that you have Hus, prior to that Wycliffe in the 14th century, teaching the basics of reformed doctrines, which of course trace back to Augustine in the 4th century, and to Clement here, and back to Paul.

I am not claiming I can produce an unbroken line, nor do i see that as a necessity. But the big difference is that throughout church history we see various people in different centuries teaching the basic doctrine of justification by faith, whereas, we NEVER, ever, find even one person or group teaching that speaking in tongues is the normative, universal, initial evidence that one has received the Spirit.

I was thinking of chiming in on this thread but it seem that you are doing fine without me. Keep it going.

[mfblume]

If people look to the work of the cross as the ONLY THING that earns salvation for them, then I leave their fate to God if they fall short of Acts 2:38. I won't say they are lost. I can't. Only God knows. But none of that removes the fact that the early church preached the information of Acts 2:38 for salvation and it's what we should preach for salvation today. And to count heads to determine if that's true or not is a folly.

[Jason B]

If people look to the work of the cross as the ONLY THING that earns salvation for them, then I leave their fate to God if they fall short of Acts 2:38. I won't say they are lost. I can't. Only God knows. But none of that removes the fact that the early church preached the information of Acts 2:38 for salvation and it's what we should preach for salvation today. And to count heads to determine if that's true or not is a folly.

Bro Blume, you say that the early church taught that, but can you provide any proof of that view?

In this particular instance, I am not asking you for scripture, but particularly historical evidence. For example I quote Clement of Rome a couple posts up, I'd think he falls into the category "early church". As would Ignatius, Irenaeus, Hermas, Polycarp and some others. Where do you find evidence that the early church preached Acts 2:38 as the common salvation, with the same interpretation as the modern day oneness pentecostals? More specifically, where do you see the evidence that the early church believed that speaking in tongues was the normative universal and expected experience in order for people to be saved? Without which they are none of His (to quote Romans 8:9)?

I have no doubt the early church preached Acts 2:38 (or to be more technical, the apostolic preaching revolved around 2 themes- the fact of the resurrection and a call to repentance/belief).....but if you're saying its a "fact" the early church preached Acts 2:38 the same way modern OPs do, please lend some support to that claim.

[mfblume]

Bro Blume, you say that the early church taught that, but can you provide any proof of that view?
Acts 2 shows Peter preaching about Christ's death and resurrection and asencion and that was why the Spirit was poured out that day, and followed that wit htheir need to repent get baptized for remission of sins and receive the Spirit.

Acts 3 shows the same pattern.

Acts 3:15-16 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. (16) And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

Peter says God raised up Christ and because of that, like the people Spirit filled in Acts 2, the cripple was healed. Then he tells them to repent and get their sins remitted, and receive the Spirit just like 2:38.

Acts 3:19-20 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; (20) And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:


The same thing follows in Acts 4:

Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

His name is involved in salvation like in water baptism in Acts 2, and it's salvation from sin.

Acts 4:11-12 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. (12) Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Same pattern in Acts 5.

Acts 5:30-32 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. (31) Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. (32) And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Forgiveness of sins in Acts 5 is remission of sins in Acts 2. And blotting of sins in Acts 3. It's the salvation from sin in Acts 4.

Acts 8 has all Acts 2:38's elements.
Acts 10 does as well.
Acts 19 does as well.
Acts 2 is Jews, 8 is Samaritans, 10 is gentiles and 19 is disciples who followed Jesus' precursor John.


In this particular instance, I am not asking you for scripture, but particularly historical evidence. For example I quote Clement of Rome a couple posts up, I'd think he falls into the category "early church".

Clement was tainted:

The earliest Ante-Nicene writing, The First Letter of Clement, written AD 96, is described as:

"Here we see a version of the gospel which, while reflecting Paulinism, is more strongly influenced by Hellenistic Judaism, and which, in several ways, foreshadows the leading emphasis of later Roman Catholicism" (Richardson, p. 33).

Actually there is the days of the Apostles, which I referred to the early church. I know the title early church extends to 300. But I meant the church alive when the apostles were alive and ministering.


As would Ignatius,

Regarding Ignatius' writing:

"We possess no pure manuscripts of the original Corpus, for in the Fourth Century, the letters were interpolated and six additional ones added... The aim of these forgeries was to gain for the diluted form of Arianism the authority of a primitive martyr. Finally, in the Middle Ages, perhaps around the Twelfth Century, which saw a new development of the cult of the Virgin -- a correspondence between Ignatius and Mary, as well as two letters of Ignatius to John, was fabricated in the West." (Cyril C. Richardson, Early Christian Fathers, p. 81). Irenaeus, Hermas, Polycarp and some others.


Where do you find evidence that the early church preached Acts 2:38 as the common salvation, with the same interpretation as the modern day oneness pentecostals?

The "Apostolic Fathers", or the "Ante-Nicene Fathers," were not inspired of God. These authors were not "holy men who were moved upon by the Spirit of God." Their writings are uninspired. That's why we're told to stick with the foundation of apostles and prophets.

By Jude's time, there was already so much adultery of God's people that Jude had to write about defense for the faith. If we stick to the BIBLE, we get the apostles' doctrine.

John also warned us of this in HIS DAY.

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. (I John 2:18).

He said "many false prophets are gone out into the world," and we should therefore "try the spirits." (I John 4:1)

If that was the case in the first century, imagine the second!

Paul said it would get extremely bad after he left this world.

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. (Acts 20:29-31).

Sorry, I am not going to stand on anything for doctrine based upon the writers outside the bible. And to say there are no Acts 2:38 preachers after the years of the apostles due to their writings is to speak a bit offkey. Only SOME of those writings are even translated, and as I noted, interpolation and who knows what else occurred with the orginals. And, as I said, the actual original writings are lost. Just copies of copies.

More specifically, where do you see the evidence that the early church believed that speaking in tongues was the normative universal and expected experience in order for people to be saved? Without which they are none of His (to quote Romans 8:9)?

The ONLY verse in the entire Bible that indicated to apostles if someone first received the Spirit is in Acts 10 and it is using tongues and comparing to to the Jews' conversion in Acts 2 when we read Acts 15.


I have no doubt the early church preached Acts 2:38 (or to be more technical, the apostolic preaching revolved around 2 themes- the fact of the resurrection and a call to repentance/belief).....but if you're saying its a "fact" the early church preached Acts 2:38 the same way modern OPs do, please lend some support to that claim.

Read above.

Again, who knows what the ante-nicene fathers wrote? We only have copies of copies, and the RCC were notorious for reworking writings like that. We'll be judged by the apostles', Christ's and the prophets' teachings. Not anything after them.

[Cracker Barrel]

Acts 2 shows Peter preaching about Christ's death and resurrection and asencion and that was why the Spirit was poured out that day, and followed that wit htheir need to repent get baptized for remission of sins and receive the Spirit.

Acts 3 shows the same pattern.

Acts 3:15-16 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. (16) And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

Peter says God raised up Christ and because of that, like the people Spirit filled in Acts 2, the cripple was healed. Then he tells them to repent and get their sins remitted, and receive the Spirit just like 2:38.

Acts 3:19-20 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; (20) And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:


The same thing follows in Acts 4:

Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

His name is involved in salvation like in water baptism in Acts 2, and it's salvation from sin.

Acts 4:11-12 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. (12) Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Same pattern in Acts 5.

Acts 5:30-32 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. (31) Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. (32) And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Forgiveness of sins in Acts 5 is remission of sins in Acts 2. And blotting of sins in Acts 3. It's the salvation from sin in Acts 4.

Acts 8 has all Acts 2:38's elements.
Acts 10 does as well.
Acts 19 does as well.
Acts 2 is Jews, 8 is Samaritans, 10 is gentiles and 19 is disciples who followed Jesus' precursor John.



Clement was tainted:

The earliest Ante-Nicene writing, The First Letter of Clement, written AD 96, is described as:

"Here we see a version of the gospel which, while reflecting Paulinism, is more strongly influenced by Hellenistic Judaism, and which, in several ways, foreshadows the leading emphasis of later Roman Catholicism" (Richardson, p. 33).

Actually there is the days of the Apostles, which I referred to the early church. I know the title early church extends to 300. But I meant the church alive when the apostles were alive and ministering.



Regarding Ignatius' writing:

"We possess no pure manuscripts of the original Corpus, for in the Fourth Century, the letters were interpolated and six additional ones added... The aim of these forgeries was to gain for the diluted form of Arianism the authority of a primitive martyr. Finally, in the Middle Ages, perhaps around the Twelfth Century, which saw a new development of the cult of the Virgin -- a correspondence between Ignatius and Mary, as well as two letters of Ignatius to John, was fabricated in the West." (Cyril C. Richardson, Early Christian Fathers, p. 81). Irenaeus, Hermas, Polycarp and some others.




The "Apostolic Fathers", or the "Ante-Nicene Fathers," were not inspired of God. These authors were not "holy men who were moved upon by the Spirit of God." Their writings are uninspired. That's why we're told to stick with the foundation of apostles and prophets.

By Jude's time, there was already so much adultery of God's people that Jude had to write about defense for the faith. If we stick to the BIBLE, we get the apostles' doctrine.

John also warned us of this in HIS DAY.

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. (I John 2:18).

He said "many false prophets are gone out into the world," and we should therefore "try the spirits." (I John 4:1)

If that was the case in the first century, imagine the second!

Paul said it would get extremely bad after he left this world.

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. (Acts 20:29-31).

Sorry, I am not going to stand on anything for doctrine based upon the writers outside the bible. And to say there are no Acts 2:38 preachers after the years of the apostles due to their writings is to speak a bit offkey. Only SOME of those writings are even translated, and as I noted, interpolation and who knows what else occurred with the orginals. And, as I said, the actual original writings are lost. Just copies of copies.



The ONLY verse in the entire Bible that indicated to apostles if someone first received the Spirit is in Acts 10 and it is using tongues and comparing to to the Jews' conversion in Acts 2 when we read Acts 15.



Read above.

Again, who knows what the ante-nicene fathers wrote? We only have copies of copies, and the RCC were notorious for reworking writings like that. We'll be judged by the apostles', Christ's and the prophets' teachings. Not anything after them.

Having said all this, I can only wonder... why you wouldn't believe the same way in regards to holiness and separation from da world? Jewelry (not jewels), women cutting their hair, make-up, dresses for men, and pants on women?

I mean, I agree with 99.9% of what you've written here dis is good, and the last post too. Thank you for da laborious task of responding the way you did with much study and information.

Shouldn't we take this approach with such an important subject as Holiness and works of righteousness? I do and most if not all UCs do to.

Hang Ten!?!

[shazeep]

they called Jesus a gluttonous man and wine bibber, CB.

[FlamingZword]

Having said all this, I can only wonder... why you wouldn't believe the same way in regards to holiness and separation from da world? Jewelry (not jewels), women cutting their hair, make-up, dresses for men, and pants on women?

I mean, I agree with 99.9% of what you've written here dis is good, and the last post too. Thank you for da laborious task of responding the way you did with much study and information.

Shouldn't we take this approach with such an important subject as Holiness and works of righteousness? I do and most if not all UCs do to.

Hang Ten!?!

The Apostle Paul did not mentioned or made any reference to Jewelry, Women cutting their hair, make-up, dresses for men and pants on women.

Do not attempt to add your man made doctrines to the pure word of God.

[Cracker Barrel]

The Apostle Paul did not mentioned or made any reference to Jewelry, Women cutting their hair, make-up, dresses for men and pants on women.

Do not attempt to add your man made doctrines to the pure word of God.

:spit

[mfblume]

CB, I go by the Bible. Nothing but the bible. :D

[Cracker Barrel]

CB, I go by the Bible. Nothing but the bible. :D

Yes that’s what you say, but in reality you skip over these verses and explain them away.

(Clothing)
Deuteronomy 22:5
5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.


(Hair)
1Corinthians 11:4-16
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For 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.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

( Jewelry and makeup )
1Tomothy 2:8-10
8. I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10. But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

(Jewelry and modest clothing)
1Peter 3:3-5
3. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4. But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

5. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

Peter Paul and Moses agree with God. It's in the Book!
LOLO I SAY ?!?!?

[Cracker Barrel]

Jason B.

I have heard that you claim that u used to be a UC. What makes you say dat? What makes you think you were one of us? Just curious, really what did you believe that make you think you were a UC?

Tanks in advance!

[shazeep]

CB, I go by the Bible. Nothing but the bible. :D:spit you're scared to death of the Bible, wadr. You won't hardly go near It, and you've demonstrated that repeatedly.

[Godsdrummer]

CB, I go by the Bible. Nothing but the bible. :D

:spit you're scared to death of the Bible, wadr. You won't hardly go near It, and you've demonstrated that repeatedly.

I would not say that, I have been on the forum for years and one thing I can say is Mike is in the word. But traditions are hard to break, I know I am still on the road to breaking traditions in my life. I have been a Christian almost 60 years.

And this Acts 2:38 thing is one of the hardest traditions to break. As is the holiness standards tradition. But Mike has broken out of the tradition of futurism, and holiness standards. I say two out of three is not bad.

Just saying.

[shazeep]

ya, good point :)

[mfblume]

Yes that’s what you say, but in reality you skip over these verses and explain them away.

No I don't.

(Clothing)
Deuteronomy 22:5
5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

When was the first time men started wearing pants, after men's apparel was robes for millennia? Why did you accept that changeover? The method you're using here is is that ancient apparel suited to a certain sex must be maintained. That being the case, you changed that maxim when you accepted the transition of robes to pants for men. And there is nothing wrong with that. But it becomes a problem when you accept a change before you were born with men, but not one since you were born with women.

Culture determines the clothes that pertain to a man or woman. And culture changes.

In fact, everyone wore robes back then, women included. But when that changed, you accepted the change. We;;l that has changed again for women as well to slacks. And modest slacks do exist. But while you accept one form of change you did not accept the other.


(Hair)
1Corinthians 11:4-16
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For 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.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

First of all, it is not talking about sin but shame.

Secondly Paul wrote to them as though they knew better than to do what they were doing. Where did they get that knowing? From the bible? No. The bible does not dictate anything before Corinthians about the issue. So, it was a cultural issue. In fact, if you read the chapter before in 1` Cor 10, it continues into chapter 10 saying they should follow Paul, and it was talking about refusal to offend someone.

And the issue was a veil on a woman, not hair. And the only reason hair =is mentioned is because nature shows his argument for a veil from appearance. A woman looks glorious in
long hair. But it is not speaking about uncut hair, since that is ADDING to the scripture. How do I know? You have to change the definition of HAVE LONG HAIR from verse 14 to verse 15. It says what a woman does -- have long hair - is a shame for a man but not her. That means the HAVE LONG HAIR must mean the same thing in both verses. So if you think a woman cannot trim her heir than you contradict your whole belief. How? You make it say if a man have untrimmed hair it's a shame, but if a woman have untrimmed hair it's a glory. That means a man can have hair down his back and KEEP IT TRIMMED, because it's not your definition of LONG HAIR if it is trimmed. You say it's not long hair in verse 15 if a woman trims it. That means it's not long hair for a man if he trims it as well, since the terms must mean the same in both verses.

( Jewelry and makeup )
1Tomothy 2:8-10
8. I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10. But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

(Jewelry and modest clothing)
1Peter 3:3-5
3. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4. But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

5. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

Peter Paul and Moses agree with God. It's in the Book!
LOLO I SAY ?!?!?

Those verses are not saying women should never wear gold or any jewelry at all, but rather jewelry should not be their focus for what adorns and makes them beautiful. It must be her modest heart. IOW, if her heart is filled with what makes her more beautiful being jewelry, her heart goes undone and can be wicked and she will go way overboard with the stuff. But if she wears jewelry but does not focus on that as what is true adornment, and knows it's a quiet spirit that is truly her beauty, she is godly.

How do I know? Because otherwise Ezekiel 16 has GOD using Jerusalem as a woman and the tabernacle trappings of gold and jewels and silver as jewelry he gave to her when he married her. He used jewelry symbolically. If jewelry was evil and sinful to wear, then God would not use it as a symbol of GOOD THING. That would be like God saying he loves the church as a homosexual man loves another homosexual man. God would never say that because homosexuality is sinful.

So, IOW, I see your views on these issues as contradictory to themselves. They are traditional views that are offkey and results of misinterpretation. But I see grace for all of this, and would gladly keep those same beliefs if I was in a fellowship where the brethren believed them, due to Roman 14 and 1 Cor 8 and chapter 10 about having liberty to myself in some things and not offending others.

[mfblume]

:spit you're scared to death of the Bible, wadr. You won't hardly go near It, and you've demonstrated that repeatedly.

You must be looking in the mirror. Any time you make accusations about me and what I believe in comparison with the bible, I challenge you on a statement where you provide no biblical substance for your beliefs of the bible, you never answer. And I am there quoting bible over and over again, and you won't.

You sir, twist the bible more than Chubby Checker twisted during concerts for his hit single.

[shazeep]

ya, look, i'm sorry, i realize you are being led there, it isn't your fault. My apologies.
Your first love almost surely was not "everyone who does not believe like i do is lost."
Hope we can agree on that anyway.

[Jason B]

Jason B.

I have heard that you claim that u used to be a UC. What makes you say dat? What makes you think you were one of us? Just curious, really what did you believe that make you think you were a UC?

Tanks in advance!

Converted into a very conservative UPC church in early 2000. Of course believed Acts 2:38 as taught by 3 steppers. Not only believed that but believed that, but that all trinitarians were lost, all churches false outside of the oneness movement, but that even those oneness compromisers who associated with trinitarians or who didn't adhere to holiness standards, were lost. Believed anyone not believing oneness was lost, even if baptized in Jesus name, and it goes nearly without saying that anyone not baptized in Jesus name was also lost. Anyone who claimed to be born again yet didn't speak in tongues was deceived and did not belong to Christ per Romans 8:9.

I wasn't raised in it, had no family in it. I converted and went all in. Put my TV on the curb, also trashed all my CDs, my wife threw out her pants, everything we were told to do for the sake of holiness, we did. No cut hair, no makeup, no jewelry, no fingernail polish, no more wearing shorts, no sporting events, no recreational sports leagues (such as mens softball.....of the devil, the spirit of emulations).

We didn't go to amusement parks, didnt do much of anything but go to church and work.

I don't know if you've ever seen the Bible Study "why do pentecostals/why don't pentecostals?" Used to be availble from PPH as a bookmark. But we went through that study, and did it to a T.

It was the second Bible study, the first was Rightly Dividing the Word, i think the guys name was Larry Smith. I'm pretty sure Bro. Blume was with him for a while. Those 2 studies were very conservative, and formed the foundation of what I believed, how I lived, and how I read and interpreted the Bible. The harder the preaching the better. No wedding rings, no watches. Nothing.

I remember listening to a Lee Westburg tape from Kansas camp meeting over and over again, I think it was called "A Self Examination" in which he laid out the 3 step doctrine and condemned all others as strongly as possible, at one point drawing from the story of Phineas on the law screaming out "i wish someone would put a spear through the heart of these trinitarian lovin' dudes." I was all for that stuff. Preach it hard, call out the compromisers, let all the baptists, methodists, lutherans, presbyterians, and so on know they are damned, and they better repent and get baptized in Jesus name.

I did damage to most personal relationships in my life whether friends, co workers, or families, for not only being so strong on 3 step doctrine, but on holiness.

I remember as I spent time in the UPC and waa no longer a new convert, when I began to see and notice inconsistencies, like a preacher with a vcr hooked to a computer monitor, hidden away in a cabinet, or one with tv in a back bedroom, or one that let their child wear shorts and play on a basketball team... and a few wearing wedding rings, i was disgusted by the compromise and when i moved and went into a indy OP holiness church, began to become even more critical of the direction of compromise I saw in the UPC. I was a UC and somehow managed to move even more to the right....

When I realized I had it wrong, it was nearly the most humbling thing I've ever experienced. I not only witnessed but taught many Bible studies and preached it. As I said earlier in this thread, I loved being an OP, being right, the standards didnt bother me, they were reasonable service. I didn't leave because I was looking for a way put, I left because the scripture doesn't teach those things, and I had to face it.

The most humbling thing wasn't understanding I was wrong, it was when God showed me my own self righteousness, judgmental spirit, and works-righteousness. All those years, I always thought despite my doctrine I was kind, and despite standards I wasn't legalistic. It took being on the outside to see my errors of attitude/heart/spirit.

[Cracker Barrel]

:highfive:happydance:thumbsup:yourock:spit you're scared to death of the Bible, wadr. You won't hardly go near It, and you've demonstrated that repeatedly.

[Cracker Barrel]

Converted into a very conservative UPC church in early 2000. Of course believed Acts 2:38 as taught by 3 steppers. Not only believed that but believed that, but that all trinitarians were lost, all churches false outside of the oneness movement, but that even those oneness compromisers who associated with trinitarians or who didn't adhere to holiness standards, were lost. Believed anyone not believing oneness was lost, even if baptized in Jesus name, and it goes nearly without saying that anyone not baptized in Jesus name was also lost. Anyone who claimed to be born again yet didn't speak in tongues was deceived and did not belong to Christ per Romans 8:9.

I wasn't raised in it, had no family in it. I converted and went all in. Put my TV on the curb, also trashed all my CDs, my wife threw out her pants, everything we were told to do for the sake of holiness, we did. No cut hair, no makeup, no jewelry, no fingernail polish, no more wearing shorts, no sporting events, no recreational sports leagues (such as mens softball.....of the devil, the spirit of emulations).

We didn't go to amusement parks, didnt do much of anything but go to church and work.

I don't know if you've ever seen the Bible Study "why do pentecostals/why don't pentecostals?" Used to be availble from PPH as a bookmark. But we went through that study, and did it to a T.

It was the second Bible study, the first was Rightly Dividing the Word, i think the guys name was Larry Smith. I'm pretty sure Bro. Blume was with him for a while. Those 2 studies were very conservative, and formed the foundation of what I believed, how I lived, and how I read and interpreted the Bible. The harder the preaching the better. No wedding rings, no watches. Nothing.

I remember listening to a Lee Westburg tape from Kansas camp meeting over and over again, I think it was called "A Self Examination" in which he laid out the 3 step doctrine and condemned all others as strongly as possible, at one point drawing from the story of Phineas on the law screaming out "i wish someone would put a spear through the heart of these trinitarian lovin' dudes." I was all for that stuff. Preach it hard, call out the compromisers, let all the baptists, methodists, lutherans, presbyterians, and so on know they are damned, and they better repent and get baptized in Jesus name.

I did damage to most personal relationships in my life whether friends, co workers, or families, for not only being so strong on 3 step doctrine, but on holiness.

I remember as I spent time in the UPC and waa no longer a new convert, when I began to see and notice inconsistencies, like a preacher with a vcr hooked to a computer monitor, hidden away in a cabinet, or one with tv in a back bedroom, or one that let their child wear shorts and play on a basketball team... and a few wearing wedding rings, i was disgusted by the compromise and when i moved and went into a indy OP holiness church, began to become even more critical of the direction of compromise I saw in the UPC. I was a UC and somehow managed to move even more to the right....

When I realized I had it wrong, it was nearly the most humbling thing I've ever experienced. I not only witnessed but taught many Bible studies and preached it. As I said earlier in this thread, I loved being an OP, being right, the standards didnt bother me, they were reasonable service. I didn't leave because I was looking for a way put, I left because the scripture doesn't teach those things, and I had to face it.

The most humbling thing wasn't understanding I was wrong, it was when God showed me my own self righteousness, judgmental spirit, and works-righteousness. All those years, I always thought despite my doctrine I was kind, and despite standards I wasn't legalistic. It took being on the outside to see my errors of attitude/heart/spirit.

sounds to me like a basic Apostolic background, right of center. One thing that was a revelation to me when I was a young preacher, in going to different churches. Seeing the diversity of the OP movement, the standards, the stand men took on doctrinal issues, and such. Was.. God put it deep in my spirit, I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE.
I'm not there Pastor, I'm not there conscience, and I am definitely not they're God.

I am not responsible for anyone except me and my family. That is of course until you pastor, Then you're responsible for everyone that sits under oversight.

Peace!

[mfblume]

:highfive:happydance:thumbsup:yourock

It's like Herod and Pilate slapping each other on the back after being sworn enemies since they seemed to find a common enemy.

[Amanah]

I guess it’s good we have differences to argue over, it keeps us together, so in a weird way, it’s a blessing. :hug3

[Cracker Barrel]

It's like Herod and Pilate slapping each other on the back after being sworn enemies since they seemed to find a common enemy.

Hahaha! And I guess that makes you yeezus.:laffatu

[mfblume]

Hahaha! And I guess that makes you yeezus.:laffatu

I'm in good company.

[Cracker Barrel]

Ill work on this as I have time in between coconut, poi and deep pit Pig.


No I don't.
When was the first time men started wearing pants, after men's apparel was robes for millennia? Why did you accept that changeover? The method you're using here is is that ancient apparel suited to a certain sex must be maintained. That being the case, you changed that maxim when you accepted the transition of robes to pants for men. And there is nothing wrong with that. But it becomes a problem when you accept a change before you were born with men, but not one since you were born with women. Culture determines the clothes that pertain to a man or woman. And culture changes. In fact, everyone wore robes back then, women included. But when that changed, you accepted the change. We;;l that has changed again for women as well to slacks. And modest slacks do exist. But while you accept one form of change you did not accept the other.


Men wore a type of pants from the beginning. See (Exodus 28:42) The Garment had always been different between a man and a woman. In ancient time the man had always been the provider. Whether in Work, hunting to bring food home or in battle to protect a village or nation. The garment for a man was multi coverings and had different uses and made differently depending on the situation. Without getting into the long discourse about the garments unrelated to the topic, I will focus on the Robe or inner Tunic, Belt or girdle and breeches. These articles of clothing are the most defining of the genders.

First the Loin Cloth or breeches was usually made of a soft leather and used to protect a mans loins, also use to hold money and weapons. It would wrap around the waist and also underneath, loose for comfort. (Exodus 28:42) The tunic had a separation and would open and unfold (similar to a sarong). This type of garment was different to that of a woman’s not only because the man may use the facilities standing (1Sam 25:22, 25:34 etc..) but also that he could wrap the edge of one side of the Skirt between his legs and up around the rear to the side and tuck it in to the waist belt or girdle. The perfect picture of pants. Then he could freely fight, work, or hunt like a man. (2Kings 4:29, 9:1, Job 38:3, 40:7, Isaiah 32:11, Jeremiah 1:17, Ezekiel 44:18, 1Peter 1:13)

A woman’s garment on the other hand were different. Women in those days did not hunt,fight or work the same jobs as a man, like our backwards world today, they were the keepers of the home. They did not wear da Breeches they wore da skirt. The tunic or skirt of a woman had no separation. It was made solid and woven into one piece to accommodate her in her privacy and most notably there was no way for her to (gird up her Loins) the makeup of the skirt was always a skirt. In fact the woman had only to grab thru her legs grabbing the bottom hem of the rear of the skirt pulling it forward in order to hold the skirt while making food or washing clothes in the river, and suchlike.

(men)
“Underneath the tunic they would wear either a loincloth (girdle), or a small waist covering. The girdle was often made of leather or cloth and was used to hold the tunic to the waist. Many times it was also used to hold money, tools or weapons. When men needed more ability to work, run, or fight, they would tuck the hem of the tunic into the girdle to gain greater freedom and movement. This action was called “girding up the loins” and the phrase became a metaphor for 'getting ready or being prepared."

When a man was getting ready to work, or preparing for battle, he put a loincloth around his waist; then he tucked up his robe so his legs would not be hindered.”

As you can see the evolution of what we have today as pants was found from the beginning. this is not something that just happened upon us. There is nothing that can justify a woman wearing pants. Or for dat matter a man wearing a dress.

Pleas readem bruda;

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/clothing.htm
http://christianity.yoexpert.com/christianity-general/the-meaning-of-1-peter-1-13-gird-up-the-loins-of-1851.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/loins/
http://www.unlessthelordmagazine.com/articles/Clothing%20and%20Modesty.htm
http://www.jesus-messiah.com/html/skirts-men.html
http://newtestamentchurch.org/OPA/Articles/1986/07/bible_principles_of_dress_for.htm
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/july-august/biblical-meaning-of-clothing.html
http://www.bible-archaeology.info/clothes.htm
http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/womens-lives-in-biblical-times-9780567398307/
http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/Pictures/Dress.htm

Desclaimer- I am not endorsing deez websites in all of their opinions or research, just making an observation of countless archeological, historical and biblical references in reference to bible dress.

LOLO?!

[shazeep]

It took being on the outside to see my errors of attitude/heart/spirit.gut/heart/mind. all 3 agree. very nice. tell them how satan was screaming at you, that you were messing up, you got a story there maybe

[shazeep]

As you can see the evolution of what we have today as pants was found from the beginning. this is not something that just happened upon us. There is nothing that can justify a woman wearing pants. Or for dat matter a man wearing a dress.:lol so, if i can find an OP church in the world where guys wear what you would call a skirt, and/or women wear pants, then you would have issues with that. Is that what you are saying, Ke Aloha? Don't you guys wear malos anymore? :)

[mfblume]

Ill work on this as I have time in between coconut, poi and deep pit Pig.



Men wore a type of pants from the beginning. See (Exodus 28:42) The Garment had always been different between a man and a woman. In ancient time the man had always been the provider. Whether in Work, hunting to bring food home or in battle to protect a village or nation. The garment for a man was multi coverings and had different uses and made differently depending on the situation. Without getting into the long discourse about the garments unrelated to the topic, I will focus on the Robe or inner Tunic, Belt or girdle and breeches. These articles of clothing are the most defining of the genders.

First the Loin Cloth or breeches was usually made of a soft leather and used to protect a mans loins, also use to hold money and weapons. It would wrap around the waist and also underneath, loose for comfort. (Exodus 28:42) The tunic had a separation and would open and unfold (similar to a sarong). This type of garment was different to that of a woman’s not only because the man may use the facilities standing (1Sam 25:22, 25:34 etc..) but also that he could wrap the edge of one side of the Skirt between his legs and up around the rear to the side and tuck it in to the waist belt or girdle. The perfect picture of pants. Then he could freely fight, work, or hunt like a man. (2Kings 4:29, 9:1, Job 38:3, 40:7, Isaiah 32:11, Jeremiah 1:17, Ezekiel 44:18, 1Peter 1:13)

A woman’s garment on the other hand were different. Women in those days did not hunt,fight or work the same jobs as a man, like our backwards world today, they were the keepers of the home. They did not wear da Breeches they wore da skirt. The tunic or skirt of a woman had no separation. It was made solid and woven into one piece to accommodate her in her privacy and most notably there was no way for her to (gird up her Loins) the makeup of the skirt was always a skirt. In fact the woman had only to grab thru her legs grabbing the bottom hem of the rear of the skirt pulling it forward in order to hold the skirt while making food or washing clothes in the river, and suchlike.

(men)
“Underneath the tunic they would wear either a loincloth (girdle), or a small waist covering. The girdle was often made of leather or cloth and was used to hold the tunic to the waist. Many times it was also used to hold money, tools or weapons. When men needed more ability to work, run, or fight, they would tuck the hem of the tunic into the girdle to gain greater freedom and movement. This action was called “girding up the loins” and the phrase became a metaphor for 'getting ready or being prepared."

When a man was getting ready to work, or preparing for battle, he put a loincloth around his waist; then he tucked up his robe so his legs would not be hindered.”

As you can see the evolution of what we have today as pants was found from the beginning. this is not something that just happened upon us. There is nothing that can justify a woman wearing pants. Or for dat matter a man wearing a dress.

Pleas readem bruda;

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/clothing.htm
http://christianity.yoexpert.com/christianity-general/the-meaning-of-1-peter-1-13-gird-up-the-loins-of-1851.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/loins/
http://www.unlessthelordmagazine.com/articles/Clothing%20and%20Modesty.htm
http://www.jesus-messiah.com/html/skirts-men.html
http://newtestamentchurch.org/OPA/Articles/1986/07/bible_principles_of_dress_for.htm
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/july-august/biblical-meaning-of-clothing.html
http://www.bible-archaeology.info/clothes.htm
http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/womens-lives-in-biblical-times-9780567398307/
http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/Pictures/Dress.htm

Desclaimer- I am not endorsing deez websites in all of their opinions or research, just making an observation of countless archeological, historical and biblical references in reference to bible dress.

LOLO?!

God made them both coats of skins.

Drop mic...

[Cracker Barrel]

God made them both coats of skins.

Drop mic...

My clothes and my wife's clothes are made out of cotton.

Next!

[Godsdrummer]

Seems to me someone only looks at things from a slanted point of view. How can one say men did not wear robes when God commanded the priest to wear breeches to cover their nakedness when performing the work in the tabernacle.

Exo_28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

[shazeep]

Seems to me someone only looks at things from a slanted point of view.and this is likely stretching it, allowing that the things have been seen at all, which i doubt. and which i also do. note the moose, sniffing at his death, actually touching it with his nose, without seeing it.

[good samaritan]

Does anyone think that the lady trendsetters that brought in pants being fashionable in our nation had some spiritual problems? Most women today probably don't wear pants in rebellion or anything. It truly has become a cultural norm for ladies to wear slacks. I think it is best for a lady to still where dresses, but I think there are much bigger problems. like beer drinking preachers lol.

Without a doubt dresses are more feminine in appearance in our society.

[shazeep]

Does anyone think that the lady trendsetters that brought in pants being fashionable in our nation had some spiritual problems?definitely.

Most women today probably don't wear pants in rebellion or anything. It truly has become a cultural norm for ladies to wear slacks. I think it is best for a lady to still where dresses, but I think there are much bigger problems. like beer drinking preachers lol.ha. well i don't know any beer drinking preachers--except the ones in Germany--and if i did, i would agree with you anyway, for the same reason i agree with you on the ladies. One's practices should not offend those who look up to them; and as for those who look down on them, well, waddaya gonnado.

Without a doubt dresses are more feminine in appearance in our society.ergo, women were compelled in their spirits to change appearances in response to...some stimulus that we are just blind to, perhaps. they were expressing themselves in a way that was comfortable for them based upon their environment--their world--the same way a plant does. Or a gay person, i guess.

[mfblume]

My clothes and my wife's clothes are made out of cotton.

Next!

It's not the material, its the shape. Coats for both. Next.

[good samaritan]

Have yaw thought about why a ladies bike has the bar slanted? I haven't researched it, but I presume it is so they can ride a bike wearing a skirt.

I know an elderly lady who occasionally wears slacks because of them being more practical. She will not wear any with a fly on the front. She insist that the fly on the front is designed for men exclusively. I see her point. Is the design of the frontal fly not because of the practicalness of men using the facilities?

I am not debating anything just making a few points.

[good samaritan]

It's not the material, its the shape. Coats for both. Next.

The Hebrew word could be a coat, robe, or garment. We don't know that the
"ḵ ṯôneṯ" looked identical for Adam and Eve.

[good samaritan]

It is interesting to me that men in western culture didn't seem to want to wear dresses. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't ladies start wearing pants because of practicality in public jobs?

The next question is this: if ladies began wearing pants to work in public jobs, then which is the bigger problem the public job or the pants?

Men no longer exclusively carry the role of provider/protector in western culture.

[good samaritan]

I wonder how the statistics for divorce and infidelity where effected after women entered the work force.

I think there is much deeper things than pants, although I do think skirts or more culturally feminine.

[mfblume]

The Hebrew word could be a coat, robe, or garment. We don't know that the
"ḵ ṯôneṯ" looked identical for Adam and Eve.

Whatever it was it was, it was the same word used for each of their clothing.

[good samaritan]

Whatever it was it was, it was the same word used for each of their clothing.

I understand, but that doesn't mean they were the same. they both could have been given a garment, but that doesn't mean they were identical in design. Just saying.

[mfblume]

I understand, but that doesn't mean they were the same. they both could have been given a garment, but that doesn't mean they were identical in design. Just saying.

By the same token it doesn't mean they were NOT the same. So, the one instance where God, Himself, directly made clothing does not prove the tradition I feel you espouse. But they were modest. THAT was the point. Aprons were not enough. God did MORE.

[shazeep]

It is interesting to me that men in western culture didn't seem to want to wear dresses. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't ladies start wearing pants because of practicality in public jobs?

The next question is this: if ladies began wearing pants to work in public jobs, then which is the bigger problem the public job or the pants?

Men no longer exclusively carry the role of provider/protector in western culture.nice, GS

I wonder how the statistics for divorce and infidelity where effected after women entered the work force.

I think there is much deeper things than pants, although I do think skirts or more culturally feminine.yes. the pants are not the issue, they are the symptom, the manifestation. They are the appearance.

[good samaritan]

By the same token it doesn't mean they were NOT the same. So, the one instance where God, Himself, directly made clothing does not prove the tradition I feel you espouse. But they were modest. THAT was the point. Aprons were not enough. God did MORE.

I agree, I don't think the coats of skins can validate either side on this. God clearly forbid in the law for a man not to wear that pertains to a woman and visa versa. Cultural norms. and climate have a lot of influence on how that is applied. Eskimo women aren't sinning because they wear trousers made of skins under their coats. The sin in the clothes we wear has to do with the heart.

How do we feel personally about what we wear?
(Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned)

How does what we wear affect others?
(that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way)

What are my motivations for the way I dress?
(Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart)

I don't think we should ostracize one another on this subject so long as modesty is being practiced.

[Godsdrummer]

Scriptural doctrine should be based on two or three witnesses. Yet the only scripture in all the bible that (remotely) (and I say remotely) because it is not clear in any stretch of the imagination as some would like us to believe.

Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God

scripture has several words translated as "man" in this verse the word is "gerber" a warrior. This very fact should show that this passage is not speaking of just clothes in general. But a specific type of a mans clothes. Those of a warrior.

Further just as the passage stretched to teach a women shall not cut her hair, there is not one other witness in all of scripture to back up the belief many teach concerning either of these doctrines as put forth by a select few.

[good samaritan]

Scriptural doctrine should be based on two or three witnesses. Yet the only scripture in all the bible that (remotely) (and I say remotely) because it is not clear in any stretch of the imagination as some would like us to believe.

Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God

scripture has several words translated as "man" in this verse the word is "gerber" a warrior. This very fact should show that this passage is not speaking of just clothes in general. But a specific type of a mans clothes. Those of a warrior.

Further just as the passage stretched to teach a women shall not cut her hair, there is not one other witness in all of scripture to back up the belief many teach concerning either of these doctrines as put forth by a select few.

Do you think that cross dressing is a sin?

I am not implying that ladies that wear pants are cross dressers. serious question.

[good samaritan]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/28/congress-moves-require-women-register-draft/

Here is an article about legislation for women to register for the draft. I would be devastated if my 12 year old daughter was ever drafted, but in order to have gender equality this would only be right.

Another thing, with the confusion with gender identity, should it be permissible for a man who identifies as woman to dodge the draft?

No matter how you view the way ladies and men dress, we definitely have a cultural problem.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

I think you can take this scripture deeper than just homosexuality. people are confused about their very nature. The animal kingdom has more sense than people on this earth.

[mfblume]

I agree, I don't think the coats of skins can validate either side on this. God clearly forbid in the law for a man not to wear that pertains to a woman and visa versa. Cultural norms. and climate have a lot of influence on how that is applied. Eskimo women aren't sinning because they wear trousers made of skins under their coats. The sin in the clothes we wear has to do with the heart.

How do we feel personally about what we wear?
(Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned)

How does what we wear affect others?
(that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way)

What are my motivations for the way I dress?
(Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart)

I don't think we should ostracize one another on this subject so long as modesty is being practiced.

Amen.

[KeptByTheWord]

If just one scripture pointed to a certain type of clothing as being a sin and damnation to wear, we would all have a leg to stand on and wrestle over. However, there is not even one scripture that relates salvation to a piece of clothing.

What it ALL really boils down to is the heart. But we would rather be like the Pharisees and argue over physical elements of things that can be seen by our eyes, instead of recognizing that the outside of the bowl can be clean, and the inside filthy.

And of the such like are these discussions... fussing over the outside of the bowl, when the real problem lies within. Nothing has changed since the time of the Pharisees. You can swap out the "cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables", which were big issues in those days... to the ones being hashed out now...

Mark 7:2-8
2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

It is VANITY to say you are worshiping God, while teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

[Cracker Barrel]

Just like our Lord was manifest in the flesh and Spirit, so do we as his children have to live up to the same standard.

1 Timothy 3:16
.......God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit.....

The outside is just as important as the inside.

2 Corinthians 7:1
Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the FLESH and SPIRIT, PERFECTING HOLINESS in the fear of God.

It is our responsibility to find out what pleases God, and Modesty is not defined by how we as humans think, or what culture says!!

Quit trying to define something as modest, that God already called an abomination!!!

If a man wears woman's clothes or if a woman wears mans clothes, Modesty is not the issue.

Man is the head of the woman, because Adam was first and Eve taken out of his midst.

The real issue is the role of headship.

The same is with the hair.

....ought the woman to have Power on her head because of the angels.

(The word gramericaly in the greek is "instead of a veil." Because a veil has no power!)

But a woman obeying the word and not cutting her hair, hides the glory of her head the man.

A man that has his hair short and cut reveals the glory of his head which is Christ and intern God.

Being uncut she is showing God that when she kneels in prayer or singing she is in her rightful place.

Angels are God's messengers, ever heard of Jacobs ladder?

(There's a ton of scripture here I don't have time to copy and paste)

Lolo I Say ?!?!

[Jason B]

Just like our Lord was manifest in the flesh and Spirit, so do we as his children have to live up to the same standard.

1 Timothy 3:16
.......God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit.....

The outside is just as important as the inside.

2 Corinthians 7:1
Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the FLESH and SPIRIT, PERFECTING HOLINESS in the fear of God.

It is our responsibility to find out what pleases God, and Modesty is not defined by how we as humans think, or what culture says!!

Quit trying to define something as modest, that God already called an abomination!!!

If a man wears woman's clothes or if a woman wears mans clothes, Modesty is not the issue.

Man is the head of the woman, because Adam was first and Eve taken out of his midst.

The real issue is the role of headship.

The same is with the hair.

....ought the woman to have Power on her head because of the angels.

(The word gramericaly in the greek is "instead of a veil." Because a veil has no power!)

But a woman obeying the word and not cutting her hair, hides the glory of her head the man.

A man that has his hair short and cut reveals the glory of his head which is Christ and intern God.

Being uncut she is showing God that when she kneels in prayer or singing she is in her rightful place.

Angels are God's messengers, ever heardh of Jacobs ladder?

(There's a ton of scripture here I don't have time to copy and paste)

Lolo I Say ?!?!

No

[Godsdrummer]

If just one scripture pointed to a certain type of clothing as being a sin and damnation to wear, we would all have a leg to stand on and wrestle over. However, there is not even one scripture that relates salvation to a piece of clothing.

What it ALL really boils down to is the heart. But we would rather be like the Pharisees and argue over physical elements of things that can be seen by our eyes, instead of recognizing that the outside of the bowl can be clean, and the inside filthy.

And of the such like are these discussions... fussing over the outside of the bowl, when the real problem lies within. Nothing has changed since the time of the Pharisees. You can swap out the "cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables", which were big issues in those days... to the ones being hashed out now...

Mark 7:2-8
2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

It is VANITY to say you are worshiping God, while teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

:thumbsup

[shazeep]

Here is an article about legislation for women to register for the draft. I would be devastated if my 12 year old daughter was ever drafted, but in order to have gender equality this would only be right.

Another thing, with the confusion with gender identity, should it be permissible for a man who identifies as woman to dodge the draft?

No matter how you view the way ladies and men dress, we definitely have a cultural problem.



I think you can take this scripture deeper than just homosexuality. people are confused about their very nature.(seeing, they will not see
you have a cultural symptom)
drunk on the wine,
(the pure~grain alcohol
detergent for water and oil...)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rectified spirit - Wikipedia
... large quantities of neutral alcohol are distilled from wine. Such a product made from grain is ... drunk undiluted, however as the alcohol is ... Grain Alcohol ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(...the two bottles on top of
the twelve-pack pastor's hart)

The animal kingdom has more sense than people on this earth."...consciousness has a counterfeit, self-consciousness, which happened to you at about age 1 one day when you finally recognized yourself in a mirror. Understand I AM, emphatic am there, not titular, tells us that when we understand the emphatic part it is telling us that This is Why God is Happier Than You. Because we personify God, think He has self consciousness like we do when He don't, God is just like your doG in that sense @ "this is..."

[shazeep]

I don't think we should ostracize one another on this subject so long as modesty is being practiced.
but Fang,
now that's different

[good samaritan]

Scriptural doctrine should be based on two or three witnesses. Yet the only scripture in all the bible that (remotely) (and I say remotely) because it is not clear in any stretch of the imagination as some would like us to believe.

Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God

scripture has several words translated as "man" in this verse the word is "gerber" a warrior. This very fact should show that this passage is not speaking of just clothes in general. But a specific type of a mans clothes. Those of a warrior.

Further just as the passage stretched to teach a women shall not cut her hair, there is not one other witness in all of scripture to back up the belief many teach concerning either of these doctrines as put forth by a select few.

1 Cor. 6:9-- Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived:neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

effeminate-Adj. (of a man or boy) having traits, tastes, habits, etc., traditionally considered feminine, as softness or delicacy.

This particular word, malakos (greek,effeminate) is only used once in this way. In the other places it is used for soft raiment. It was the KJV that decided to translate it as effeminate and I have noticed it is omitted in the NIV and other versions. You may disagree, but if the KJV is correct in translation this could certainly apply to men who would dress in a feminine manner.

[shazeep]

harm not the oil and the wine

[good samaritan]

but Fang,
now that's different

No fang is not different. We evidently haven't communicated well on this subject. I never meant that I would ostracize fang. Even the term fang seems to be a label because of the way she looked. If someone comes to God it will affect their conversation (lifestyle). I never meant that I would not accept someone into the body if they repented. If they continued in the same lifestyle then I could only notice the fruit.

[good samaritan]

(seeing, they will not see
you have a cultural symptom)
drunk on the wine,
(the pure~grain alcohol
detergent for water and oil...)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rectified spirit - Wikipedia
... large quantities of neutral alcohol are distilled from wine. Such a product made from grain is ... drunk undiluted, however as the alcohol is ... Grain Alcohol ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(...the two bottles on top of
the twelve-pack pastor's hart)
"...consciousness has a counterfeit, self-consciousness, which happened to you at about age 1 one day when you finally recognized yourself in a mirror. Understand I AM, emphatic am there, not titular, tells us that when we understand the emphatic part it is telling us that This is Why God is Happier Than You. Because we personify God, think He has self consciousness like we do when He don't, God is just like your doG in that sense @ "this is..."

I can't understand this? I am seriously trying.

[shazeep]

This particular word, malakos (greek,effeminate) is only used once in this way. In the other places it is used for soft raiment. It was the KJV that decided to translate it as effeminate and I have noticed it is omitted in the NIV and other versions. You may disagree, but if the KJV is correct in translation this could certainly apply to men who would dress in a feminine manner.
Behold, therefore, I stretched out my hand against you and diminished your allotted portion and delivered you to the greed of your enemies, the daughters of the Philistines, who were ashamed of your lewd behavior. 28And thou goest a-whoring unto sons of Asshur, Without thy being satisfied, And thou dost go a-whoring with them, and still you were not satisfied. 29You multiplied your whoring also with the trading land of Chaldea, and even with this you were not satisfied.

30“How sick is your heart, declares the Lord GOD, because you did all these things, the deeds of a brazen prostitute, 31building your vaulted chamber at the head of every street, and making your lofty place in every square.

[shazeep]

I can't understand this? I am seriously trying.
Fang is seen as the problem, when Fang is just a natural outgrowth of prophets, whoring with Asshur, and drunk on the wine that we talked about in the pastor's cart, the "distilled spirits." See, when you lift Christ up like a serpent on a pole, you leaving Sukkoth they camped at Etham on the edge of the desert.
And Christ must be lifted up, so.
that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
but only two made it to the promised land?

see, this is because we think we are supposed to follow the "church" who says "follow the Bible, like this, not like that," but
"Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God."
see they didn't do that, they spoke the Word, and the Word was Truth, but
the Bible is not Truth, because Truth is the Word.

So your leaders, who spoke the Word, were cast aside, just like hippies
for prophets gone a-whoring, because meat offends thee, and the devil comes and steals the Word.

So, you turned down the hippy, the one who brought Love Your Neighbor, before you chose the Book, looking for Truth, when Truth is the Word; and the Word is God. And you search the Scriptures for Him daily, when there He is, right next to us, the Word. "Just say the Word."

But you are an elder
parent, camper, and
you must be brought
so that you can be first
because you were last, so
the last will be first,
and the first will be last

So, walk out to the Word
from the Book of the Law
from that snake on that pole
from that camped on the edge
every line about you
and your walk, this is true
and it's not about them
they're the oil of shem

and don't harm the oil and the wine.

So, i'll try once more, maybe. You didn't want to Word when you were young and seeking God, because your ground was not prepared, and they came across as hippies to you, when they came. their meat offended you, and so the stan man came and took the Word away
and what did you say? "Jesus Name, Jesus Name"
is the Name of the game, and "I know" and "I know,"
to which place I will go!

Ya, i guess i'm not going to be able to help much tonight, sorry.
It's not being coy, or for lack of trying, it's because the lexicon
is the same one you use to study
about forgiving and accepting in the Bible, when that is actually speaking in code, two men in a bed is you, and one is taken and the other left is your choices, and of course you want to be the one left, in a bed, see, until it's a grave, and then you want to be the one taken. And all those other cont'd...

[shazeep]

...other...oh ya, passages, that seem like directions, that people beg you to hear, because the blind lead the blind, those are all about you--well really, i mean me, they are all about me, and you aren't even in there, it is me with the beam, it is me with the tares, growing up with the wheat, i pull my tares, and encourage your wheat, but i can't do that with the leaven of the pharisees now can i; i can't help you at all if i know. Know anyone that "knows?" well, anyone who says he knows...advertises what he knows, to those who are snake bit, as well as to those breaking camp.

i did it again, huh. there is just no way to not speak in tongues here i guess. i am seriously trying too. Follow the Law as long as you need--the Book is the Law. And try not to be offended at meat when you hear it, which i don't mean any of this, but Truth that does not fit your perspective; the perspective you have because there is two sides to every story, but the doG is happier. don't let stan steal your Word, or you'll have to go back to the Book. and you can't serve two masters, GS.

[shazeep]

but count the cost ok GS?
cuz see, MB, he's immune
to me, but to You, i'm a
Dangerous Person.

[shazeep]

"but this is the maximum level of being with me!"
now, go see what you'll see
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756880/quotes

sorry it had to be a cartoon--that my meat
will offend, but i know of no other
"but this is the maximum level of being with me!"

[good samaritan]

but count the cost ok GS?
cuz see, MB, he's immune
to me, but to You, i'm a
Dangerous Person.

Shazeep your going to have to put things in laymen's terms for me if we are going have dialogue. I can't understand a thing you are saying.

[shazeep]

so you want it in Bible terms, but you want to make it to the Promised Land. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up (but all of those died in the wilderness).That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life (but three found the Word. Did Moses die in the wilderness, then? But two made it in)
Aren't you tired of reading two very confusing, contradictory accounts yet?
Lay your burdens down, and find rest from your labors.
The Word was always there; but you couldn't hear the hippie huh.
Do you want hippies? Because that's how you get hippies GS.
"but this is the maximum level of being with me!"
now, go see what you'll see
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756880/quotes

sorry it had to be a cartoon--that my meat
will offend, but i know of no other
"but this is the maximum level of being with me!"boy, and i remember, when i saw this, thinking "be nice if it was true, lol. sigh." had to have been all of 5-6 years ago.

[shazeep]

boy, and i remember, when i saw this, thinking "be nice if it was true, lol. sigh." had to have been all of 5-6 years ago.i guess this is not true!
that scared me--to death--too!

[shazeep]

I think you can take this scripture deeper than just homosexuality. people are confused about their very nature. The animal kingdom has more sense than people on this earth.yes. God is an animal, in that sense. God is not self conscious, like people are self conscious. God does what the doG does, not what we do. Understand I AM. People are confused about their very nature. Things are going to manifest, based upon this principle, because God cannot change that; that is the Word. The guy sitting on the bench is manifesting, stress and desire and disease, whatever is represented in his thought bubbles. Just as the doG is manifesting sitting next to his human, having fun, with no money, right here, right now, because he am too "dumb" to not BeHereNow..

See, the doG has no Book, and that he is free. In a way that you are not, because you fear the future, and so then you cannot manifest the present--well, you are manifesting it, but you are...completely unconscious of it, because you are self-conscious, dwelling in self, all the stuff you have to later, or did not do earlier, anything but BeHereNow, which when practiced will cause those thought balloons to disappear, because you then understand I AM. Anything but BeHereNow, because the devil wants you to be anywhere but Here, Now, Being, because then he is dead he is done, his reign is over in you.

[mfblume]

God is self conscious. An intelligent being is self aware. When God refers to Himself by simply saying, "I am God..." He is self aware.

But GS, Shaz likes to talk in parables. It's on purpose. lol He just confuses the use of terms in parables of the bible when he uses them, though. But it's done as though he knows what he's talking about and is using God's jargon. ;)

[shazeep]

God is self conscious. An intelligent being is self aware. When God refers to Himself by simply saying, "I am God..." He is self aware.YES. BUT God has no ego, in the sense that we have; self-centered ego. The yeast of the Pharisees.

But GS, Shaz likes to talk in parables. It's on purpose. lol He just confuses the use of terms in parables of the bible when he uses them, though. But it's done as though he knows what he's talking about and is using God's jargon. ;)No, there is just no way to say it plain, to an adult, because things can be understood in more than one way, which is a reflection of one's heart. One hears what they want to hear, what they have to hear, to avoid CogDis.

[shazeep]

Shazeep your going to have to put things in laymen's terms for me if we are going have dialogue. I can't understand a thing you are saying.yes, the distilled wine is 200 proof, sorry. It has to be done in little steps at a time because undistilled Word would kill us. I am killing myself right now, haven't slept 9 hours in 3 days, etc. Getting better now tho.

[mfblume]

YES.

Yes? lol. Which is it? No self consciousness or not? Your arguments change like the wind. Which is it. Self awareness or not? You change arguments like you change definitions of terms the word of God related/

[mfblume]

yes, the distilled wine is 200 proof, sorry. It has to be done in little steps at a time because undistilled Word would kill us. I am killing myself right now, haven't slept 9 hours in 3 days, etc. Getting better now tho.

GS, it's a pride thing. He gets a kick out of sounding mysterious to you, because he feels superior in doing so.

[shazeep]

Yes? lol. Which is it? No self consciousness or not? Your arguments change like the wind. Which is it. Self awareness or not? You change arguments like you change definitions of terms the word of God related/Mike, this is because words are slippery, as we both know. God is conscious of self, but does not have an ego.

[shazeep]

GS, it's a pride thing. He gets a kick out of sounding mysterious to you, because he feels superior in doing so.then that is your truth, Mike, and i am not here to make you change your mind, ok. But GS is not even here, Mike. I have no one to bask in my glorious mysteriousness at the moment, and this moment is all you have. You, me, and the Book, and the Word. Now, you know the Book, and if you would discredit me, do yourself a favor and use the Book. How is that working out for you, that "Gospel is not in the Book," that "The Bible is not the Word," hmm? Go bring me some words, Mike, let's talk Bible now, ok?

[shazeep]

2Instead, we have renounced shameful secret things, not walking in deceit or distorting God's message, but commending ourselves to every person's conscience in God's sight by an open display of the truth.

"We no longer teach "secrets," that people feel compelled to go to a building and learn, because they do not know what they are; they are "Secret." No--now we "commend ourselves to every conscience, with an open display of Truth (Word)."

This means that anyone who reads this may come and challenge my posts, with the Book. I will state them again:

"The Book is not the Word."
"The Gospel is the Truth."
"The Gospel is not in the Book."
"The Gospel is not the Law."
"There is only one Commandment."
"Paul was a sold out Jesus Freak, and he was speaking the Truth, so no one gets him, without having the Word."

peace to you all.
.

[shazeep]

Jesus was never recorded saying the word Grace. While every discourse was an example of Grace, Christ did not talk about Grace, not once.

[Evang.Benincasa]

yes, the distilled wine is 200 proof, sorry. It has to be done in little steps at a time because undistilled Word would kill us. I am killing myself right now, haven't slept 9 hours in 3 days, etc. Getting better now tho.

200 proof?

My lands, that would burn a hole right through your stomach.

Everclear is about 190 and would run a car's engine.

200 proof wine?

Do you make that stuff in your bathtub?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Jesus was never recorded saying the word Grace. While every discourse was an example of Grace, Christ did not talk about Grace, not once.

So John lied in John 1:17?

[mfblume]

then that is your truth, Mike, and i am not here to make you change your mind, ok. But GS is not even here, Mike. I have no one to bask in my glorious mysteriousness at the moment, and this moment is all you have. You, me, and the Book, and the Word. Now, you know the Book, and if you would discredit me, do yourself a favor and use the Book. How is that working out for you, that "Gospel is not in the Book," that "The Bible is not the Word," hmm? Go bring me some words, Mike, let's talk Bible now, ok?

Tried that in futility before. Also, if you think the word is not in the pages of the bible, you're in New Age mentality.

[mfblume]

Jesus was never recorded saying the word Grace. While every discourse was an example of Grace, Christ did not talk about Grace, not once.
You don't have to say a descriptive term of something you actually bring.

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

He not only talked of grace, he brought it! And how did He bring it? It was His message.

[Evang.Benincasa]

You don't have to say a descriptive term of something you actually bring.

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

He not only talked of grace, he brought it! And how did He bring it? It was His message.

:highfive

[mfblume]

Mike, this is because words are slippery, as we both know. God is conscious of self, but does not have an ego.

No. You said God is not self conscious.

[mfblume]

1 Thessalonians 5:28 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

[votivesoul]

Jesus was never recorded saying the word Grace. While every discourse was an example of Grace, Christ did not talk about Grace, not once.

In Luke 6:32-34, the Greek word charis is used several times in a quotation of Christ.

The KJV renders it "what thank have ye", but the Greek word behind "thank" is "grace", i.e. charis.

You can start here to see it:

http://biblehub.com/text/luke/6-32.htmLuke

[shazeep]

200 proof?

My lands, that would burn a hole right through your stomach.

Everclear is about 190 and would run a car's engine.

200 proof wine?

Do you make that stuff in your bathtub?it is an analogy for Word, like new wine (wine) and water are analogies. Grape juice turns into wine in...3 days

[mfblume]

it is an analogy for Word, like new wine (wine) and water are analogies.

That was obvious. You missed his point, though.

[Evang.Benincasa]

it is an analogy for Word, like new wine (wine) and water are analogies. Grape juice turns into wine in...3 days

Grape juice turns into 200 proof alcohol in three days?

[Evang.Benincasa]

That was obvious. You missed his point, though.

This is why I call shazeep a troller.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Shazeep please don't take offense, because I'm not trying to offend you with this question. But are you taking psychotropic medication? Not that everyone who is on that sort of medication exhibit your attitude or behavior, but are you under psychiatric care? Have you ever been?

[shazeep]

So John lied in John 1:17?i am not trying to say that Christ did not bring Grace and Truth, EB. And for all i know, Christ said the words many times. What i am saying is that we do not have it recorded, or at least i can't find it. Wouldn't surprise me if it had been edited out, even. I don't think we are even reading the same Bible that was written--although you will take that wrong, as i don't mean your Book is now bad, we have just what we are supposed to have, because men corrupt Word, so they can corrupt Book too, and that does not matter, it's still all in there, all you need.

So, my guess is we can't read from a Hebrew translation of the NT because it got lost, huh, just like some other Books, or Book, i dunno, and for all i know, Christ opened every discourse with the word Grace, and it has just been lost to us, for now or whatever, in order that God's will be done.

Something about Jews getting divorced, and the NT getting written in Hebrew--of course, has to be in Hebrew, originally, that's the only language that...well, that the letters of form by themselves in sand when you make their sound, that the letters of appear on the inside of a...3 dimensional polygon, when you put a helix inside of it? I forget both of those terms, it's still early, first cuppa joe lol...but anyway, ya when you put a light behind the polygon thingy with the..golden mean, is it? the spiral doohickey that the meta-guys are comparing stuff in nature to? Looks like a...arg...conch shell, or something? ya, then turn the polygon to each face, and you get a different Hebrew letter? it's

around...http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/SODA_chapter11.html
and if you like, to get an idea of who, where, you are having to go and get this truth from, the site is called Souls of Distortion, and they publish...ha, whatever they feel like publishing, so i could have prolly found a Hebrew site that has the same info, and you would approve of, but i got it from here, so from here is where you get it. Truth is where you find It, doesn't matter if everything else on the site is not truth ok, go verify the truth. Which is how the Book is written too, i guess, it's been hidden, and it's all still in there.

so anyway, we don't have a Hebrew Lex for NT, because wine is about all we can handle right now, new wine prolly, i don't know, and might even be...ha, there is, a way to read it so it is even water, which is of course what babies drink, you don't give babies new wine. Grape juice, ok, ya, but grape juice turns really fast. So, there is water in There, and grape juice, and new wine, and wine. And most of It, the Truth, has been obscured, prolly because wine, distilled wine, would kill us.

So, that is truth right now, and prolly in 5 or 50 years it will not be truth, someone will have revealed or re-discovered the Hebrew NT, and we'll find that Christ said the word Grace all the time. But you can't find it right now, at least not easily, there are some synonyms in there, but the point is we use the word Grace, it has a meaning for us, and that word is not transmitted to us from Christ, at the moment anyway.

it's just a reflection i see, if it doesn't mean anything to you that Christ, Who Personified Grace, is not recorded in the English translation as not having said the word Grace, and the comment that makes on the translation is maybe moot to you, then just let it go. for now.

[shazeep]

Tried that in futility before. Also, if you think the word is not in the pages of the bible, you're in New Age mentality.Then let's get into it, looks like you're going to end up at Deuteronomy 30, yes? Cuz that's all you got lol, that one, clumsily worded, obscured passage, that can be read so as to conflate Word and Book, sure seems like you can make the Book the Word from it, if you read it quick enough, and just maybe blink as you go by that part, or maybe read it with blurry vision, or one eye, whatever, and don't read it forwards and backwards--oh, and don't worry too much about the fact that ya got no Witness, ya. So shoot what you got, and let's see what it is. And as for the New Age comment, good point :lol













http://i.imgur.com/b83bRLj.jpg

[shazeep]

You don't have to say a descriptive term of something you actually bring.

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

He not only talked of grace, he brought it! And how did He bring it? It was His message.a big Amen, bro. The point is that i got the impression at least that Christ does Grace, He doesn't jaw about Grace, or, what am i trying to say? ...we don't have Christ recorded as saying the word, even though Christ was Grace Personified. And He is only recorded saying the word Word one time, to us, which most people think is the Book. make of that whatever you like, i'm not trying to build any doctrine here ok. And you can keep believing the Book is the Word for as long as you want, your whole life if you want.

Without living in fear of some Monster that Father is made into. Or BAM be afraid if you like, whatever. You are fine just where you are at, and there is nothing wrong with you just like you are. The only requirement you have--from which everything else is manifested; because after all that is the only way that manifesting even happens--is that you will suffer the consequences of your manifestations. Consequences are makes a fruit seed turn into a fruit tree, too.

[shazeep]

You don't have to say a descriptive term of something you actually bring.

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

He not only talked of grace, he brought it! And how did He bring it? It was His message.misses a point, but yes i agree. I might also say--just since we are on the subject, not for you, necessarily--that there is lots of stuff staring you right in the face in that Book, that manifestation of Living Word, so you can read water, or old wine, from the same, corrupted passages. all depends how deep you want to dig, backward and forward, but lots of them are staring you right in the face, the new wine ones. gotta dig for the wine tho, the 200 proof stuff.

[shazeep]

No. You said God is not self conscious.God Is Consciousness, Mike, the term "self-conscious," conscious of self, is not what Father is ok. A doG is conscious of self, self wants cheese, but self doesn't dwell on cheese, self dwells in NOW with a dog, NOW is where the dog is, you can't make a dog be anywhere but NOW, mentally, and it is not thinking of self as a concept in the same manner that a human does, we are the only ones on the planet that do that, prolly. maybe some higher apes or something too, dunno. "Self-conscious," ego, ME; I AM, AND WHAT ARE YOU TO ME? is not in there ok.

[shazeep]

1 Thessalonians 5:28 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.and amen. lots of pointing to, but no quotes, same as Book to Word really being Word to Book. You see what you need to see for you, where you are at NOW. Father's Grace Be with you, BAM.
















Oh, unless you're a Muslim or a Catholic, sorry, i forgot that part.












Prolly they just edited that part out too huh.

[shazeep]

In Luke 6:32-34, the Greek word charis is used several times in a quotation of Christ.

The KJV renders it "what thank have ye", but the Greek word behind "thank" is "grace", i.e. charis.

You can start here to see it:

http://biblehub.com/text/luke/6-32.htmLukeGreek, lol.
So there ya go. There it is, right there, but you had to go find it.




"It's Greek to me."

[shazeep]

That was obvious. You missed his point, though.i think it's a good point, too. Go with that, if that is what you hear. Trust--believe all things--but verify. you know how to verify right. So if you wanna make old wine into corruption instead of Word, and believe that you could handle distilled wine or pure Word with no problems, then do it. I got no problem with that, no condemnation for you , because i don't know what i am talking about, but the Book does, so bring me some Book on it, i'm prepared now, ok, for you and the Book and me.

[shazeep]

Grape juice turns into 200 proof alcohol in three days?no. grape juice turns into new wine in three days though, in the heat. When...atmospheric cultures get into it.

[shazeep]

This is why I call shazeep a troller.then troller i AM. you can call me Judas for short if you like :)

[shazeep]

Shazeep please don't take offense, because I'm not trying to offend you with this question. But are you taking psychotropic medication? Not that everyone who is on that sort of medication exhibit your attitude or behavior, but are you under psychiatric care? Have you ever been?When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."

[shazeep]

so, are we done? for today? you guys have a blessed day. Be bless

[Evang.Benincasa]

When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."

Sad, how insane people use the Bible to justify their lunacy. :throwrock

[shazeep]

Shazeep your going to have to put things in laymen's terms for me if we are going have dialogue. I can't understand a thing you are saying.Sorry, GS, i was drunk in the morning. You can come back now :lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

Sorry, GS, i was drunk in the morning. You can come back now :lol

It looks like you are perpetually drunk.

Not on new wine either.

[shazeep]

no kidding you got that part right
that is the first thing you have said that i can agree with :lol
well the Hindu Gnostic whatever thing resonated too.
sounds like 'hippies' to me

[shazeep]

CB, you never even told us, wth brudda

http://www.pidginbible.org/

i have to find this out from a houli? :lol