For Newman and Mfblume

[Falla39]

John 16:13
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

If we have received the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Ghost, reckon why some

issues such as the one under discussion and others, cannot be resolved!

Personally they have been resolved a long time ago for me. It was not

resolved between me and every one else's opinion. It was resolved between

me and the Spirit of He who lives in me. I do not have to go any further.

As an adult I don't need any man/person to try to force me to what they

think about these issues. When we truly desire to know what pleases the

One who lives in us, we will seek to find His answer. He knows if we wish to

somehow feel justified and He knows our motive to continually go over and

over these issues because until we go to Him and sincerely seek His face

until we know what He would have us do. and be willing to do it, it won't

matter. I do what I feel the Holy Ghost would want me to do. Yes, I do it.

Not my place to seek Him for anyone else's position. That's their respons-

ibility.

After all the miracles Jesus did here on earth, there were still some who did

not believe who He was. The OT told of One who would come, etc., etc.,

and when He came, they still did not believe. Jesus told Thomas he believed

because he saw, but blessed are those who have not seen yet have believed.

He that is convinced against their WILL are of the same opinion still.

The more time we spend with HIM. the more we will know what He wants.

How many ladies know what their husbands like. And vice versa! Next week

we will be married 48 years. We still strive to please one another. If we really

do love each other we will be willing to lay aside our " preferences" to please

our "other half". If the "other" half of us is not pleased, do you think we are

going to be happy!! If the One who made us is not happy with our attitude

toward Him, He could just crumble that ole clay ball up and start over. It sure

wouldn't be comfortable to be crushed in His Hand. I know He loves me and

I love Him, but if I decide I am going to have MY way regardless, I am in for

a big chastising/humbling "whipping!!

Blessings,

Falla39

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

So am I correct in saying that you don't preach against long hair on men because that's not the issue, or what?

The bible says long hair on a man is a shame, so I preach it as such. But all that I am saying is that the chapter is not focusing on long hair on men or women.

Just trying to feel out some things I've missed in previous conversations.

And how do you feel overall about the article? This was sent to me and I have not perused the other links, and I have no idea who the author is.

I'm getting ready for a nap, as I have to work 13 hours tonight. If I don't get back before work, I'll be here in the morning for a little while.

I have not been able to read the whole article yet since I am packing for our move. I am just hopping off and on every now and then for a break. The article will take more time than that.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

http://www.theearlychurch.com/englis...forangels.html

This is an article someone sent me and I'd like to hear your opinions on it. While I don't agree with everything written, I thought it was interesting and well thought out. Please read it and let me know what you think. This will be in three parts, as it's too large for one post.

HO- I don't have time nor desire to go through this article point by point. Is there something in particular that you found plausible?

The big issues that jump out are:

1. The idea that God suddenly mandates head covering issues to denote authority lines in the NT (based on the garden of Eden) that are in contrast to OT such as the priests wearing head coverings. And this is somehow for the benefit of the angels? Did the angels go on strike or something to get this new set-up in the NT?

2. The author misses the cultural implications of Paul's day to this particular group of people. He/she doesn't recognize or notice that moral women already wore head coverings in public in Corinth (that went to the issue of modesty and morality).

3. He/she doesn't note the last 2-3 verses of chapter 10 (man-made break not put their by Paul) that talks about not giving offense to the various cultures so that God might be glorified. He/she fails to mention the culture of the day that regarded most uncovered women as prostitutes (either temple or companion).

4. He/she failed to explain what Paul meant by calling it custom in verse 16 and saying that the church had no such custom. In fact the author said it was pretty hard to figure out what Paul meant...

Indeed. The author couldn't put the pieces of the puzzle together.

To do that effectively, one must read this passage in context not isolation. The puzzle pieces fit together coherently when we look at the passage in relation to the rest of the 1 Corinthians epistle, the NT and all the way back to the garden of Eden. IMO

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by Newman

HO- I don't have time nor desire to go through this article point by point. Is there something in particular that you found plausible?

The big issues that jump out are:

1. The idea that God suddenly mandates head covering issues to denote authority lines in the NT (based on the garden of Eden) that are in contrast to OT such as the priests wearing head coverings. And this is somehow for the benefit of the angels? Did the angels go on strike or something to get this new set-up in the NT?

2. The author misses the cultural implications of Paul's day to this particular group of people. He/she doesn't recognize or notice that moral women already wore head coverings in public in Corinth (that went to the issue of modesty and morality).

3. He/she doesn't note the last 2-3 verses of chapter 10 (man-made break not put their by Paul) that talks about not giving offense to the various cultures so that God might be glorified. He/she fails to mention the culture of the day that regarded most uncovered women as prostitutes (either temple or companion).

4. He/she failed to explain what Paul meant by calling it custom in verse 16 and saying that the church had no such custom. In fact the author said it was pretty hard to figure out what Paul meant...

Indeed. The author couldn't put the pieces of the puzzle together.

To do that effectively, one must read this passage in context not isolation. The puzzle pieces fit together coherently when we look at the passage in relation to the rest of the 1 Corinthians epistle, the NT and all the way back to the garden of Eden. IMO

Thanks for your response. That's about all I wanted, nothing special, since I don't even know who the author is. A point by point isn't needed nor warranted. I thought it was a pretty good article even if I didn't agree with some of the points he made, but those points agree with Bro. Blume, which is why I called on him as well.

Thanks again. I'm glad you were able to take what time you did to answer.