Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > Fellowship Hall
Facebook

Notices

Fellowship Hall The place to go for Fellowship & Fun!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 12-02-2007, 09:49 PM
SDG SDG is offline
Guest


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: H-Town, Texas
Posts: 18,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Poster View Post
Only if you beg me to.

OH PLEASE ... OH PLEASE ... TELL US HOW YOU'VE BEEN VICTIMIZED?
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 12-02-2007, 09:49 PM
Theophil's Avatar
Theophil Theophil is offline
Psalm 121


 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Not of this world
Posts: 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Poster View Post
Beards are okay if you're black.

They're sinful if you're white.
good one! lol
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 12-02-2007, 09:55 PM
Theophil's Avatar
Theophil Theophil is offline
Psalm 121


 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Not of this world
Posts: 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Poster View Post
Beards are okay if you're black.

They're sinful if you're white.
I love it when things are simple to enderstand.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 12-02-2007, 09:55 PM
Nahum Nahum is offline
Registered User


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 8,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea View Post

OH PLEASE ... OH PLEASE ... TELL US HOW YOU'VE BEEN VICTIMIZED?
Everybody else gets things for free in this country - even when they do very bad things (think illegal).

Tell me what would happen if we opened a United Caucasian College Fund?

People come here, circumvent our process and laws, and then riot in the streets because we are sooooo mean to them.

American Indians get special privileges. Muslims are not profiled, when they absolutely should be.

But hey, I love everybody!
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 12-02-2007, 09:59 PM
SDG SDG is offline
Guest


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: H-Town, Texas
Posts: 18,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Poster View Post
Everybody else gets things for free in this country - even when they do very bad things (think illegal).

Tell me what would happen if we opened a United Caucasian College Fund?

People come here, circumvent our process and laws, and then riot in the streets because we are sooooo mean to them.

American Indians get special privileges. Muslims are not profiled, when they absolutely should be.

But hey, I love everybody!
Classic.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 12-02-2007, 10:00 PM
ChurchMouse's Avatar
ChurchMouse ChurchMouse is offline
Just stopped by on my way home !!


 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Alvear View Post
I could post scores but will stop with this one...the pastor of this church was a circus clown he sure is thankful that a woman took him the life changing message...

So my friend woman can be and are used or God...Wise women know how to win pagan men and women ...
__________________
Sqweaky Sqweaky
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 12-02-2007, 10:00 PM
Nahum Nahum is offline
Registered User


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 8,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea View Post
Classic.
Thanks.

I do try to please you.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 12-02-2007, 10:00 PM
Theophil's Avatar
Theophil Theophil is offline
Psalm 121


 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Not of this world
Posts: 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theophil View Post
I love it when things are simple to enderstand.
Is the Headcovering Really an Issue?
A Serious and Indepth Study
(2nd. Edition-revised 1997, 1999 R.J. Vogel)

Related Article:
A Woman's Headcovering. Is it Really for Today? by Various Christians

The Meaning of 1st Corinthians 11
Needless to say, since it isn't possible to speak with Paul personally, we can only read what he wrote. So this is where I will start, since it is the most reliable source. If we would just read and understand what Paul was trying to teach overall, the rest is simple. A simple read through of the first 16 verses of 1st Corinthians 11 will make it clear that Paul is NOT trying to convince the Corinthian women to put headcoverings on. Maybe this is one minor reason why there is so much confusion on the subject today. Strike one against 'rationalization' (see definitions under 'The Hindrances to Our Understanding').
Do you really think that prior to this, women went uncovered? Secular history proves otherwise. I don't discount the fact that Paul was also re-emphasizing the need for a covering, but Paul's main objective here wasn't about to headcover or not to headcover. He was primarily using an already universally accepted practice in and out of the Church, world wide, to teach the principle of headship and authority. In other words, he was using a normal Godly practice to bring out what was behind it.
You won't find complete directions for tent making in Paul's writing. You won't find exhortations about anything without getting the 'Spiritual' and eternal meaning behind it. This is explained by, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2Tim. 3:16). In the Bible, God has always given us shadows and types to teach us eternal principles about holiness, the atonement, sin, authority, etc. It is folly to assume that Paul is trying to force the headcovering issue foremost, instead of primarily teaching the real eternal meaning behind it. However, be this as it may, it would also be a terrible mistake to focus on the spiritual only and eliminate the headcovering practice itself.
The fact is, the headcovering has been a Godly practice amongst Christians and decent moral citizens everywhere up until recently. We in America are the ones who have the problem understanding it, because our backgrounds and culture are so defiled. Perhaps we can't understand this because of our democratic culture. Strike one against 'culture'. Why is that? Because in this country, we have lost the understanding of authority. If we don't understand or obey God's basics: His order for the family, home and Church, how can we expect to understand the need for a woman to wear a covering? One example would be this. If our children are never taught to obey their parents, how will they ever know that they need to obey the civil authorities? Answer? They won't. And guess what? Reality is not violated. We can easily observe the fruits of such by the lawlessness (an outward SIGN; manifestation) amongst our youth today.
It is noteworthy that respect for authority in this country has been declining for a number of years. It isn't too surprising, then, to see its venom spreading into the family unit and finally the Church. It's no secret that the moral climate of this country has gone downhill rapidly during the last one hundred years. I don't mean to imply that the following is the root cause, but it was a little over a hundred years ago that women covered their heads. Back then it was the natural habit of moral women (and especially the Church) to cover their heads. Now they don't. The real root is that the headcovering's disappearance is a manifestation which is directly proportional to the spiritual decline of the Church.
A Great Cloud of Witnesses
As far as a more direct teaching on headcoverings elsewhere in the Bible, it isn't there in plain language. Oh yes, in spirit it is, but only through brief examples, understanding Modesty, authority, headship and the benevolent dictatorship of God. In respect to modesty, there is a dearth in the land of America. Strike two against 'culture'.
We also still have the writings of the disciples of the Apostles, who lived in Paul's time and on, that discuss the very subject of headcoverings. They too were first hand witnesses to what the Apostles taught and practiced as Biblical truth. What did they say?
They knew that to cover a women's head with a veil was already universal spiritual knowledge. A few of them devoted entire chapters to the why, how, when and where. None were trying to convince the Church of the NEED to START wearing them, though. It was already accepted knowledge. They simply addressed the spiritual reasons FOR wearing them. After reading Tertullian (145 A.D.) and others, I get the idea that only pagan priestesses and queens, prostitutes and lesbians went without veils.
Since most American Christians have never read any of the early Church's history nor its writings, it isn't surprising that most today are in the dark about what the early Church believed. When American Christians come to Paul's chapter 11, most rationalize in trying to understand it, thereby missing the obvious. Strike one against 'autopilot, strike two against rationalization and strike three against 'culture'.
So it's not a matter of having to prove whether or not Paul wanted women to cover their heads. We don't have to speculate on what he 'probably' meant by a covering. That is only necessary now, because we look at things through our American culture. Besides, it is not very difficult to discover that most of the world had (until lately) veiled their women. It has only been in recent years that cultures like ours, that have advanced in sin, have cast off the sign of the veil. All speculation as to whether it was a sign of this or that is like searching in the dark when we ignore such a cloud of witnesses before us.
__________________
….and since Jesus Christ is the Almighty God, we cannot be defeated!

http://thepopeofpentecost.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 12-02-2007, 10:03 PM
Theophil's Avatar
Theophil Theophil is offline
Psalm 121


 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Not of this world
Posts: 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theophil View Post
I love it when things are simple to enderstand.
PART 2

A Few of Today's Arguments
Many today, in mimicking what they've heard, say that the woman's hair is her covering, as it seems to imply in verse 15. Such statements are not at all original or honest. Besides, the Greek word used for 'covering' in 1 Corinthians 11:15 ("for her hair is given her for a covering") is completely different from the one translated 'covered' prior to this in Chapter 11. This Greek word (peribolaion), here in verse 15, means to 'wrap around'. Hence the meaning would be ... "for her hair is given her for 'to be wrapped around'". There is no clear idea here, nor from any early Church writer, that the 'hair' is the women's 'covering'. Furthermore, it would seem to be negating what Paul had just spent 13 verses on prior to this in chapter 11. The words translated "covering", "covered" or "cover" prior to verse 15 in Chapter 11 use an entirely different Greek word (katakalupto). This one means to 'veil or cover up oneself'.
But just suppose we take this word translated 'covering' to mean 'the hair', instead of a veiling. It doesn't take very long to see the folly of such an idea. Just simply insert some words meaning "with hair" in place of "covering", "covered" or "cover" in Chapter 11 and the truth will be as clear as day (only to an honest heart, that is). For example it would read starting from verse 4:
(NIV)-"Every man who prays or prophesies with his head with hair dishonours his head. :5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head without hair dishonours her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. :6 If a woman does not have hair on her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should have hair on her head. :7 A man ought not to have hair on his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. :8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; :9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. :10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. :11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. :12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. :13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head without hair?
(KJV)-"Every man praying or prophesying, having his head with hair, dishonoureth his head. :5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head without hair dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. :6 For if the woman be not with hair, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be with hair. :7 For a man indeed ought not to be with hair on 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 without hair?
As any honest person can quickly see, the entire meaning of the text is changed. Instead of being about authority and headship, the whole discussion would appear to centre around the subject of having or not having "hair". It's as if Paul was confronting the whole Corinthian Church about a strange new heresy concerning "hair". Paul would now appear to be concerned that the Corinthian men weren't shaving their heads before prayer like they were supposed to, and the women were into shaving off all their "hair".
Then, of course, verse 6 makes no sense at all. It now seems to be saying that if a woman has no hair, then she should be shaved so she has no hair. This is absolute nonsense. Besides, the teaching that a woman's hair was her covering can never be found once amongst the early Church. Surely, it must be obvious by now that something other than the "hair" is meant here for a woman's covering.
But, What About This?
It may be argued that since neither Finney, Wesley, Luther, or Calvin taught about the headcovering, why should we practice it? Some may 'hope' that these men didn't teach about it, but such is simply not the case. Of these men, some taught specifically about it, while others only wove it into their teachings on Modesty and Godly attire. Included in their teachings are exhortations to dress "exemplarily plain in your apparel; as plain as Quakers or Moravians", who, by the way, all wore headcoverings (Wesley Jour. Vol. VII pg. 116). John Wesley even stated that all Methodists should hear his "Thoughts upon Dress" read "at least once a year" (Wesley Jour. Vol. VIII pg. 307).
Truthfully, it wasn't a problem for these to practice the headcovering. They read their Bibles and preached and practiced what it said. If God said do it, they did it. If He said it was a 'Sign' to be practiced, they simply obeyed. They didn't look for some way to rationalize it away, like we do.
Even the Catholics, with all their abuses back in the dark ages, were obedient enough to practice the headcovering. Why is it so hard for us in America to "obey God rather than man"?
__________________
….and since Jesus Christ is the Almighty God, we cannot be defeated!

http://thepopeofpentecost.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 12-02-2007, 10:03 PM
Pragmatist Pragmatist is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: West
Posts: 1,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson View Post
I agree this comment was in bad taste,but if TruthSeeker is who I think He is ,he is in a interracial marriage.
I think he was trying to be TIC.
I think Scott is right. If he's the same person, he's posted pictures of he and his wife and children.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are You UPCI? Praxeas Fellowship Hall 22 10-13-2007 11:04 PM
This Is Upci ? Bishop1 Fellowship Hall 74 08-07-2007 09:39 AM
AFF is like UPCI Rhoni Fellowship Hall 74 06-25-2007 09:54 PM
Al sharpton Vs Sean Hannity hold debate. whites Vs Blacks Thad The Newsroom 1 04-21-2007 04:40 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome
- by Salome

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.