Posted on 06/24/2014 2:13:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Stay on topic. You were casting doubt on Paul's Jewishness, to which I showed you what Paul said about his genetic heritage. Do you have anything from anyone "back then" that rebuts or denies he WAS a Jew? Anything? No one is denying Paul had enemies, but don't you think that if he was lying about his Jewishness and background to the people he grew up around, that they would have jumped on that like white on rice?
What you write is mostly incomprehensible dribble where you ignore 90 percent of what people write to you anyway. I do not mind if you get upset at my condemnations of your anti-Christian doctrines.
Let’s talk about women’s head covering since you brought it up in your post above.
Please understand this.... The context of the entire passage of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is submission to the God-given order and “chain of command.”
A “covering” on a woman’s head is used as an illustration of the order, headship, and the authority of God. The key verse of this passage is 1 Corinthians 11:3 “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”
The implications of this verse are found in the rest of the passage.
The order is: God the Father, God the Son, the man or husband, and the woman or wife. The veil or covering on the head of a believing Corinthian wife showed that she was under the authority of her husband, and therefore under submission to God.
Within this passage is also verse 10: “For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”
Why is that important to angels? The relationship of God with men is something that angels watch and learn from (SEE 1 Peter 1:12). Therefore, a woman’s submission to God’s delegated authority over her is an example to angels. The holy angels, who are in perfect and total submission to God, expect that we, as followers of Christ, be the same.
This covering not only means a cloth but also can refer to a woman’s hair length. How can we say that? We must take this verse in the context or the setting in which it is presented. “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering” (1 Corinthians 11:14-15).
Therefore, in the context of this passage, a woman who is wearing her hair longer marks herself out distinctively as a woman and not a man.
The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the CORINTHIAN CULTURE, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship. The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God.
I’m sure you are going to ask : But why is hair an issue in this passage?
Understand again Paul is addressing an issue related to the CORINTHIAN CULTURE that was being allowed to disrupt the church.
For a woman to have a shaved head was a disgrace (and, in Jewish thinking, a sign of mourning, Deuteronomy 21:12). Her hair was her “glory” (1 Corinthians 11:15).
In the Corinthian culture, women normally wore a head covering as a symbol of their submission to their husbands.
Paul affirms the rightness of following that cultural mandate—to dispense with the head coverings on women would send the entirely wrong signal to the CULTURE AT LARGE.
Thus because of this, Paul says that, if a Christian woman refuses her head covering, she might as well shave her hair off, too (verse 6).
A woman who refused to wear a covering in that culture was basically saying, “I refuse to submit to God’s order.”
Therefore, Paul is teaching the Corinthians that hair length or the wearing of a “covering” by the woman was an outward indication of a heart attitude of submission to God and to His established authority.
IN SUMMARY:
God’s order is that the husband is the head of the wife as God is the head of Christ, but there is NO INEQUALITY or INFERIORITY implied.
God and Christ are equal and united, just as the husband and the wife are one. This is not a passage that teaches the woman is inferior to man or that she should be submissive to every man in every issue (even when the man is wrong).
It is teaching God’s order and spiritual headship in the marriage relationship. In the Corinthian culture, a woman who covered her head during worship or when she was in public displayed her submission to authority.
Whether you and I like it or not doesn’t change this.
Now, I can anticipate your next question -— WHAT ABOUT TODAY IN THE 21st CENTURY, ARE WE SUPPOSED TO TELL WOMEN TO COVER THEIR HEADS TOO?
In today’s culture, we no longer view a woman’s wearing of a head covering as a sign of submission. In most modern societies, scarves and hats are fashion accessories.
A woman has the choice to wear a head covering if she views it as a sign of her submission to the authority of her husband. BUT THAT IS HER CHOICE.
So, it is a PERSONAL CHOICE and not something that should be used to judge spirituality.
The real issue here is the HEART ATTIRUDE of obedience to God’s authority and submission to His established order “as to the LORD” (Ephesians 5:22).
God is far more concerned with an attitude of submission than an outward display of submission via a head covering.
This is Torah: Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
It is not a general prohibition against mixing meat and dairy. It is a specific prohibition, perhaps to avoid an idolatrous dish common at that timem or perhaps to allow a baby mammal enough time to be weaned before killing it to eat it (think veal). Rabbinical Judaism has made it more difficult for Jewish families who are not wealthy to feed themselves, having to own several sets of dishes and purchase much more expensive products (yes, I understand some of this is specific in the Torah and cannot be avoided, but they should not add to the Torah and make it harder).
RE: How about Paul simply articulated Christianity?
Yep, that’s a good one line answer.... :)
“Just wondering if you’ve ever studied the New Testament as it is written in Greek.”
The whole thing? No. Very small parts? Yes.
You are welcome; it was profitable too for me to post the awesome promises of God in Deuteronomy. I also need to feed.
That’s a fact. It amazes me how so many people totally miss what changed when Jesus became the one sacrifice for all sins and the veil was rent in two. Paul was christened by Christ to carry the new covenant to all people whereas prior to His death and resurrection the message was primarily to the Jews.
Paul neither invented nor hijacked Christianity. He was the major messenger of the New Covenant to the dispensation of grace.
Sorry, but what you’re saying just doesn’t make any sense.
Again, Paul knew he was risking everything and doing it for NO DISECRNABLE EARTHLY GAIN.
You wrote: “Men who seek power always do it at great risk.”
Not necessarily and not ever as Paul did. Paul joined a side that had NO EARTHLY POWER WHATSOEVER and at great personal risk - guaranteed risk - to himself. Quite simply NO ONE DOES THAT.
“Well, Jewish law would have required him to pay a fee to her father and marry her, but other than that, no”
Again, you’re not making any sense. Paul’s moral code precluded any act of rape. It’s just that simple.
Everyone is entitled to his opinion but when an opinion is just irrational, unreasonable, baseless, and goes against all known evidence it’s not worth holding to say the least.
If he was guiding the course of a growing religion, I don't see how you could say he had no earthly power. Telling other people what to think and how to worship is a great deal of power.
Again, you’re not making any sense. Paul’s moral code precluded any act of rape. It’s just that simple.
That's great. I never said he was a rapist and am still trying to figure out why you brought it up in the first place. Oh, you think he was the only ambitious man in history not to use his power to seduce women. My response can only be: as far as we know, he didn't, but not all of them do. There's no evidence Rasputin had a bevy of young beauties in his bed either, or that nut from the Heaven's Gate cult.
thanks redlegunter
Then why even bring it up? Why put out things like "Paul might be a mass murderer, but as far as we know he wasn't." There is no evidence that all your Rabbis are not pedophiles who are keeping it a secret from the world, although there is no evidence for it. How would you like that if I kept putting the specter of Jewish pedophilia up in the air? By the way, how often do you beat your husband? How often do your murder children? How do you like those stupid questions? They're just like your posts.
Keep your evil-minded accusations to yourself.
“If he was guiding the course of a growing religion, I don’t see how you could say he had no earthly power.”
Simple: Did he have money? No. Did he have an army? No. Did he ever even stay in one place for very long? No. Did he ever once command people to do an immoral act? No. Did he ever command people to obey his every whim, or his every desire? No.
Instead this man worked as a tent maker to feed himself as he preached the gospel. He was repeatedly arrested and beaten. He was imprisoned. He was shipwrecked. His rights as a Roman citizen were violated. And he was executed for his beliefs. What earthly power did he have?
“Telling other people what to think and how to worship is a great deal of power.”
Did he possess any power for himself? Give me an example. Can you?
“That’s great. I never said he was a rapist and am still trying to figure out why you brought it up in the first place.”
You compared him to Koresh remember? Koresh raped young girls.
“Oh, you think he was the only ambitious man in history not to use his power to seduce women.”
Wait. You think all ambitions men use their “power” to seduce women? First of all, seduction is not rape. Those are two different things. Second, what evidence do you have that Paul ever seduced ANYONE? Third, I believe there are plenty of ambitious men out there who don’t rape women. You sound like a raving feminist. Are you in the right forum?
“My response can only be: as far as we know, he didn’t, but not all of them do. There’s no evidence Rasputin had a bevy of young beauties in his bed either, or that nut from the Heaven’s Gate cult.”
Actually there’s plenty of evidence Rasputin seduced women. The guy who ran Heaven’s Gate was castrated as were many of the male followers. http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/28/mass.suicide.pm/
No matter what you talk about here you seem to have little or no knowledge about the subject.
Heavens no!
You have a very simplistic idea of what "power" is. Nelson Mandela had power. Ghandi had power. They are practically worshipped in some circles (as Paul is here) but they too lived sometimes in simplicity, sometimes in captivity and danger... you need to expand your understanding of what power is. It's not just the ability to command armies and get laid.
You compared him to Koresh remember? Koresh raped young girls.
I just mean that many people (usually men) have claimed -- and perhaps even believed -- that God was speaking to them, and giving them authority to lead others. The details of how they wield that power, be it securing hot chicks or telling churches not to let women speak, depends on the man.
You think all ambitions men use their “power” to seduce women?
No, I said just the opposite; that they don't all do that, and if he didn't, he wouldn't be the only one.
Actually there’s plenty of evidence Rasputin seduced women.
That has been disputed recently. Who knows? I don't particularly care.
The guy who ran Heaven’s Gate was castrated as were many of the male followers.
Exactly. He was not using his power for sex. In fact, he seemed to have a real hang-up about it (rather like Paul.)
No matter what you talk about here you seem to have little or no knowledge about the subject.
It's not me, dear, it's you. You are not reading carefully what I am saying, and you are missing the point.
I didn't bring it up. You are addressing the wrong person.
So you aren't implying that Paul is a possible sexual predator?
Not at all. Paul’s sex life never crossed my mind.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.