If you were taught that eating chicken on Tuesdays was a sin, and you found out in your later years that there is no such teaching in the Bible, are you being rebellious or deceptive if you start eating chicken on Tuesdays?
HO,
You are a smart woman using a chicken metaphor. That will get the preachers attention!!!
If you were taught that eating chicken on Tuesdays was a sin, and you found out in your later years that there is no such teaching in the Bible, are you being rebellious or deceptive if you start eating chicken on Tuesdays?
WAIT!
Eating chicken on Tuesdays is NOT a sin?????????????
Paul said it was a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, not to have cut hair. Shorn and shaven both refer to the total removal of hair, not the mere cutting of it.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
The difference in God's people of the OT and the NT is that God required outward signs in the OT. He didn't in the NT, otherwise men would have to be circumcised when they are saved (if they weren't already).
Paul preached that it didn't apply to us anymore.
Outward signs like baptism-communion-annointing with oil-washing feet?
Elder Blume are you going to teach your artificial veil teaching at your church in California?
I will teach this is what the bible was talking about. But I already indicated that the covering of the veil in our culture means nothing to people, like it does in the middle east. In the middle east, when Paul mentioned covering they not only knew it meant a VEIL, but they knew it meant submission. Over here, they know neither, (some present company included). But my concern is that they do not know it means submission. So if it is a matter of showing what everyone would know as submission, if everyone does NOT KNOW it means that in our culture the symbol is moot.
If it's actual disobedience, sure. But God doesn't play games where he puts something so important in an obscure place without really saying what he means and then says "I'm going to get you for that!" When something is sin, God is plain.
The word "sin" isn't even mentioned in that passage. Not once.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
I will teach this is what the bible was talking about. But I already indicated that the covering of the veil in our culture means nothing to people, like it does in the middle east. In the middle east, when Paul mentioned covering they not only knew it meant a VEIL, but they knew it meant submission. Over here, they know neither, (some present company included). But my concern is that they do not know it means submission. So if it is a matter of showing what everyone would know as submission, if everyone does NOT KNOW it means that in our culture the symbol is moot.
Am I wrong did you not say on FCF you believed in a artificial covering? I thought I asked you if your wife wore one and you said yes???? Is my memory getting that bad?
Why would the symbol be minimized because we may not comprehend the total import of the statement? It must mean something important if the angels are included in this text so if I don't understand it that does nothing to it's importance. Evidently Heaven is concerned if the angels are injoined on this subject. Notice the incarnation has the angels in it's text "seen of the angels." Angels are ministering spirits concerned with our welfare unless this is in reference to evil angels who rejected God's authority or the angels that guard the throne of God lest the glory of man would be seen in His majestic presence.
Angels are injoined in Revelation and in end-time prophecies yet INTERPRETATIONS ABOUND ... and yes heaven is concerned ... in every biblical topic .... but to make your tradition salvational ... is irresponsible and full of error.
Linear Mode
