More guided or less guided ?

[Soloist]

But my point is that what Jesus and NT writers preached to be practised in that culture, we do not practise as Christians in our culture. I don't go to somewhere else in this world where I can continue being a Christian with slaves so I can literally follow what is written in the New Testament. Instead we look at what the message is that the NT gives behind the practise and try to apply it as such.

Nowhere does it say we have to own slaves. It simply tells us how to interact if we are slaves. The Scripture was wrote to people under Roman occupation in much of the known world and we cannot go live under Romans nor would we want to. The commands to be obedient to the Government still applies today as well as the objection to ungodly practices.

Also, I was raised in a church that did once a year foot washing. Nothing wrong with acting out this practise if the idea of being a servant to each other in what might be considered the lowliest of tasks but this task in that time and place was a norm. What was not a norm was that they washed each other's feet and not just be served if you were not a servant/slave. Since this was an ongoing task in that setting, it was not a once a year type of event. I believe Jesus used this practise to teach us to be servants of one another throughout the year.

I would tend to agree that it wasn't a once a year practice and that it was to teach us to be servants to each other. What I cannot do is say its not a command as Jesus stated it clearly.

What is not said is that they are commandments of the Lord for all believers for all time. There is no doubt in my mind from historical data that women did not have the education or exposure to biblical studies as a man. It would not help further the Kingdom at that time to get women involved in certain ministry whereas today, God is using many women in leading roles especially in the foreign mission settings.

If we were to go back to the of end slavery, would you also say that about the slaves? Never did Paul or any of Scriptures express this was an education thing and never was there a limit on who could be ordained among the believing men. It doesn't say anything outside of not a young Christian. Education was not the litmus test prior to ordination in fact they speak to few of the educated coming into the kingdom. Paul also connects the limit of a woman preaching or exercising authority back to the garden. Several of the early church leaders were said to have been slaves and this did not limit them. Gentiles would not have had the education in Scripture any more then a woman had. I think your argument is deeply flawed when you consider what the Scripture actually said.
Many well meaning individuals are misled by desire to lessen the statements on women but the Bible clearly states that a woman was not to lead the church or practice authority over a man and this was not educational differences.

If you sense the guiding of the Spirit to take every NT written command as applicable to all Christians for all time, then follow that leading and be blessed. Regarding water baptism (immersion) not only did the full immersion get changed in the earliest practise but the literal names used was not according to what Jesus literally said. No one, as recorded in the NT, immersed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Did Peter start a new way to baptise and disregard what Jesus commanded ? If we look at the text literally, he did.

So, in this case, the symbol for baptism (immersion-dying to sin and rising to right living) was of significance. In the Didache we find qualifications outlined for water baptism found nowhere in the NT. So, the NT practise literally has not been followed by many Christians, many Anabaptists too.

While I might disagree with mode of baptism of the Mennonites, I would disagree that Peter disobeyed Jesus. I also would say that the Scripture might imply immersion but doesn't dictate immersion. Didache was compiled over several decades and its impossible to separate what was earliest practice and what was later practice and pursuing that line of thinking leads to Orthodoxy or Catholic dogma.

So you are not in support of cape dresses or headcoverings as was historically worn in the NT ? Well, then it seems you agree with what a covering means and not the literal practise of the early church culture. As long as a woman has something, more than her hair, on her head (including a see through little cap that basically covers very little) she is obeying scripture ? And as long as a woman wears modest clothing, cape dress or otherwise, she is in obedience ? Do I understand your view here ?

Scripture doesn't dictate what is modest or what a covering looked like. My wife choses to wear an opaque cap for this reason. There is very little in the early church writings about what a covering looked like outside of Tertullian advocating for face coverings. There are several differing arguments about what a covering is but even the Jewish women cover. Mind you... they shave their heads and then wear a wig so that seems pretty crazy to me... that wasn't how they did so in the Old Testament though.

So you lift your hands to pray 'everywhere' (if taken literally), like in a restaurant when you say grace ? And when Paul talks about women not wearing certain things just after men praying with lifted hands (1 Timothy 2) he says all this beginning with it being Paul's desire or what Paul wants. He didn't say God commands these things forever and ever.

Could it be that what 'quenches the Spirit' is when Christians get hung up on these kind of things and we debate them forever while we are not reaching the lost who Jesus came to save, self included ?

You get hung up on this lifting hands thing. Someone disobeying this should not justify disobedience in other area's. a person will be judged without another to use as an excuse.

[Outsider]

But my point is that what Jesus and NT writers preached to be practised in that culture, we do not practise as Christians in our culture. I don't go to somewhere else in this world where I can continue being a Christian with slaves so I can literally follow what is written in the New Testament. Instead we look at what the message is that the NT gives behind the practise and try to apply it as such.

In the case of slavery, that's true. But he also gave us ritual observances. Baptism, the Lord's Supper, men uncovered, women covered, and the order in the Churchs.

Also, I was raised in a church that did once a year foot washing. Nothing wrong with acting out this practise if the idea of being a servant to each other in what might be considered the lowliest of tasks but this task in that time and place was a norm. What was not a norm was that they washed each other's feet and not just be served if you were not a servant/slave. Since this was an ongoing task in that setting, it was not a once a year type of event. I believe Jesus used this practise to teach us to be servants of one another throughout the year.

The ritual is a symbolic act that resonates in the world of powers and principalities. Jesus didn't get Baptised for no good reason, it was an act of power in the spiritual world which surrounds us. That is what ritual does.

Do you believe in the spiritual level of existence?

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Or do you believe that all of that is superstition?

You're quite right in that it is a lesson which teaches and reminds us to serve others and to follow the "weightier matters of the law". But a ritual is meant to do more than teach- it is meant to summon the angels of God to minister to the Assembly.

"37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

What is not said is that they are commandments of the Lord for all believers for all time. There is no doubt in my mind from historical data that women did not have the education or exposure to biblical studies as a man. It would not help further the Kingdom at that time to get women involved in certain ministry whereas today, God is using many women in leading roles especially in the foreign mission settings.

And you lead with the main proposition of "modernism", and with which I must strongly resist. The "we know better than those primitive yahoos" fallacy. I don't see that whole POV being fruitful either in the Church, or in the world as modernism drifts into "post-modernism", where there is not real "truth" but everything is subjective and everyone has "their own truth". This is not Biblical.

People like to say that the commands for women to be submissive to the male heads of the church and silent in the assembly is "misogynist" and that it's male chauvinism.

Satan deceived Eve- but man was deceived by woman. Men are readily deceived by women. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other. It means men and women have different strengths and weaknesses.

Women are, by biology, more interested in finding security in this world. They are weaker, they bear children, and they can't sustain life for themselves and their children on their own.

Men are interested in protecting and pleasing women. Which is exactly why "Modern" men deny the witness of the scripture in these things and seek to trivialize the commands of God.

Isaiah 3:12
As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

If you sense the guiding of the Spirit to take every NT written command as applicable to all Christians for all time, then follow that leading and be blessed.

I most assuredly will do my best.

Regarding water baptism (immersion) not only did the full immersion get changed in the earliest practise but the literal names used was not according to what Jesus literally said. No one, as recorded in the NT, immersed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Did Peter start a new way to baptise and disregard what Jesus commanded ? If we look at the text literally, he did.

Could you share the scripture?

So, in this case, the symbol for baptism (immersion-dying to sin and rising to right living) was of significance. In the Didache we find qualifications outlined for water baptism found nowhere in the NT. So, the NT practise literally has not been followed by many Christians, many Anabaptists too.

Which proves Anabaptists have carried over errors from the traditions of men, as have others.

Galatians 1:19
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

I don't see the connection here with preaching the gospel unless you are saying that not taking all scriptures literally in practise is another gospel.

As Paul was talking about his work, yes. He wasn't talking about the four books we call "gospels" today. If you ignore and despise the ritual commands- which are the easiest of all the commands to fulfill, unlike the elaborate rituals under the law of Moses- you're undermining Christ's sacrifice of himself, which is the ultimate ritual manifested in the old or new testaments. If ritual is meaningless, why did Christ have to die?

So you are not in support of cape dresses or headcoverings as was historically worn in the NT ? Well, then it seems you agree with what a covering means and not the literal practise of the early church culture. As long as a woman has something, more than her hair, on her head (including a see through little cap that basically covers very little) she is obeying scripture ? And as long as a woman wears modest clothing, cape dress or otherwise, she is in obedience ? Do I understand your view here ?

I sense the sarcasm is strong with you in the first line of that response.

I support any form of clothing which is modest in both men and women, yes.

he says all this beginning with it being Paul's desire or what Paul wants. He didn't say God commands these things forever and ever.

I agree. Paul's point wasn't the lifting of hands, but the lack of wrath and doubting in prayer. I lift my hands when the spirit moves me to. But sometimes I just bow my head.

And though he doesn't say specifically that the things he says concerning women are commands of god in that passage, he most certainly does emphasize it as a command of God in other places.

Could it be that what 'quenches the Spirit' is when Christians get hung up on these kind of things and we debate them forever while we are not reaching the lost who Jesus came to save, self included ?[/color]

While I agree that the ritual aspects of Christianity aren't the "weightier aspects of the law", they are still part and parcel of the way we are to conduct our lives and our Assemblies- and not for reasons that are apparent to the carnal world.

Christianity has entered a new phase. In the past, the Church tried to rule the world and became carnal. Now the carnal is being allowed to rule the Church, which is even a worse state of affairs.

And those are your choices as you understand what scripture requires of you. Others believe we are in a culture where men and women do now have opportunities to lead that they never had before and God is using some of them to further His Kingdom. I am one who observes the later to be true.

Women have always had a place to lead in the Church. But not to be the teachers or heads of men.

You can view that in purely carnal terms of "equality" and deny the psycho-physiological differences between men and women and the spiritual differences, but they are there. And the ritual purity has weight in the world of the powers and principalities.

These are actually selfish rituals. The rituals and the ritual purity is to give one power and aid on the spiritual level to overcome the spirits of this world. The rituals are to draw God to look down on us and say, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

In other worlds, I'm not saying you're going to hell because you don't practice them- but you'd be a lot less likely to end up there with help than struggling along in the flesh alone.

I view education somewhat like money. Having too much can get a grip on us that actually can make us stray from the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Somewhat agree. I think when you let the philosophies of men take precedence over the word of God, you have already strayed from the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Like money, education depends on what you do with it, how you appraise it, and where you put it in your hierarchy of value. God, and God's word should come first.

I believe it is good to consider each other's understanding of the Scriptures and what is applicable today and how. I also believe the Holy Spirit can and does guide us in how to live as a Christ follower today in the cultures we live in. Are people being drawn to Christ by how we apply scripture or are they being turned off.

"Many are called, but few are chosen." We should not dilute the teachings of God in order to get warm bodies on the pews.

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

What is the bottom line affect on how we live our lives before the yet-to-be-saved. Do they see Christ or do they see religion, a life of dos and don'ts. I wish I could say those I have contact with were drawn to the Christ living in me as who they need in their lives. I know it isn't God's fault when they don't.

"Those he loves, he rebukes."

[Sudsy]

But my point is that what Jesus and NT writers preached to be practised in that culture, we do not practise as Christians in our culture. I don't go to somewhere else in this world where I can continue being a Christian with slaves so I can literally follow what is written in the New Testament. Instead we look at what the message is that the NT gives behind the practise and try to apply it as such.

Nowhere does it say we have to own slaves. It simply tells us how to interact if we are slaves. The Scripture was wrote to people under Roman occupation in much of the known world and we cannot go live under Romans nor would we want to. The commands to be obedient to the Government still applies today as well as the objection to ungodly practices.

Right it does not say we have to own slaves but if we are to follow the scriptures literally we would need to go to someplace where we could and literally do as the scripture says. The directions are not just for Christian slaves but also for Christian slave owners. My point being that to follow the scriptures literally we would need to find places in this world to do so and they do exist.

Also, I was raised in a church that did once a year foot washing. Nothing wrong with acting out this practise if the idea of being a servant to each other in what might be considered the lowliest of tasks but this task in that time and place was a norm. What was not a norm was that they washed each other's feet and not just be served if you were not a servant/slave. Since this was an ongoing task in that setting, it was not a once a year type of event. I believe Jesus used this practise to teach us to be servants of one another throughout the year.

I would tend to agree that it wasn't a once a year practice and that it was to teach us to be servants to each other. What I cannot do is say its not a command as Jesus stated it clearly.

Jesus called it 'an example' not a command. Jesus does not mean that all Christians are obligated to literally, physically wash the feet of others. The implication goes far beyond a ritual. The point being made is that those who "follow" Christ ought to "follow" His example in humility and service.

What is not said is that they are commandments of the Lord for all believers for all time. There is no doubt in my mind from historical data that women did not have the education or exposure to biblical studies as a man. It would not help further the Kingdom at that time to get women involved in certain ministry whereas today, God is using many women in leading roles especially in the foreign mission settings.

If we were to go back to the of end slavery, would you also say that about the slaves? Never did Paul or any of Scriptures express this was an education thing and never was there a limit on who could be ordained among the believing men. It doesn't say anything outside of not a young Christian. Education was not the litmus test prior to ordination in fact they speak to few of the educated coming into the kingdom. Paul also connects the limit of a woman preaching or exercising authority back to the garden. Several of the early church leaders were said to have been slaves and this did not limit them. Gentiles would not have had the education in Scripture any more then a woman had. I think your argument is deeply flawed when you consider what the Scripture actually said.

I agree it was not stated to be an 'education thing' but history tells us women were not as educated as men and especially in going to the synagogue where men debated the scriptures daily. It is reasonable to my thinking that this was not an age and place for women to take these kind of leading roles. What has even more weight is how God is using women today in furthering His Kingdom through their ministry in leading roles. I have experience in this area as I was raised in a church with a Pentecostal lady pastor that I would never consider she was not used of God. Whether this was God's ideal or not, it didn't and doesn't hinder God from still working out His purposes through women who He gifts with leading roles.

Many well meaning individuals are misled by desire to lessen the statements on women but the Bible clearly states that a woman was not to lead the church or practice authority over a man and this was not educational differences.

I could say many well meaning individuals have a flawed understanding of how God works in His Kingdom with their scriptural understandings and this is proven by what God is actually doing today. You may view this as going against scripture whereas I believe God is not so 'locked in', so to speak, by how He operated in the early church. So we will have to agree to disagree.

If you sense the guiding of the Spirit to take every NT written command as applicable to all Christians for all time, then follow that leading and be blessed. Regarding water baptism (immersion) not only did the full immersion get changed in the earliest practise but the literal names used was not according to what Jesus literally said. No one, as recorded in the NT, immersed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Did Peter start a new way to baptise and disregard what Jesus commanded ? If we look at the text literally, he did.

So, in this case, the symbol for baptism (immersion-dying to sin and rising to right living) was of significance. In the Didache we find qualifications outlined for water baptism found nowhere in the NT. So, the NT practise literally has not been followed by many Christians, many Anabaptists too.

While I might disagree with mode of baptism of the Mennonites, I would disagree that Peter disobeyed Jesus. I also would say that the Scripture might imply immersion but doesn't dictate immersion. Didache was compiled over several decades and its impossible to separate what was earliest practice and what was later practice and pursuing that line of thinking leads to Orthodoxy or Catholic dogma.

I agree that Peter did not disobey Jesus but if we take the scripture on water baptism that Jesus commanded ('Go ye -----'),and read literally the name new believers were baptised with, it does not agree. Oneness Pentecostals would say it is one and the same because the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the name of Jesus so Peter understood Jesus rightly and Trinitarians don't. Exactly why Peter and others baptised in Jesus name only, I don't understand but I don't believe they were being disobedient.

So you are not in support of cape dresses or headcoverings as was historically worn in the NT ? Well, then it seems you agree with what a covering means and not the literal practise of the early church culture. As long as a woman has something, more than her hair, on her head (including a see through little cap that basically covers very little) she is obeying scripture ? And as long as a woman wears modest clothing, cape dress or otherwise, she is in obedience ? Do I understand your view here ?

Scripture doesn't dictate what is modest or what a covering looked like. My wife choses to wear an opaque cap for this reason. There is very little in the early church writings about what a covering looked like outside of Tertullian advocating for face coverings. There are several differing arguments about what a covering is but even the Jewish women cover. Mind you... they shave their heads and then wear a wig so that seems pretty crazy to me... that wasn't how they did so in the Old Testament though.

Others say scripture does say what a covering looks like - 1 Cor 11:15b literally - 'For long hair is given to her as a covering.' Seems like a cap is unnecessary but long hair is. And how long is long hair ?

So you lift your hands to pray 'everywhere' (if taken literally), like in a restaurant when you say grace ? And when Paul talks about women not wearing certain things just after men praying with lifted hands (1 Timothy 2) he says all this beginning with it being Paul's desire or what Paul wants. He didn't say God commands these things forever and ever.

Could it be that what 'quenches the Spirit' is when Christians get hung up on these kind of things and we debate them forever while we are not reaching the lost who Jesus came to save, self included ?

You get hung up on this lifting hands thing. Someone disobeying this should not justify disobedience in other area's. a person will be judged without another to use as an excuse.

I do often refer to the 'lifting hands thing' mainly because men here often like to bring up verses pertaining to what women should do and often ignore the scriptures on what they should do. And if we look at this 1 Tim 2:8 closely it warns us about how we approach our disagreements -

Barnes Notes - They were not to approach God in prayer in the midst of clamorous disputings and angry contentions. They were not to come when the mind was heated with debate, and irritated by strife for victory. Prayer was to be offered in a calm, serious, sober state of mind, and they who engaged in polemical strife, or in warm contention of any kind, are little fitted to unite in the solemn act of addressing God. How often are theologians, when assembled together, so heated by debate, and so anxious for party victory, that they are in no suitable state of mind to pray! How often do even good people, holding different views on the disputed points of religious doctrine, suffer their minds to become so excited, and their temper so ruffled, that they are conscious they are in an unfit state of mind to approach the throne of grace together! That theological debate has gone too far; that strife for victory has become too warm, when the disputants are in such a state of mind that they cannot unite in prayer; when they could not cease their contentions, and with a calm and proper spirit, bow together before the throne of grace.

We need to take this seriously too in the verse of lifting holy hands.
,

[Soloist]

Satan deceived Eve- but man was deceived by woman. Men are readily deceived by women. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other. It means men and women have different strengths and weaknesses.

Just a point to this,

1 Timothy 2 13-14 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Adam chose to follow but was not deceived. He is held responsible for his lack of leadership by listening rather then standing for what was right.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife,

The headship order is established from the beginning of sin and God does not change.

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

[Sudsy]

But my point is that what Jesus and NT writers preached to be practised in that culture, we do not practise as Christians in our culture. I don't go to somewhere else in this world where I can continue being a Christian with slaves so I can literally follow what is written in the New Testament. Instead we look at what the message is that the NT gives behind the practise and try to apply it as such.

In the case of slavery, that's true. But he also gave us ritual observances. Baptism, the Lord's Supper, men uncovered, women covered, and the order in the Churchs.

In the churches I have attended (aside from the Salvation Army) we observed ordinances, two, water baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Communion; Eucharist). My previous MB pastor was quite keen on us calling these ordinances and not sacraments.

Also, I was raised in a church that did once a year foot washing. Nothing wrong with acting out this practise if the idea of being a servant to each other in what might be considered the lowliest of tasks but this task in that time and place was a norm. What was not a norm was that they washed each other's feet and not just be served if you were not a servant/slave. Since this was an ongoing task in that setting, it was not a once a year type of event. I believe Jesus used this practise to teach us to be servants of one another throughout the year.

The ritual is a symbolic act that resonates in the world of powers and principalities. Jesus didn't get Baptised for no good reason, it was an act of power in the spiritual world which surrounds us. That is what ritual does.

Do you believe in the spiritual level of existence?

For sure, yes.

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Or do you believe that all of that is superstition?

You're quite right in that it is a lesson which teaches and reminds us to serve others and to follow the "weightier matters of the law". But a ritual is meant to do more than teach- it is meant to summon the angels of God to minister to the Assembly.

That I'm not convinced of regarding angels.

"37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

What is not said is that they are commandments of the Lord for all believers for all time. There is no doubt in my mind from historical data that women did not have the education or exposure to biblical studies as a man. It would not help further the Kingdom at that time to get women involved in certain ministry whereas today, God is using many women in leading roles especially in the foreign mission settings.

And you lead with the main proposition of "modernism", and with which I must strongly resist. The "we know better than those primitive yahoos" fallacy. I don't see that whole POV being fruitful either in the Church, or in the world as modernism drifts into "post-modernism", where there is not real "truth" but everything is subjective and everyone has "their own truth". This is not Biblical.

I don't see it that way but rather God is at work building His Kingdom as He determines and it has nothing to do with us having superior spiritual understandings over those in the past.

People like to say that the commands for women to be submissive to the male heads of the church and silent in the assembly is "misogynist" and that it's male chauvinism.

Satan deceived Eve- but man was deceived by woman. Men are readily deceived by women. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other. It means men and women have different strengths and weaknesses.

Women are, by biology, more interested in finding security in this world. They are weaker, they bear children, and they can't sustain life for themselves and their children on their own.

Men are interested in protecting and pleasing women. Which is exactly why "Modern" men deny the witness of the scripture in these things and seek to trivialize the commands of God.

If that is what you chose to believe about men and women, that is your choice. I won't get into defending either one but believe you have some flawed understandings here.

Isaiah 3:12
As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

If you sense the guiding of the Spirit to take every NT written command as applicable to all Christians for all time, then follow that leading and be blessed.

I most assuredly will do my best.

Regarding water baptism (immersion) not only did the full immersion get changed in the earliest practise but the literal names used was not according to what Jesus literally said. No one, as recorded in the NT, immersed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Did Peter start a new way to baptise and disregard what Jesus commanded ? If we look at the text literally, he did.

Could you share the scripture?

Acts 2:38 for one and there are others.

So, in this case, the symbol for baptism (immersion-dying to sin and rising to right living) was of significance. In the Didache we find qualifications outlined for water baptism found nowhere in the NT. So, the NT practise literally has not been followed by many Christians, many Anabaptists too.

Which proves Anabaptists have carried over errors from the traditions of men, as have others.

Galatians 1:19
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

I don't see the connection here with preaching the gospel unless you are saying that not taking all scriptures literally in practise is another gospel.

As Paul was talking about his work, yes. He wasn't talking about the four books we call "gospels" today. If you ignore and despise the ritual commands- which are the easiest of all the commands to fulfill, unlike the elaborate rituals under the law of Moses- you're undermining Christ's sacrifice of himself, which is the ultimate ritual manifested in the old or new testaments. If ritual is meaningless, why did Christ have to die?

Christ died for our sins.

So you are not in support of cape dresses or headcoverings as was historically worn in the NT ? Well, then it seems you agree with what a covering means and not the literal practise of the early church culture. As long as a woman has something, more than her hair, on her head (including a see through little cap that basically covers very little) she is obeying scripture ? And as long as a woman wears modest clothing, cape dress or otherwise, she is in obedience ? Do I understand your view here ?

I sense the sarcasm is strong with you in the first line of that response.

I was simply asking a question not being sarcastic.

I support any form of clothing which is modest in both men and women, yes.

Thankyou.

he says all this beginning with it being Paul's desire or what Paul wants. He didn't say God commands these things forever and ever.

I agree. Paul's point wasn't the lifting of hands, but the lack of wrath and doubting in prayer. I lift my hands when the spirit moves me to. But sometimes I just bow my head.

And though he doesn't say specifically that the things he says concerning women are commands of god in that passage, he most certainly does emphasize it as a command of God in other places.

Could it be that what 'quenches the Spirit' is when Christians get hung up on these kind of things and we debate them forever while we are not reaching the lost who Jesus came to save, self included ?[/color]

While I agree that the ritual aspects of Christianity aren't the "weightier aspects of the law", they are still part and parcel of the way we are to conduct our lives and our Assemblies- and not for reasons that are apparent to the carnal world.

Christianity has entered a new phase. In the past, the Church tried to rule the world and became carnal. Now the carnal is being allowed to rule the Church, which is even a worse state of affairs.

And those are your choices as you understand what scripture requires of you. Others believe we are in a culture where men and women do now have opportunities to lead that they never had before and God is using some of them to further His Kingdom. I am one who observes the later to be true.

Women have always had a place to lead in the Church. But not to be the teachers or heads of men.

You can view that in purely carnal terms of "equality" and deny the psycho-physiological differences between men and women and the spiritual differences, but they are there. And the ritual purity has weight in the world of the powers and principalities.

These are actually selfish rituals. The rituals and the ritual purity is to give one power and aid on the spiritual level to overcome the spirits of this world. The rituals are to draw God to look down on us and say, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

In other worlds, I'm not saying you're going to hell because you don't practice them- but you'd be a lot less likely to end up there with help than struggling along in the flesh alone.

Again, your views, not mine.

I view education somewhat like money. Having too much can get a grip on us that actually can make us stray from the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Somewhat agree. I think when you let the philosophies of men take precedence over the word of God, you have already strayed from the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Like money, education depends on what you do with it, how you appraise it, and where you put it in your hierarchy of value. God, and God's word should come first.

I believe it is good to consider each other's understanding of the Scriptures and what is applicable today and how. I also believe the Holy Spirit can and does guide us in how to live as a Christ follower today in the cultures we live in. Are people being drawn to Christ by how we apply scripture or are they being turned off.

"Many are called, but few are chosen." We should not dilute the teachings of God in order to get warm bodies on the pews.

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

What is the bottom line affect on how we live our lives before the yet-to-be-saved. Do they see Christ or do they see religion, a life of dos and don'ts. I wish I could say those I have contact with were drawn to the Christ living in me as who they need in their lives. I know it isn't God's fault when they don't.

"Those he loves, he rebukes."

One last comment - I find it interesting the verses you use to support your views. I could get into challenging your application in using some of these but best not. We have some disagreements but we need to be careful of what kind of spirit we have as we give our understandings. We all 'see through a glass darkly and only know in part'. No believer has arrived and has or ever will have the full knowledge of God's truths.

[Outsider]

Satan deceived Eve- but man was deceived by woman. Men are readily deceived by women. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other. It means men and women have different strengths and weaknesses.

Just a point to this,

1 Timothy 2 13-14 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Adam chose to follow but was not deceived. He is held responsible for his lack of leadership by listening rather then standing for what was right.

I think we're splitting hairs here, but wouldn't you agree that being led to follow Satan, whomever might be doing the leading, is to be led into deception- i.e. "deceived"?

[Soloist]

Right it does not say we have to own slaves but if we are to follow the scriptures literally we would need to go to someplace where we could and literally do as the scripture says. The directions are not just for Christian slaves but also for Christian slave owners. My point being that to follow the scriptures literally we would need to find places in this world to do so and they do exist.

No and you know that isn't what was meant.

What is not said is that they are commandments of the Lord for all believers for all time. There is no doubt in my mind from historical data that women did not have the education or exposure to biblical studies as a man. It would not help further the Kingdom at that time to get women involved in certain ministry whereas today, God is using many women in leading roles especially in the foreign mission settings.

And by following this lie... you can throw out 99% of the Bible as it wasn't said it was for believers of all times. I don't doubt that God uses women to lead people to Christ. I have no problem with women in ministry. I have a problem with them in positions of authority over a man per what Scripture says by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit... Even David Burcot says the JW teaching helped lead him to the truth. Some teach for their own glory

Philippians 1: 15-18 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Can you reference Scripture supporting your claims or only a claim that the Spirit has led you to these positions?

I agree it was not stated to be an 'education thing' but history tells us women were not as educated as men and especially in going to the synagogue where men debated the scriptures daily. It is reasonable to my thinking that this was not an age and place for women to take these kind of leading roles. What has even more weight is how God is using women today in furthering His Kingdom through their ministry in leading roles. I have experience in this area as I was raised in a church with a Pentecostal lady pastor that I would never consider she was not used of God. Whether this was God's ideal or not, it didn't and doesn't hinder God from still working out His purposes through women who He gifts with leading roles.

See Philippians 1 15-18. Also if you agree its not an education thing and then bring in education... Would you have limited a slave from preaching due to the lack of education? They were not raised debating Scripture daily... Most women today are not either and the ones who do preach go to seminary which didn't exist in those days. It certainly seems like you are saying both things.

I could say many well meaning individuals have a flawed understanding of how God works in His Kingdom with their scriptural understandings and this is proven by what God is actually doing today. You may view this as going against scripture whereas I believe God is not so 'locked in', so to speak, by how He operated in the early church. So we will have to agree to disagree.

God is locked in by His own words and I believe them to be true. God said "I change not". Show me from Scripture a defense of women preaching the gospel without a man. Otherwise its your own views being superimposed as the Spirit speaking to you.

Others say scripture does say what a covering looks like - 1 Cor 11:15b literally - 'For long hair is given to her as a covering.' Seems like a cap is unnecessary but long hair is. And how long is long hair ?

I think you need to consider that someone who believes it is the hair has little proper answer to a few questions. 1: how can a woman have long hair if she has to cut it because its not long enough?

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.

Secondly why does Paul say a man is the glory of God and not to cover God's glory?

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

but then immediately says a woman is the glory of man

but the woman is the glory of the man.

Then Paul says the woman's hair is her glory.

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

So to recap, man is God's glory and we should not cover, woman is man's glory and her hair is her glory. What should be covered? man's glory? a woman's glory? or God's glory?
From this, one can make several arguments but from text any pro-hair covering argument breaks down trying to answer this as well.

Also

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

Is the hair the symbol of power? then why be overly complicated and say all this about a man not being covered?

Does a man need to be bald? Also the words "For this cause" is referencing either the

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.

or is referencing

but the woman is the glory of the man.

I can agree we cannot agree but you do disservice to the rest of the text to focus only on one verse.

I do often refer to the 'lifting hands thing' mainly because men here often like to bring up verses pertaining to what women should do and often ignore the scriptures on what they should do. And if we look at this 1 Tim 2:8 closely it warns us about how we approach our disagreements -

We need to take this seriously too in the verse of lifting holy hands.
,

I view commentaries as deceptive. There is nothing wrong with believing its wrong to quarrel and I can agree with that. There is quite a lot said about men in Scripture and I would focus on the holy aspect of the hands more then the hands itself.

13And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. 14Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. 16For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

Isaiah 1: 15-19 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.
Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:

21 How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.

22 Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water:

Modernism is dross and water trying to be mixed with truth.

Okay so focus on men, nothing wrong with that. How do you apply the man being uncovered to yourself? do you believe in only having short hair? not wearing a hat? or are you bald? or do you believe that this didn't apply to modern man and you have long hair?

22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

What is Peter speaking of here?

2 Peter 2: 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

What Commandment is Peter speaking of here?

2 Peter 3: 1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

Authority is claimed here by the apostles. The teachings of the Apostles is Scripture and is for all time.

2 Peter 3 15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

1 John 24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

How do you interpret this? Certainly seems to be saying that those who keep the commandments of Jesus will have the Spirit abiding within.

One last comment - I find it interesting the verses you use to support your views. I could get into challenging your application in using some of these but best not. We have some disagreements but we need to be careful of what kind of spirit we have as we give our understandings. We all 'see through a glass darkly and only know in part'. No believer has arrived and has or ever will have the full knowledge of God's truths.

Interesting final comment in regard to 1 John 1:24.

[Soloist]

I think we're splitting hairs here, but wouldn't you agree that being led to follow Satan, whomever might be doing the leading, is to be led into deception- i.e. "deceived"?

Following Satan results in eternal consequences, and trades temporary earthly pleasures for eternity. The Scripture says clearly though that Adam was not deceived.

[Sudsy]

Right it does not say we have to own slaves but if we are to follow the scriptures literally we would need to go to someplace where we could and literally do as the scripture says. The directions are not just for Christian slaves but also for Christian slave owners. My point being that to follow the scriptures literally we would need to find places in this world to do so and they do exist.

No and you know that isn't what was meant.

I know it is not what is meant but to practise the scriptures literally, I still say, this would be required. It is an argument that all scripture cannot be taken literally as some might suggest and some believe they do.

What is not said is that they are commandments of the Lord for all believers for all time. There is no doubt in my mind from historical data that women did not have the education or exposure to biblical studies as a man. It would not help further the Kingdom at that time to get women involved in certain ministry whereas today, God is using many women in leading roles especially in the foreign mission settings.

And by following this lie... you can throw out 99% of the Bible as it wasn't said it was for believers of all times. I don't doubt that God uses women to lead people to Christ. I have no problem with women in ministry. I have a problem with them in positions of authority over a man per what Scripture says by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit... Even David Burcot says the JW teaching helped lead him to the truth. Some teach for their own glory

Yes you can throw away the Bible or you can 'rightly divide the word of truth' to separate what was intended strickly for that specific audience and what is meant for everyone for all time. That is what we are trying to do as we sense the Spirit's guidance, right ? Some churches, like the MB church I attended hold to the lead pastor as the position of authority and women are allowed all other roles including teaching pastors. What exactly is this role of authority over man. If it is a final decision role for a church by a lead pastor, I have no issue with that myself although I was raised in a church with a lady lead pastor. I know how God used her so she was under the authority of the church organizational authority that were men.

Philippians 1: 15-18 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Can you reference Scripture supporting your claims or only a claim that the Spirit has led you to these positions?

Not anymore than you can use scripture to support what positions are those of authority. One can be a teaching pastor as a woman without claiming to be an authority over man.

I agree it was not stated to be an 'education thing' but history tells us women were not as educated as men and especially in going to the synagogue where men debated the scriptures daily. It is reasonable to my thinking that this was not an age and place for women to take these kind of leading roles. What has even more weight is how God is using women today in furthering His Kingdom through their ministry in leading roles. I have experience in this area as I was raised in a church with a Pentecostal lady pastor that I would never consider she was not used of God. Whether this was God's ideal or not, it didn't and doesn't hinder God from still working out His purposes through women who He gifts with leading roles.

See Philippians 1 15-18. Also if you agree its not an education thing and then bring in education... Would you have limited a slave from preaching due to the lack of education? They were not raised debating Scripture daily... Most women today are not either and the ones who do preach go to seminary which didn't exist in those days. It certainly seems like you are saying both things.

I could say many well meaning individuals have a flawed understanding of how God works in His Kingdom with their scriptural understandings and this is proven by what God is actually doing today. You may view this as going against scripture whereas I believe God is not so 'locked in', so to speak, by how He operated in the early church. So we will have to agree to disagree.

God is locked in by His own words and I believe them to be true. God said "I change not". Show me from Scripture a defense of women preaching the gospel without a man. Otherwise its your own views being superimposed as the Spirit speaking to you.

Yes, God said "I change not" yet throughout the scriptures it says that God changed His ways to best suit His purposes. We are not talking about God changing. Show me a scripture where women cannot preach the gospel without a man. Many women serve in the foreign mission field as pastors without any man. Should this just be ignored ? I chose not to ignore it or think my view of what God will or will not do is locked up by what we read in the books selected to be our Bibles.

Others say scripture does say what a covering looks like - 1 Cor 11:15b literally - 'For long hair is given to her as a covering.' Seems like a cap is unnecessary but long hair is. And how long is long hair ?

I think you need to consider that someone who believes it is the hair has little proper answer to a few questions. 1: how can a woman have long hair if she has to cut it because its not long enough?

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.

Secondly why does Paul say a man is the glory of God and not to cover God's glory?

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

but then immediately says a woman is the glory of man

but the woman is the glory of the man.

Then Paul says the woman's hair is her glory.

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

So to recap, man is God's glory and we should not cover, woman is man's glory and her hair is her glory. What should be covered? man's glory? a woman's glory? or God's glory?
From this, one can make several arguments but from text any pro-hair covering argument breaks down trying to answer this as well.

Also

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

Is the hair the symbol of power? then why be overly complicated and say all this about a man not being covered?

Does a man need to be bald? Also the words "For this cause" is referencing either the

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.

or is referencing

but the woman is the glory of the man.

I can agree we cannot agree but you do disservice to the rest of the text to focus only on one verse.

Does it bother you that God is still furthering His Kingdom through ministries that do not believe as you do regarding the headcovering ? I would think if this is such a big issue as some make it that God would intervene more to get this corrected but it does not appear to be the case. I know in my previous MB church, it was a non-issue but if some felt it was important to them, they could wear whatever covering they desired.

I do often refer to the 'lifting hands thing' mainly because men here often like to bring up verses pertaining to what women should do and often ignore the scriptures on what they should do. And if we look at this 1 Tim 2:8 closely it warns us about how we approach our disagreements -

We need to take this seriously too in the verse of lifting holy hands.
,

I view commentaries as deceptive. There is nothing wrong with believing its wrong to quarrel and I can agree with that. There is quite a lot said about men in Scripture and I would focus on the holy aspect of the hands more then the hands itself.

13And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. 14Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. 16For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

Isaiah 1: 15-19 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.
Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:

21 How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.

22 Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water:

Modernism is dross and water trying to be mixed with truth.

Okay so focus on men, nothing wrong with that. How do you apply the man being uncovered to yourself? do you believe in only having short hair? not wearing a hat? or are you bald? or do you believe that this didn't apply to modern man and you have long hair?

I don't think hair is an issue, short or long in our culture. In the MB church, the younger men sometimes wore ball caps with logos on them in church. I'm mostly bald but due to my culture background I take off a hat at various occasions as a traditional sign of respect. Even ungodly folks take off their hats for public prayer and the national anthem being sung.

22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

What is Peter speaking of here?

If you are asking me if I believe our Bibles is the total 'word of God' that man has assembled, I do not. God's Word continues to speak to us by the Holy Spirit. The word spoken of here is the gospel, not the NT writings.

2 Peter 2: 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

What Commandment is Peter speaking of here?

I don't want to drift off here anymore than we have to respond. We are getting far off the OP.

2 Peter 3: 1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

Authority is claimed here by the apostles. The teachings of the Apostles is Scripture and is for all time.

2 Peter 3 15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

1 John 24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

How do you interpret this? Certainly seems to be saying that those who keep the commandments of Jesus will have the Spirit abiding within.

This can be a separate study if you wish make one up.

One last comment - I find it interesting the verses you use to support your views. I could get into challenging your application in using some of these but best not. We have some disagreements but we need to be careful of what kind of spirit we have as we give our understandings. We all 'see through a glass darkly and only know in part'. No believer has arrived and has or ever will have the full knowledge of God's truths.

Interesting final comment in regard to 1 John 1:24.

[ken_sylvania]

Right it does not say we have to own slaves but if we are to follow the scriptures literally we would need to go to someplace where we could and literally do as the scripture says. The directions are not just for Christian slaves but also for Christian slave owners. My point being that to follow the scriptures literally we would need to find places in this world to do so and they do exist.

No and you know that isn't what was meant.

I know it is not what is meant but to practise the scriptures literally, I still say, this would be required. It is an argument that all scripture cannot be taken literally as some might suggest and some believe they do.

Which text is this again that we are out of compliance with if we don't own slaves?