ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
I like Oswald Chambers, but I was not responding to the post with anything of his. I have something he said in my signature, but it has nothing to do with the response.
The point was about the sermon I had just watched on this same topic. It had nothing to with Oswald Chambers. Sorry about the confusion.
Hi Life,
Interestingly enough after OH spoke to you through me
I then went back to the addie you gave and listened to the sermon - or at least half of it before having to leave the computer seat!
It was good - but for me the concept maniac, I caught the word "first lady" and had to look up its origins. It is a USA thing and totally political. Something i have to think about. It is like the "royal we" and wondering how that got started and its relationship to Christian understanding.
Slogan/motto:
Cursed is he that does the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed is he that keeps back his sword from shedding blood. Jer. 48:10
Reputation:
December 8th, 2012, 06:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeisgood
I like Oswald Chambers, but I was not responding to the post with anything of his. I have something he said in my signature, but it has nothing to do with the response.
The point was about the sermon I had just watched on this same topic. It had nothing to with Oswald Chambers. Sorry about the confusion.
Ok. I saw that and thought it was part of a response to a post. My apologies.
You are right rainee. I am so sorry. I do not know what I did there. I must have clicked on the wrong post my mistake when I was responding to lifeisgood and was also responding to something you had said. I don't know how I managed to get both responses in the same post.
Thank you so much for explaining to me - I am sorry I sounded so uptight !
(Or could we say "Sky Hi" instead? That is so neat to have your nick say that! I always have a hard time saying hi to chair because of his nick for the same reason!)
I don't if you wanted me to follow up with the last post I made to you but here it is...I hope it will be ok to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sky.
Natural headship I believe is the first thing that God established.
I agree but please remember we accept things like "headship" in a certain way not because we understand the principal Per se but because the Bible teaches us something and this is how we understand it - imho, and I could be wrong but I don't think so.
Quote:
Consider that God is the head of every man
Okay and amen.
So let's say it exactly: Christ is the head of every believing man in Christianity and no man in Christianity better ever forget it. Amen.
Quote:
and man is the head of every woman
No, I don't think it says that. It may mean that OR it may not.
"Man is the head of woman," right?
Consider this the statement may be addressing a spiritual and abstract fact.
Woman (the first one) was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh
SO they got to cleave or whatever. (Sorry , not to seem irreverent)
But this is Not the same as the first line Paul said.
And perhaps strangely Paul then says something about The Father and The Son. God is the head of Christ.
So let's see if I understand this:
Christ is the head of each man and this will make one, Christ + a believing man = 1.
Man is the head of woman and this will make one flesh (but please remember that is how they started out anyway, his flesh.
They were one flesh before and is said as why they can become one in a union. 2=1
And God is the head of Christ.
Is Paul saying this so we can understand through the two previous examples given about oneness and what makes it so in each (different) case so we can understand it in this case?
(Or could we say "Sky Hi" instead? That is so neat to have your nick say that! I always have a hard time saying hi to chair because of his nick for the same reason!)
I don't if you wanted me to follow up with the last post I made to you but here it is...I hope it will be ok to you.
I agree but please remember we accept things like "headship" in a certain way not because we understand the principal Per se but because the Bible teaches us something and this is how we understand it - imho, and I could be wrong but I don't think so.
Okay and amen.
So let's say it exactly: Christ is the head of every believing man in Christianity and no man in Christianity better ever forget it. Amen.
No, I don't think it says that. It may mean that OR it may not.
"Man is the head of woman," right?
Consider this the statement may be addressing a spiritual and abstract fact.
Woman (the first one) was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh
SO they got to cleave or whatever. (Sorry , not to seem irreverent)
But this is Not the same as the first line Paul said.
And perhaps strangely Paul then says something about The Father and The Son. God is the head of Christ.
So let's see if I understand this:
Christ is the head of each man and this will make one, Christ + a believing man = 1.
Man is the head of woman and this will make one flesh (but please remember that is how they started out anyway, his flesh.
They were one flesh before and is said as why they can become one in a union. 2=1
And God is the head of Christ.
Is Paul saying this so we can understand through the two previous examples given about oneness and what makes it so in each (different) case so we can understand it in this case?
Hi rainee, that is cool how I can say "hi rainee" to you with your name and such and what I mean to say is "it must be raining"
I don't understand much of what you are asking me in your post but that is not because I am "sky hi".
You should just continue to talk to "Letsargue" It's raining...
(Or could we say "Sky Hi" instead? That is so neat to have your nick say that! I always have a hard time saying hi to chair because of his nick for the same reason!)
I don't if you wanted me to follow up with the last post I made to you but here it is...I hope it will be ok to you.
I agree but please remember we accept things like "headship" in a certain way not because we understand the principal Per se but because the Bible teaches us something and this is how we understand it - imho, and I could be wrong but I don't think so.
Okay and amen.
So let's say it exactly: Christ is the head of every believing man in Christianity and no man in Christianity better ever forget it. Amen.
No, I don't think it says that. It may mean that OR it may not.
"Man is the head of woman," right?
Consider this the statement may be addressing a spiritual and abstract fact.
Woman (the first one) was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh
SO they got to cleave or whatever. (Sorry , not to seem irreverent)
But this is Not the same as the first line Paul said.
And perhaps strangely Paul then says something about The Father and The Son. God is the head of Christ.
So let's see if I understand this:
Christ is the head of each man and this will make one, Christ + a believing man = 1.
Man is the head of woman and this will make one flesh (but please remember that is how they started out anyway, his flesh.
They were one flesh before and is said as why they can become one in a union. 2=1
And God is the head of Christ.
Is Paul saying this so we can understand through the two previous examples given about oneness and what makes it so in each (different) case so we can understand it in this case?
Somewhere you all are missing it. --- One is only one with Christ if the one is “Christian”. - The lost are one with the Devil in the same way.
The woman cannot be in Christ except that the husband be in Christ, or the woman can give herself to the Church, in place of her dead husband. – That’s what all that teaching of, - “The man and his house shall be saved”, is about. – Acts 11:14 KJV -------///-- The “house” cannot be saved unless the Head of that house is following Christ. – The man of the house who follows Satan cannot be saved except obeying exactly the Command to the Woman. – 1 Timothy 2:15 KJV – “Notwithstanding she shall be saved in ( Childbearing ), if they continue in Faith and charity and holiness with sobriety”. ------//-- Now you all know that ain’t so!!! – BUT, that’s what God said, because it’s Truth. --- The Phrase, “Childbearing” refers to the ( total home care ), not just giving birth, - but everything that’s included in keeping house. – Titus 2:4-5 KJV ----
Only the men are Baptized into Christ, but the wives are Baptized into their husbands, becoming their husband’s body, and the husband Baptized into Christ and becoming Christ’s Body. --- Proverbs 31:10-31 KJV ------///--- That’s the shadow of a Christian man’s wife!! – And none of you will ever prove otherwise. -You can’t find anything to contradict with this!!
Paul – 120812
---Gal. 4:16.
---"Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth"???
Somewhere you all are missing it. --- One is only one with Christ if the one is “Christian”. - The lost are one with the Devil in the same way.
The woman cannot be in Christ except that the husband be in Christ, or the woman can give herself to the Church, in place of her dead husband. – That’s what all that teaching of, - “The man and his house shall be saved”, is about. – Acts 11:14 KJV -------///-- The “house” cannot be saved unless the Head of that house is following Christ. – The man of the house who follows Satan cannot be saved except obeying exactly the Command to the Woman. – 1 Timothy 2:15 KJV – “Notwithstanding she shall be saved in ( Childbearing ), if they continue in Faith and charity and holiness with sobriety”. ------//-- Now you all know that ain’t so!!! – BUT, that’s what God said, because it’s Truth. --- The Phrase, “Childbearing” refers to the ( total home care ), not just giving birth, - but everything that’s included in keeping house. – Titus 2:4-5 KJV ----
Only the men are Baptized into Christ, but the wives are Baptized into their husbands, becoming their husband’s body, and the husband Baptized into Christ and becoming Christ’s Body. --- Proverbs 31:10-31 KJV ------///--- That’s the shadow of a Christian man’s wife!! – And none of you will ever prove otherwise. -You can’t find anything to contradict with this!!
Paul – 120812
Sounds almost right except the comparison to "child bearing" and housework as a saving measure. BECAUSE (excuse that cap stuff) it would be salvation by WORKS! No?
Sounds almost right except the comparison to "child bearing" and housework as a saving measure. BECAUSE (excuse that cap stuff) it would be salvation by WORKS! No?
The Christian / the Righteous are only “Spirit”, none carnal, and only the Spirit can do the doctrine and no work. – I work not, but do doctrine. – Doctrine is my spiritual work, and by it I keep my Lord's House.
1 Corinthians 2:13-16 KJV – “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; ( Comparing spiritual things with spiritual ). 14- But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15- But he that is Spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. ------ 16- For ( who hath known the “Mind” of the Lord ), that he may instruct him? --- ( But we have the “Mind” of Christ )”. -------///--- What does that mean, if not what it says??? – You must change it to fit yourselves!!
Paul – 120812
---Gal. 4:16.
---"Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth"???
You should just continue to talk to "Letsargue" It's raining...
Thanks Sky but I think you are doing quite well talking to Let'sargue.
You two have found agreement and that can be a blessing.
I've finished on this thread, thank you again for positions on rebellion and submission. Sun is shining, rain can be good as long as it is not too much.
Slogan/motto:
Try to be civil in the face of incivility. This is a test.
Reputation:
December 8th, 2012, 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainee
Thanks Sky but I think you are doing quite well talking to Let'sargue.
You two have found agreement and that can be a blessing.
I've finished on this thread, thank you again for positions on rebellion and submission. Sun is shining, rain can be good as long as it is not too much.
We have a lovely blanket of pristine snow in our neighborhood!
Slogan/motto:
Ecclesiastes 1:9 ---
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Reputation:
December 8th, 2012, 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainee
Hi Life, Interestingly enough after OH spoke to you through me
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainee
I then went back to the addie you gave and listened to the sermon - or at least half of it before having to leave the computer seat!
I hope you have the opportunity to go and listen to the whole thing; otherwise, it does not make sense at the beginning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainee
It was good - but for me the concept maniac, I caught the word "first lady" and had to look up its origins. It is a USA thing and totally political.
Yes But I think he made the comment so that people's ear pay attention to what he was going to say after that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainee
Something i have to think about. It is like the "royal we" and wondering how that got started and its relationship to Christian understanding.
Are you talking about that we are a 'royal priesthood'? If that is what you are talking about then I think it has to do with us being in Christ.
Because we are in Him, we are royalty, because He is royalty. Because we are in Him we are priests, because He is a priest.
If that is not what you are talking about, I apologize for putting my two cents in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainee
Thank you to you and thank you to Old Hermit
You're welcome.
Truth is truth, it matters not if you believe it or not.
==========
No man can come to God except through Christ. (Jn. 14:20)
No man can come to Christ unless he comes through the Cross. (Jn. 3:16; Eph. 2:13–18)
No man can come to the Cross without a denial of self. (Lk. 9:23–24)
==========
If the “Oughts” of the Old Testament were difficult to obey, Our Lord’s teaching is unfathomably more difficult. Remember, the commandments were given irrespective of human ability or inability to keep them; then when Jesus Christ came, instead of doing what we all too glibly say He did—put something easier before men, He made it a hundredfold more difficult, because He goes behind the law to the disposition. —Oswald Chambers
==========
"No serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." ~ Otto Betz
Thanks Sky but I think you are doing quite well talking to Let'sargue.
You two have found agreement and that can be a blessing. I've finished on this thread, thank you again for positions on rebellion and submission. Sun is shining, rain can be good as long as it is not too much.
December 8th, 2012, 02:17 PM
Linear Mode
