The beast that goes into Perdition

[gdemoss]

25 minutes ago, Serving said:

Nope, you are RIGHT .. that is obviously what they are saying and it is WRONG.

Yes hair was given as a covering, but it is NOT the same APPLICATION when God says a woman should cover her head when praying .. IF it were just the HAIR, then why did God bother saying it at all since 99% of women already HAVE HAIR !!!!

It is circular reasoning, faulty thinking processes at play brother and nothing more.

What they seem to forget is that Paul said it was UP TO THE WOMAN if she WANTED to do that or NOT .. but they just can't help themselves and always play word games to justify themselves.

Yes, it is my understanding that you are at odds with.  It is I who believe the hair is the covering spoken of.  

You asked " IF it were just the HAIR, then why did God bother saying it at all since 99% of women already HAVE HAIR !!!!"

My understanding of the text is that it speaks to the length of the hair.  That is why I cannot read it as a separate covering.  Men have hair too yet it is expected to be kept short and well dressed, not covering the head.

The argument that it is nonsensical to speak about the hair this way was brought up by Therese and it appears you agree.

I continue to seek Gods discernment on such issues and have not found any reason to believe that a separate covering for the head outside of long hair left down being a veil is being spoken of.

Many of Pauls passages do similar things where he speaks about the same thing from many angles to bring his point out.  They also seem confusing.  Romans 7 is one about the laws relation to sin.  1 Cor 2-3 is another where he develops the idea of the church being Gods building.

For this cause, I do not bring contention but openly share that I don't see what you all seem to so easily see.  Thanks for being understanding.

[Serving]

Just now, gdemoss said:

Yes, it is my understanding that you are at odds with.  It is I who believe the hair is the covering spoken of. 

LOL .. okay, now it is clear ..

Quote

You asked " IF it were just the HAIR, then why did God bother saying it at all since 99% of women already HAVE HAIR !!!!"

My understanding of the text is that it speaks to the length of the hair.  That is why I cannot read it as a separate covering.  Men have hair too yet it is expected to be kept short and well dressed, not covering the head.

I see ..

Quote

The argument that it is nonsensical to speak about the hair this way was brought up by Therese and it appears you agree.

I've always seen it as a literal covering of the head/hair .. correct.

Quote

I continue to seek Gods discernment on such issues and have not found any reason to believe that a separate covering for the head outside of long hair left down being a veil is being spoken of.

Many of Pauls passages do similar things where he speaks about the same thing from many angles to bring his point out.  They also seem confusing.  Romans 7 is one about the laws relation to sin.  1 Cor 2-3 is another where he develops the idea of the church being Gods building.

For this cause, I do not bring contention but openly share that I don't see what you all seem to so easily see.  Thanks for being understanding.

Since you continue to seek it out, this is good .. sine you are openly honest as to WHY you see what you are seeing is good too ..

You have given your reasons, I can see why you'd be thinking along that line, though I disagree, even though I have never heard it from your point of view before, to be honest ..

If you'd like another ones input, I'd like to answer it too .. and if I say anything anyone else has said, just say so and I won't harp on about it .. I am quite able to walk away without needing the last word. 

Thanks for your understanding gdemoss.

[Serving]

On Monday, 8 February 2016 at 2:11 AM, thereselittleflower said:

 

Lets do this right Therese .. I am going to address all your points a little at a time okay ..

I quoted this: John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

To which you replied :

Quote

Jesus did not say he has a God.    Jesus  said   "YOUR God"   He didn't say  "MY God."    He said "MY FATHER."

Obviously Christ DID say this : and to my God, and your God. because I am reading it right now for myself .. so how can you say He did not say it when it is plain as day for all of us to see?

Again, does Christ say in the above "and to MY GOD" or not .. a simple yes/no will do.

Serving.

[simplejeff]

That is understood better when the head covering is understood/ explained / from Scripture, in perfect harmony with all  Yahweh's Word.   This also happens to explain much loss and why believer's prayers aren't answered at times, similar to as it is written in Corinthians when the body is not recognized.

http://www.thesimpletruth.net/booklet/headcovering.html

In an entirely separate book "Love One Another" by Nee, the necessity of the head covering ((and the uniqueness to the body of Christ under God's Divine Government, distinct from all other Jews and gentiles )) is clearly revealed from Scripture also.  The pdf book is available online free.((if in paperback, be sure to get one by cfp-Christian Fellowship Publishers;  other publisher  adulterated the meaning and the purpose of Scripture))

 

 

[thereselittleflower]

2 hours ago, n2thelight said:

Therese

You said the man of sin could not be satan because he is called the MAN, in the below verse,is Gabriel a MAN or an Angel?

 

Daniel 9:21 "Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation,"

• Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon

    אִישׁ

  1) A man ...

  In like manner — (i) 
  a man of God, 
  i. q. a ser\'aut and minister of God ; of angels, Jud. 
  1 3 : 6, 8 ;

 

it's not using "man" in its literal sense, but of angels here.   You would have to be able to demonstrate conclusively that the use of the word "man" when it comes to "man of sin" must mean satan.    Where in Daniel 9:21 we can most definitely demonstrate it refers to a known angel, BY NAME,  the same can't be definitively demonstrated about the use of the word "man" in association with "satan" anywhere.  The name "satan" is never tied to the word "man" like Gabriel is by name.

Words have different usages. Just because it is used this way here, that doesn't mean one can assume it is used the same way in a different context.

[Spock]

im sure there is a connection between the "beast that goes into perdition" and "head covering" somewhere, but I'm too tired to find it.  Let me know when you guys get back to discussing the beast.

thanks,

spock

[Guest Thallasa]

8 hours ago, Serving said:

I searched for someone to lay it out WHAT I see for me, who can do a better job .. think on this for a while please ..

(This was a KJV site)

If we have a perfect Bible in English, don't we need one in every other language?

No. And I find it interesting that the same people who accuse me of putting God's word under a "linguistic padlock" are the same people who believe that God's inspired word only exists in "original autographs" that decayed into dust centuries ago. The same people who accuse me of being ethnocentric believe that only people who study Greek and Hebrew can possibly know what God "really said."

The following is from Sam Gipp's The Answer Book.

QUESTION: If there is a perfect Bible in English, doesn't there also have to be a perfect Bible in French, and German, and Japanese, etc.?

ANSWER: No. God has always given His word to one people in one language to do one job--convert the world. The supposition that there must be a perfect translation in every language is erroneous and inconsistent with God's proven practice.

EXPLANATION: This explanation comes in three parts: the Old Testament, the New Testament, the entire Bible.

(1) The Old Testament:

It is an accepted fact that, with the exception of some portions of Ezra and Daniel, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. It is also accepted that it was divinely given to the Jews.

Thus God initiates His pattern of operation. He gave His words to one people in only one language.

God, apparently unintimidated by modern scholarship, did not feel obligated to supply His words in Egyptian, Chaldean, Syrian, Ethiopian, or any other of the languages in use on the earth at the time the Old Testament was written.

(2) New Testament:

It is also an accepted fact that the New Testament was written in Greek, Koine Greek to be exact. Again, the Lord apparently saw no reason to inspire a perfect original in all of the languages of the world extant at that time.

Only this time, instead of giving His Book to a nation, such as Israel, He simply gave it to the Christians who were told to go out and convert the world (Matthew 28:19). His choice of Greek as the language of the New Testament was obvious in that it was the predominant language of the world at the time.

(3) The Entire Bible:

It is obvious that God now needed to get both His Old Testament and His New Testament welded together in a language that was common to the world. Only English can be considered such a language.

The English language had been developing for many centuries until the late sixteenth century. About that time it finally reached a state of excellence that no language on earth has ever attained. It would seem that God did the rest. He chose this perfect language for the consummation of His perfect Book.

First England and later the United States swept the globe as the most powerful nations on earth, establishing English in all corners of the globe as either a primary or secondary language.

Today nations who do not speak English must still teach English to many of their citizens. Even nations antagonistic to the West such as Russia and Red China must teach English to their business and military personnel.

Thus in choosing English in which to combine His two Testaments, God chose the only language which the world would know. Just as He has shown in His choosing only one language for the Old Testament and only one language for the New Testament, He continued that practice by combining those two testaments in only one language.

But let us not forget the fact that, by choosing the English language, God has given us a mandate to carry out the great commission. He did not give us a perfect Bible to set placidly on the coffee table in our living room to let our guests know that we are "religious." He did not give it to us to press a flower from our first date, or to have a record of our family tree. He gave it to us to read! And to tuck under our arm and share with the lost world the good news of Jesus' payment for sin that is found inside.

Let's get busy!

I won't say what I think about this post as it would take us into another territory ,  the ignorance of history and the chauvinism of certain cultures which mistake world domination for God's will .

[MorningGlory]

12 hours ago, Serving said:

Why don't you say that when others do it against me huh?

What, I am not allowed to answer bluntly when spoken down to but YOU and others are?

HYPOCRITICAL.

Well, see.  That is a personal attack, you gave a negative assessment of my character.  You infer that you are treated diffently than others, although that isnt true.  Shall I yell and cry and accuse you of being a bully?  That won't happen because I am able to debate with anyone, anywhere, any time.  I really get irritated by those that try to talk down to others, who believe they have some special knowledge and who try to make Scripture a guessing game or something that only THEY can interpret.  That's nonsense.  Scripture is clear to all who have the Holy Spirit.  So what does that say about those that view the Bible as a mystery?

[thereselittleflower]

9 hours ago, Serving said:

So you believe the SCHOLARS and NOT GOD who declared HE WOULD PRESERVE HIS WORD.

That is all it comes down to because I have debated your types before .. admit it .. you do not believe that God was able to preserve His written word in ONE BOOK ..

You can NOT say He preserved His written word in multiple books (new age translations) because NONE OF THEM AGREE and they ALL CONTRADICT EACH OTHER  .. but God is NOT the AUTHOR of CONFUSION Therese ..

It is either God preserved His written word in ONE BOOK, where GOD brought both Testaments together for the FIRST TIME in history for ALL MEN to share .. or .. God did NOT preserve His written word at all and we NEED to look at hundreds of bibles which ALL contradict each other just to get a grip on the whole sorry affair .. OR better said, where lowly people like me NEED scholars to tell us what to believe (back to Catholic tactics where only THEIR "priests" can understand God and the rest of us are all brain dead) .. you can NOT have both Therese, it's ONE or the OTHER .. no person of credibility can refute that obvious truth.

(BTW, TWO Spiritualists started all these bible translations off .. one of them HATED most of CHRIST'S TEACHINGS, the other was a typical Catholic priest who LOVED séances and many other occultic practices .. where not only history, but even modern surveys PROVE over and over by THEIR OWN ADMISSIONS that most of them do not even Believe in the bible but are in it for the easy lifestyle & the job stability & the power they get out of it and all not forgetting the other perverted reasons which give them access to children they do NOT admit to) and look, all the majority of "Christians" blindly follow the PATH those two charlatans first laid out and follow without question still .. it is so sad.

Many of you need to wake up to the obvious.

Serving, nowhere did God say He would preserve His word through translators.

I am not saying God has preserved His word through translations.   

God has preserved His written word.  But not through translations.

All you've presented are false dichotomies, false choices full of rumor and innuendo and false claims. Nothing more.

 

Your foundational assumption that God rewrote the scriptures in English is at the root of your claim.

That assumption cannot be established as legitimate.

There is absolutely no evidence that God rewrote the scriptures in English.

 

 

 

[thereselittleflower]

9 hours ago, Serving said:

LOL .. okay, now it is clear ..

I see ..

I've always seen it as a literal covering of the head/hair .. correct.

Since you continue to seek it out, this is good .. sine you are openly honest as to WHY you see what you are seeing is good too ..

You have given your reasons, I can see why you'd be thinking along that line, though I disagree, even though I have never heard it from your point of view before, to be honest ..

If you'd like another ones input, I'd like to answer it too .. and if I say anything anyone else has said, just say so and I won't harp on about it .. I am quite able to walk away without needing the last word. 

Thanks for your understanding gdemoss.

Well I'm glad to see holding such a postion no longer merits the accuastions of being part of satanic cabbalists, freemasons, illuminati, etc.