Isnt it amazing....

[Willa]

1 hour ago, PlanetChee said:

How do you say you don't know Creativemechanic's circumstances concerning the woman, but decree you do absolutely know God's will for him concerning that? 

When he turned to prayer and the Scriptures God gave him scriptures that in his mind forbade it.  Then he said he read the same answer shortly afterward in Scripture.  I have had answers in the same way.  Praying about a an accusation I asked God if it was true, and opened my Bible to the words, "it's a lie".  So I asked for confirmation and opened my Bible to an old testament reference to the same passage that read "It's a lie.  I was unaware of both passages.   I don't normally open my Bible looking for answers that way.  When I first started turning to God for answers and He would make the words shout to me that way, often I would get the same message through sermons from different sources during the week till I started thinking "maybe God is trying to tell me something".  

I consider that a personal message from God that is not necessarily doctrinal.  It is not debating if a person can remarry who is the innocent party of an adulterous spouse, or an unbelieving spouse, or is a person who has been deserted.  But I definitely don't believe that a person who is saved and then commits adultery should remarry.  That part is clear.

[creativemechanic]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Speaking as someone who is actually trained in hermeneutics,  there are, in the New Testament, commandments that are doctrinal in nature and apply to all believers and there are commandments that speak to the unique issues that faced 1st century believers.

We tend to overlook the fact that Paul's epistles, for example, contain two types of material.  Firstly, Paul was addressing questions that had been sent to him from various congregations.   In 1 Corinthians, Paul is answering questions and you can tell that by the wording of the letter.   The congregation at Corinth was located in the middle of the most immoral cities of the ancient world in at that time.  And these new believers had real questions.

Paul's letters were written to real people in history who had to learn how to relate to their former pagan culture now that they had come to faith in Jesus and they needed to know what was permissible and what was not.   Corinth was a hard city to live in as a new believer in Jesus trying to cut away from the immorality of that culture.

Secondly, Paul letters contain a huge amount of doctrinal material.  Philippians, Romans, Ephesians are examples of epistles rich in doctrinal material.  Paul has a lot to say about sin, redemption, reconciliation, justification, resurrection, and so on.   And he has a lot of commands about how we are to live from a doctrinal standpoint. 

So we need to differentiate between direct commands given to the 1st century audience and direct commands given to the Church as a whole.    Too often, we don't make those distinctions and when we don't, true legalism ensues.

For instance, Paul's commandment in I Corinthians about men not having long hair.  That is not doctrinal.  Corinthian men who engaged in male prostitution wore their hair long and effeminate to attract male clients, especially sailors who docked at the ports of Corinth.   Those men were getting saved and Paul instructs them to essentially, to cut their hair and start looking like men.   They needed to separate fully from that former lifestyle.

The same goes for the women.  The priestesses of the Oracles at Delphi shaved their heads.   They were also getting saved and Paul wants them to wear a veil until their hair grows out.   Because long hair on a woman was her "glory."   But for men, long effeminate hair was shameful.   

Those things don't really speak to doctrinal matters.  They were relevant only to the original audience at Corinth. A man having long hair was a problem for those people living in that city at that time.   That doesn't mean that a man wearing long hair today is necessarily living in disobedience.  A woman who wears her hair short isn't living in sin either.   You can see how legalism could take over if we are not careful to know the difference between commandments that speak to the first century audience and commandments that are meant for the Christian community as a whole.

Basically proves he point of the picture. ..

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, creativemechanic said:

Basically proves he point of the picture. ..

No, not really.   The picture  proves that people don't understand that the Bible is a book in history written to real people in history and that not every command in the Bible is for all people for all time. 

It's the same for the OT.  Do you stay kosher, do you observe all 7 festivals, and make pilgrimage to Jerusalem three times a year.  Do you keep the weekly Sabbaths and the 7 high sabbaths?  

If not, why not?   If I approach the Bible in way that every commandment is for me, it will end up giving an incoherent theology.

In the NT, not every command given is for all people for all time.  We need to actually study the Bible to understand the difference between what are universal commands and those that were instructions for the original believers.

[warrior12]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Those things don't really speak to doctrinal matters.  They were relevant only to the original audience at Corinth. A man having long hair was a problem for those people living in that city at that time.   That doesn't mean that a man wearing long hair today is necessarily living in disobedience. 

I disagree.   Paul was showing the purpose of head covering and it was not due to the custom of the day .  Those that you mention may be so at the time, but clearly in the scripture of 1 cor 11, Paul stated exactly the headship and the relevance.  It may not be doctrine, but admonition is good to heed from a well respected man as Paul. 

1 Corinthians 11Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)

³ But I want you to know and realize that Christ is the Head of every man, the head of a woman is her husband, and the Head of Christ is God.

⁴ Any man who prays or prophesies (teaches, refutes, reproves, admonishes, and comforts) with his head covered dishonors his Head (Christ).

⁵ And any woman who [publicly] prays or prophesies (teaches, refutes, reproves, admonishes, or comforts) when she is bareheaded dishonors her head (her husband); it is the same as [if her head were] shaved.

 

¹⁴ Does not ^[d]the native sense of propriety (experience, common sense, reason) itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is a dishonor [humiliating and degrading] to him,

¹⁵ But if a woman has long hair, it is her ornament and glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

[creativemechanic]

4 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, not really.   The picture  proves that people don't understand that the Bible is a book in history written to real people in history and that not every command in the Bible is for all people for all time. 

It's the same for the OT.  Do you stay kosher, do you observe all 7 festivals, and make pilgrimage to Jerusalem three times a year.  Do you keep the weekly Sabbaths and the 7 high sabbaths?  

If not, why not?   If I approach the Bible in way that every commandment is for me, it will end up giving an incoherent theology.

In the NT, not every command given is for all people for all time.  We need to actually study the Bible to understand the difference between what are universal commands and those that were instructions for the original believers.

Because the bible specifically said those things have passed with Jesus's  death  and ressurection. Ie the mantle in the temple rose etc. There's nothing to specify  who Paul's commands were for.  If they were God would have instructed Paul  to write those specific points about who it was directed to

. God's not the author of confusion. Why would he put something in scripture that only people with an intense knowledge of 1st century history would  understand. It put the layman at a serious disadvantage  wouldn't it 

[PlanetChee]

26 minutes ago, Willa said:

When he turned to prayer and the Scriptures God gave him scriptures that in his mind forbade it.  Then he said he read the same answer shortly afterward in Scripture.  I have had answers in the same way.  Praying about a an accusation I asked God if it was true, and opened my Bible to the words, "it's a lie".  So I asked for confirmation and opened my Bible to an old testament reference to the same passage that read "It's a lie.  I was unaware of both passages.   I don't normally open my Bible looking for answers that way.  When I first started turning to God for answers and He would make the words shout to me that way, often I would get the same message through sermons from different sources during the week till I started thinking "maybe God is trying to tell me something".  

I consider that a personal message from God that is not necessarily doctrinal.  It is not debating if a person can remarry who is the innocent party of an adulterous spouse, or an unbelieving spouse, or is a person who has been deserted.  But I definitely don't believe that a person who is saved and then commits adultery should remarry.  That part is clear.

Thank you so much for taking the time to expound on your first post. Blessings, 

[Guest shiloh357]

44 minutes ago, creativemechanic said:

Because the bible specifically said those things have passed with Jesus's  death  and ressurection.

The Bible never says those things passed way with the death of Jesus.

Quote

 There's nothing to specify  who Paul's commands were for.

Yes, there is, if you understand the basic historical/cultural context.   That is a cardinal rule about hermeneutics.  Understanding the immediate context of the audience is vitally important, as well as understanding what biblical doctrine is and being able to tell when Paul's commands are linked to biblical doctrine and when they are not.

Quote

 If they were God would have instructed Paul  to write those specific points about who it was directed to

Not really.  Paul addressed the letter to the Corinthians, for example.  He would not have to elaborate further.  We know who the original audience was and we have enough information from Paul to know that he was answering questions asked by the Corinthians in a letter they sent to him. So we know that he is writing to them about issues that they needed clarification about.   It's all there in the text. 

 

Quote

God's not the author of confusion. Why would he put something in scripture that only people with an intense knowledge of 1st century history would  understand. It put the layman at a serious disadvantage  wouldn't it 

It doesn't take an intense knowledge of the first century.   But the Bible is a book that is designed to be studied and given that we do have a huge cultural and historical gap, it makes sense that we would seek that information out.  That information plays into the points that Paul raises.    For example, why were the Corinthians getting drunk at the Lord's Supper?  Why does Paul tell his readers in Ephesians not to be drunk with wine, but filled with the Spirit?  

Paul uses a lot of cultural imagery from things like the Olympic sporting events like running a race,  boxing, etc. He talks about winning a victor's crown and he even employ's rabbinic midrash/allegory to make didactic points to the readers of his epistles at times.  Knowing that information flavors how we interpret the text. 

Did you know that Jesus made allusions and partial quotations from the Mishnah when addressing his enemies in the religious community in Israel?   That information plays out in how we look at the text and how we look at Jesus in His first century context.

The historical/cultural context deepens our understanding of the text, which makes us more skilled in not only handling the text, but living it out, as well.

[notsolostsoul]

14 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The historical/cultural context deepens our understanding of the text, which makes us more skilled in how not only handling the text, but living it out, as well.

One of the biggest problems that leads to misunderstandings is not properly using or considering context. 

I learned this when speaking with someone who had courses in Spiritual Studies.

Once I learned the concept of context. The Bible took on a whole new meaning.

Thank you!

[LadyKay]

2 hours ago, Yowm said:

Those that find fault in those who point out faults of the Church in general, are themselves at fault.

Those who want others to post lovey dovey threads should themselves should start those threads and quit criticizing those who don't. Sheesh.

Well I guess I know when I've been told. Carry on then. 

[creativemechanic]

29 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The Bible never says those things passed way with the death of Jesus.

Yes, there is, if you understand the basic historical/cultural context.   That is a cardinal rule about hermeneutics.  Understanding the immediate context of the audience is vitally important, as well as understanding what biblical doctrine is and being able to tell when Paul's commands are linked to biblical doctrine and when they are not.

Not really.  Paul addressed the letter to the Corinthians, for example.  He would not have to elaborate further.  We know who the original audience was and we have enough information from Paul to know that he was answering questions asked by the Corinthians in a letter they sent to him. So we know that he is writing to them about issues that they needed clarification about.   It's all there in the text. 

 

It doesn't take an intense knowledge of the first century.   But the Bible is a book that is designed to be studied and given that we do have a huge cultural and historical gap, it makes sense that we would seek that information out.  That information plays into the points that Paul raises.    For example, why were the Corinthians getting drunk at the Lord's Supper?  Why does Paul tell his readers in Ephesians not to be drunk with wine, but filled with the Spirit?  

Paul uses a lot of cultural imagery from things like the Olympic sporting events like running a race,  boxing, etc. He talks about winning a victor's crown and he even employ's rabbinic midrash/allegory to make didactic points to the readers of his epistles at times.  Knowing that information flavors how we interpret the text. 

Did you know that Jesus made allusions and partial quotations from the Mishnah when addressing his enemies in the religious community in Israel?   That information plays out in how we look at the text and how we look at Jesus in His first century context.

The historical/cultural context deepens our understanding of the text, which makes us more skilled in how not only handling the text, but living it out, as well.

 Ok with reference to the things being passed away,  Hebrews 8 :13  is one such verse referring to the passing of the old covenant and certain things related to it. Ill find the rest and add asap.

Bu your line of thinking is basically over complicating simple issues- its the same line of thinking that people use to justify sins such as homosexuality- paul wasnt talking about homosexuals, if u check the historical context they men male prostitutes etc.

 Remember 2 Timothy 3:16. all scripture. If some verses were only applicable to a particular people and a particualr time , why would they be included without a specification.

Mentalities like that erases the pick up and understand simplicity of the Bible that allowed  millions of people over the centuries to learn and understand it.

 

 

Hebrewa 8:13