The Law of Liberty - ROMANS.14:1-4

[Willa]

4 hours ago, discipler777 said:

In that case, you should be using the Tyndale Bible, the first or earliest English Bible = 1494-1536. KJV Bible = 1611. ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible

I do not think it is wise to rely on just 1 Bible and disregarding all other Bibles because ...

DEUTERONOMY.19:15 (NKJV) = The Law Concerning Witnesses

15 “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.

MATTHEW.18:15-16 (NKJV) = 15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’

.

At 1CORINTHIANS.6:9, apostle Paul's warning was directed at homosexuals which might include effeminate transvestites or cross-dressers, but not at Gentile Christian men whose former Gentile culture might include the wearing of dress-like or skirt-like attire, eg Sikhs, Scots, Arabs, Mongolians, ancient Qing Chinese men, etc. ...

https://www.google.com.my/search?tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=FZ39W4LJAYyMvQSGxrPQDQ&q=traditional+scottish+attire+for+men&oq=traditional+scottish+attire+for+men&gs_l=img.12...28950.60804..62654...1.0..0.140.1152.12j2......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0j0i8i7i30j0i7i30.y_dsq3m6wmg

https://www.google.com.my/search?q=qing+dynasty+officials&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSjObbp_XeAhWJK48KHUQtBZ0Q_AUIDigB&biw=1364&bih=653

https://www.google.com.my/search?q=men+wearing+sarong&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWr_SVqPXeAhWKPY8KHZ5eASAQ_AUIDigB

 

Since Jesus wore a tunic and a robe with tassels (to differentiate it from a woman's tunic and robe without tassels) I don't think there is a problem with clothing.  

The hair is a problem for me.  Until God changes my attitude about this, keeping my thin fine hair short is the only option.  Since I always had a godly attitude toward my husband that honored and prized him, submitting to him, the attitude of my heart was the prime importance.  I would think this be true of men as well.  As long as their attitude is submissive, devoted and honoring toward God, loving Him with all our hearts minds and strengths, the length of one's hair doesn't seem like an issue.  

 Act 15:19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.

 Act 15:20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

[Steve_S]

53 minutes ago, 1sheep said:

So how serious us your gluttony. 50,60, 70 lbs? You are morbidly obese? Its not just a short coming. Interesting use of words when we discuss YOUR SIN 

You are a food addict. Actually you are sinning against your wife as well.

But yet you will continue to prick at the brethren women whose hair. Or lack if skirt doesnt meet your legalistic guidelines you have created in your unlearned mind while your waistline expands.  

Removed from thread.

[Blood Bought 1953]

41 minutes ago, Butero said:

I never claimed we work to be saved.  I know better than that.  We are saved by grace through faith in Christ.  We all had original sin to begin with, and that in itself required grace.  We just can't go back into willful sin after getting saved and remain saved if we don't confess those sins.  To those who return to willful sins, there is no more sacrifice for those sins.  The original blood covering that saved that person only covered past sins and sins done in error, not willful sins they continue in.  Those sins must be confessed.  

To me, the sin I would worry more about is if I was giving people a false sense of eternal security they don't have.  It is like the man who had a dream about hell.  A person was going around picking people out of the flames and dropping them back down.  He asked what the dream meant, and the answer was, this fellow was looking for the false teacher that told him his soul was right with God when it was not.  You need to be concerned with teaching the false doctrine of unconditional eternal security.  

 

A misunderstanding of Hebrews.Jesus was the one time sacrifice sufficient enough, and pleasing enough to God to require no more sacrifices....ever! OF COURSE there is no more sacrifice for sin.After the Cross, it is at the least a waste of time , at its worst it is trampling the Blood Of our Savior, making it no more valuable than the blood of a goat 

   If you commit a sin and go buy a goat and think you have to cut its throat open to atone for your sin,what would your preacher say about that? Wouldn’t he admonish you severely? Why? He would tell you there is no reason for an animal sacrifice.Its a waste of time.It shows that you think the Sacrifice provided  by God in the form of God’s Son was not adequate to cover your sin .To prefer an animal sacrifice over the Sacrifice Of Jesus or in addition to His Sacrifice is an insult to His Blood. That is what Paul is telling his listeners.THAT is the willful sinning that you and countless others do not understand.You have to dismiss everything Paul said about  Salvation by Grace to interpret it in the manner that you do.You and your crowd have no trouble doing just that.

 

 

 

 

[Blood Bought 1953]

1 minute ago, Butero said:

It is more than adequate to save everyone on the planet, yet it does not because God chooses to only save those who accept Christ and continue to serve him.  It is God that chooses not to allow people to continue in sin that grace would abound.  That doesn't make the blood inadequate.  It means God won't have people making light of it.  

 

“God chooses to save those who accept Christ and continue to serve him”. A false Gospel. Sure sounds good ,doesn’t it? Jesus said through His mouthpiece , Paul that God chooses to save those that believe Jesus died for their sins and believe that He rose from the dead on the third day.That alone is the Gospel .You Add to it.Show me how you are not one of the ones Paul warned about. The “ accursed” one’s That preach a different Gospel.I don’t care how good your way of “ repenting of all willful sins” sounds.....it ain’t the Gospel.I suppose leaving out the part that you made up caught God By surprise.God must grind His teeth, being bitter about that part he left out....” How could I omit something that was so important?” He figured out the solution to this dilemma! He figured He would keep a remnant of Judaizers throughout the centuries to set people straight on what He “forgot” to include.Can we all say “ HOGWASH” ?

 

 

 

[discipler777]

20 hours ago, Butero said:

1 Corinthians 6:9,10  Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?  Be not deceived:  neither fornicators, nor idolaters, not adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,  Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

If you take the time to look up the word effeminate in Strong's Dictionary, it specifically mentions soft clothing, meaning a man wearing feminine style clothing.  This goes hand in hand with Deuteronomy 22:5.  This comes across rather as an essential to me, given the strong language used like abomination and that those who commit this sin won't inherit the kingdom of God.

At 1CORINTHIANS.6:9(NKJV), apostle Paul was directing his warning against homosexuals or sodomizers/sodomizeders, including effeminate transvestites/transexuals/transgenders, viz-a-viz sexual immorality, and not about effeminate/feminine-dressing or cross-dressing or inappropriate dressing/attire in the churches. IOW, it was against what they do in bed sexually and not against how they dress or their outward appearance.

1CORINTHIANS.6:9-10 was about "IN ESSENTIALS, UNITY", ie Gentile Christians should be in unity in keeping/obeying non-burdensome or essential laws, especially morality laws, eg the Ten Commandments at EXODUS.20, otherwise they are at risk of losing their salvation by losing faith while suffering for their willful immoral  serious sins/Law-breaking.

1CORINTHIANS.6:9-10 was not about "IN NON-ESSENTIALS, LIBERTY", ie Gentile Christians have been given the liberty by God to keep/obey or not keep/obey burdensome laws, eg their outward appearance in dressing/attire or hair length, circumcision, kosher foods, sabbath, festivals, etc.

Any Gentile Christian who is a fornicator, idolater, adulterer, homosexual, thief, drunk, etc should be given a stern warning about their salvation being at stake or at risk. Any Gentile Christian who has inappropriate dressing/attire or hair length should not be condemned/judged by others as being unsaved - maybe they should just be advised. In a Church Sikh service, it would even be appropriate for the Gentile Sikh Christians to keep long hair inside turbans and wear dress-like attire, ...

https://www.google.com/search?q=mile+hi+church+sikh&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwje9aen2fbeAhXDgI8KHQtmDygQ_AUIESgE

[discipler777]

12 hours ago, Butero said:

14 hours ago, discipler777 said:

ACTS.15:28-29 (NKJV) = 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

I think it is you who have a complete misunderstanding of the law of Moses and what Paul was coming against in the New Testament. The criteria of God for exempting new Gentile Christians from His Law or Moses Law was based on the burden or yoke of the Law for Gentile Christians, and not on Levitical Priesthood and sign of separation between Jews and Gentiles.

God understood that requiring the new Gentile Christians to keep/obey all of Moses Law would have been too great a burden on them because most Gentiles had led lawless lives from childhood wrt Moses Law or Jewish laws/traditions/customs. It was a great burden to require new Gentile Christian men to be circumcised, eg GENESIS.34:25.

.

P S - God still required new Jewish Christians to continue to keep Moses Law, as many as possible, because it was not a burden to them, as per ACTS.21:20-25.

Do you know that after using this same passage out of context, much as you are, the people that posted it claimed it was okay to eat blood and things strangled.  What about you?  Is it okay for Christians to do anything not on that list?

Like I already said, eating blood and strangled animal sacrifices, plus eating foods/things offered to idols and practising sexual immorality are against the commandment of God for Gentile Christians to at least keep/obey non-burdensome or ESSENTIAL laws of Moses, eg 1CORINTHIANS.6:9-10.

They are different from the burdensome or NON-ESSENTIAL laws which Gentile Christians have been exempted from by God, eg circumcision, kosher foods, the outward appearance in dressing/attire and hair length, the Jewish Sabbath, festivals, vegetarianism, etc. There have been many Gentile cultures/customs/traditions that differ from Christian ideals IN NON-ESSENTIALS(, LIBERTY). ...

ACTS.15:19-20 (NKJV) = 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.

[discipler777]

12 hours ago, Butero said:

13 hours ago, discipler777 said:

In that case, you should be using the Tyndale Bible, the first or earliest English Bible = 1494-1536. KJV Bible = 1611. ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible

I do not think it is wise to rely on just 1 Bible and disregarding all other Bibles because ...

DEUTERONOMY.19:15 (NKJV) = The Law Concerning Witnesses

15 “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.

MATTHEW.18:15-16 (NKJV) = 15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’

.

At 1CORINTHIANS.6:9, apostle Paul's warning was directed at homosexuals which might include effeminate transvestites or cross-dressers, but not at Gentile Christian men whose former Gentile culture might include the wearing of dress-like or skirt-like attire, eg Sikhs, Scots, Arabs, Mongolians, ancient Qing Chinese men, etc. ...

https://www.google.com.my/search?tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=FZ39W4LJAYyMvQSGxrPQDQ&q=traditional+scottish+attire+for+men&oq=traditional+scottish+attire+for+men&gs_l=img.12...28950.60804..62654...1.0..0.140.1152.12j2......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0j0i8i7i30j0i7i30.y_dsq3m6wmg

https://www.google.com.my/search?q=qing+dynasty+officials&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSjObbp_XeAhWJK48KHUQtBZ0Q_AUIDigB&biw=1364&bih=653

https://www.google.com.my/search?q=men+wearing+sarong&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWr_SVqPXeAhWKPY8KHZ5eASAQ_AUIDigB

 

You are just plain wrong!  I stand by everything I said.  

In truth, you should stand by everything God said, instead of everything you said. According to the Word of God, you are likely plain wrong.!

[discipler777]

12 hours ago, Butero said:

13 hours ago, SelahSong said:

 

1 Corinthians 11 King James Version (KJV)

11 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

² Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

³ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

⁴ Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

⁵ But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Let's note what verse 3 is really saying here. The head of every man is Christ...Men and women are to be following Christ.  That's the subject. ... not hair  We are to be covered with Christ--followers of Christ. 

The hair length is an outward sign to everyone we are in obedience to our spiritual head.  

No. The Scripture actually refers to head coverings, eg veils, head scarfs or the Muslim hijabs, and not hair length.

In Jewish culture, men keep their hair short while women keep their hair long and when in the synagogue, Jewish women had the head covered with veils. The new and pioneering Jewish Christians continued with this Jewish cultural and spiritual practice in the churches. In some Gentile cultures, this was similar. In a few Gentile cultures, this was different, eg Sikh men keep long hair.

[discipler777]

12 hours ago, Butero said:

Perhaps we should go to where the rubber meets the road.  Here is what is really being debate.  Is obedience to scripture optional?  I am labeled a legalist for daring to say we should obey scripture by those making excuses why we shouldn't.  

To obey scripture or not obey.  That is the question.  

In ESSENTIALS or non-burdensome laws of Moses, Gentile Christians should be in unity in obedience/keeping to the Scripture, eg avoid sexual immorality, homosexuality, transvestitism/cross-dressing, etc. In NON_ESSENTIALS or burdensome laws, Gentile Christians have the liberty to obey/keep or disobey/not-keep, eg circumcision, kosher foods, outward appearance in dressing/attire or hair length, Jewish Sabbath, festivals, vegetarianism, etc = if need be, let God be the judge.

[discipler777]

11 hours ago, Butero said:

11 hours ago, 1sheep said:

Isnt it sad that some will have to give an account to the Lord for judaizing the brethren over things that are CULTURAL AND TEMPORAL. These people are stiff necked in no position to teach anyone anything. They are still choking on milk! Here is one source that demolishes the judaizers legalistic point of view. Ill post another to explain numbers reference and corinthians.  

Question: "What does the Bible say about hair length? Do men have to have short hair, and do women have to have long hair?"

Answer: A passage that mentions hair length in the New Testament is 1 Corinthians 11:3-15. The Corinthian church was in the middle of a controversy about the roles of men and women and the proper order of authority within the church. In the Corinthian society, women showed submission to their husbands by wearing a veil. It seems that some of the women in the church were discarding their veils, something that only pagan temple prostitutes or other rebellious women would do. For a woman to come to church without her veil would be dishonoring to her husband, as well as culturally confusing. By the same token, for a man to wear a veil or to somehow have his head covered during worship was not culturally acceptable in Corinth. 

Paul appeals to biology to illustrate the appropriateness of following the cultural standards: women naturally have longer hair than men, and men are much more prone to baldness. That is, God created women with a “natural veil” and men with an “uncovered head.” If a woman spurns the mark of her submission (the veil), she may as well shave her head (verse 6). His point is that if the culture says a woman should not be bald (going without her natural covering), then why would she reject that same culture’s standard of wearing a veil (going without her cultural covering)?

For the man’s part, it is unnatural for him to have “long hair” (verse 14). His hair is naturally shorter (and thinner) than the woman’s. This corresponds to the Corinthian tradition of men not wearing a head covering during worship. Paul urges the church to conform to the generally held ideas of male and female appearance.

While hair length is not the main point of this passage of Scripture, we glean the following applications from it: 1) We should adhere to the culturally accepted indicators of gender. Men should look like men, and women should look like women. God is not interested in, nor does He accept, “unisex.” 2) We should not rebel against the culture just for the sake of rebelling, in the name of some sort of Christian “liberty.” It does matter how we present ourselves. 3) Women are to voluntarily place themselves under the authority of the male leadership of the church. 4) We should not reverse the God-ordained roles of men and women.

Our culture today does not use veils or head coverings to indicate submission to authority. The roles of men and women have not changed, but the way we symbolize those roles changes with the culture. Rather than establish legalistic standards of hair length, we must remember that the real issue is our heart condition, our individual response to the authority of God, His ordained order, and our choice to walk in submission to that authority. Men and women have different, God-ordained roles, and part of that difference is shown by their hair. A man's hair should look masculine. A woman's hair should look feminine.

What is sad is that we have people in the church world telling others that portions of the Bible are not really God's Word, but are just cultural.  What is sad is church members leading others into the pits of hell by telling them they are free to disobey Christ, Paul and other portions of scripture.  

What is truly sad is that we have people in the Church world troubling those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God(ACTS.15:19) by imposing their own cultural values on others with different cultures, and shutting up the kingdom of heaven against Gentile men; for they neither go in themselves, nor do they allow those who are entering to go in(MATTHEW.23:13).