Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,194,411 members, 7,954,633 topics. Date: Saturday, 21 September 2024 at 03:30 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? (26247 Views)
Is It A Sin For Married Couples To Use Condoms? / Is It A Sin For Women To Wear Trousers? / "Why Masturbation Was The Biggest Sin For Me To Overcome" (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by jjjjj2017: 11:32am On Jul 02, 2017 |
adelumolo:Go & seek for knowledge |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by almsofgold: 11:33am On Jul 02, 2017 |
torres89:but Jesus washed his hands, head and feet and bowed down in prostration to the Almighty. Only Muslims and some white garment churches practice this ritual. What's your take sir? |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by Nobody: 11:39am On Jul 02, 2017 |
lonikit:No it's not. Why pick one portion of the bible without looking the rationale behind it? Why pick the one that suits you? |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by CandidSeeker(m): 11:39am On Jul 02, 2017 |
lonikit: ...For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.-Galatians 3:26-29 -Peace. 2 Likes |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by benji93: 11:42am On Jul 02, 2017 |
torres89:Read carefully and be objective bro, take statements as they are written, and do not suggest an implicit meaning unless the statement points to that connotation beyond reasonable doubt.Let us try and understand this statement: "i have come not to destroy the law but to fulfill the law".By your interpretation you assume law means prophecy.Law in this respect could mean prophecy as well, because in the context of Mathew chapter 17, verse 18: "none of the words of the law will go unfulfilled".Jesus must be drawing our attention to the prophecies.But by using the word law, you cannot immediately conclude that he was referring to prophecy in place of commandments.he could be referring to both, which is clear in verse 19:"therefore anyone who sets aside any one of the least of the commands and teaches accordingly, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" So you sou see in this context, he was referring to law as a command, you will also notice that he taught his disciples about some of the laws, and modified them, not change(he even made them harder to abide by).Study to show yourself approved. |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by Nobody: 11:43am On Jul 02, 2017 |
torres89:then how come 99% of the pastors won't let Malachi (Old Testament) rest? And moreover Corinthians is in the New Testament. 1 Like |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by Primebuilders(m): 11:44am On Jul 02, 2017 |
lonikit: Do u need a law that have been fulfil again. Simple no. If I was sent on an assignment and I said i have fufil the assignment do u need that assignment again 1 Like |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by torres89: 11:53am On Jul 02, 2017 |
blueseacats: Yahoo Yahoo pastors just like Daddy freeze calls them |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by chivic(m): 11:56am On Jul 02, 2017 |
lonikit: My brother,let me remind you that the bible says that the letter killeth but the spirit gives live.if one think because he/she went to school or can read and write or have maters in theology then he/she can interpret the scripture then he is in a millennium deception of all time. First you must understand that a lot was wrong with the Corinthian church .one of which was that they were soo disorganised, people speak in tongues anyhow without interpreting, there was no orderliness in the church, the women also talked anyhow using word that where not appropriate. Paul then corrected certain things .He commanded everyone who speaks in tongue when the church gathers to be quiet,except there is an interpreter .And even when there is,2 or 3 should speak at a time. It was that restructuring that gave birth to the doctrinal instruction on women . You must understand that every church has its own doctrine which is geared towards pointing people to God. And as long as you are a member of that assembly or church you must obey as disobedience is rebellion . Doctrines meant for one church might not be applicable to another church. Note: A church that discovers that a lot of their ladies wear cloths that exposes their breast soo much can bring up a doctrine which will insist that all ladies while coming to church should wear"cover till shoulder cloth".My friend even God will uphold it. Now is such doctrine in the bible?No! Is it righteous? YES! Permit me to stop here before I bore you with more facts. 3 Likes |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by yahmaid04(m): 12:00pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
Mrkumareze:if you cannot clearify things dont shift it to the spirit of understanding pls, typical pastor talk lol. |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by Nobody: 12:00pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
Genesis 1 teaches us that male and female participate equally in the image of God. "So God created man [humankind] in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Gen 1:27). This basic passage gives no hint of a divine creation order. Here man and woman are fully equal, with no subordination of one to the other. We find that this description of the relationship between man and woman holds throughout Scripture and beyond. No inspired writer—not Moses, Jesus, Paul, or Ellen White—teaches the creation headship of man over woman. Nor has this position ever been accepted in historic Adventism. Those who oppose the ordination of women ultimately base their argument on the creation headship of man over woman. Their case, however, rests on a fundamental misinterpretation of Gen 1-3 Contrary to popular argument, Adam does not name the woman (and thereby exercise authority over her) before the Fall in Gen 2:23. The "divine passives" in this verse imply in Hebrew thought that the designation "woman" comes from God, not from man (see Jacques Doukhan, The Genesis Creation Story [Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1978], 46-47). Adam does not name Eve till after the Fall (Gen 3:20). In short, Gen 2 contains no creation order subordinating woman to man or restricting her from entering into full and equal participation with man in any ministry to which God may call her. A subjection of Eve to Adam is mentioned in Gen 3. God says to Eve: "Your desire shall be to your husband and he shall rule over your" (Gen 3:16). But it is crucial to recognize that the subjection of Eve to Adam comes after the Fall. Furthermore, it is limited to the husband-wife relationship, and therefore does not involve a general subordination of women to men. Paul gives much instruction regarding the relationship between husbands and wives. As can be seen in particular by 1 Tim 2:14 (see also 1 Cor 14:34 and PP 58-59), it is ultimately in light of Gen 3:16 that he indicates the "head of a woman is her husband" (1 Cor 11:3) and calls upon wives to "be subject in everything to their husbands" (Eph 5:24). Such passages as 1 Cor 11:3-12, 1 Cor 14:34-35, and 1 Tim 2:11-12 all concern the issue of the submission of wives to their husbands and not of women to men in general. Furthermore, in 1 Tim 2:13 Paul is not arguing for a creation headship of man over woman as has often been assumed. Rather, he is correcting a false syncretistic theology in Ephesus which claimed that woman was created first and man fell first, and therefore women are superior to men. Because of this false theology, wives were apparently domineering over their husbands in public church meetings In the Old Testament we see numerous women in leadership roles over men, thus confirming Genesis 1. Witness Deborah (Judges 4 and 5), one of the judges over the people of Israel-- women and men. Witness the leadership role of Miriam (Exod 15:20-21), Huldah (2 Kgs 22:13-14; 2 Chr 34:22-28), Esther, and others (e.g., Exod 38:8; 1 Sam 2:22; 2 Kings 8:1-6; Ps 68:11; Jer 31:22). Although in OT Israel there did exist social inequalities for women, reflecting a perversion of the divine ideal set forth in Gen 1, yet nonetheless there are no legal restrictions barring women from positions of influence, leadership, and authority over men. With regard to the priesthood, Adam and Eve were appointed priests in the Garden of Eden before the Fall, and reconfirmed as such after the Fall .Because of Israel's sin, an alternate plan was given in which even most men were also excluded--except for one family in one tribe in Israel. Yet in the New Testament the Gospel restores God's original plan. Not a few male priests, but once more the "priesthood of all believers" (1 Pet 2:5, 9; Rev 1:6). Jesus called His people back to the original plan regarding the role of women. In the NT Jesus Himself set the tone for the Gospel restoration by pointing His hearers to God's original plan "from the beginning" (Matt 19:. He did not move precipitously, upsetting the very fabric of Jewish culture; He did not ordain women as His immediate disciples, just as He did not ordain Gentiles. But He pointed the way toward the Edenic ideal in His revolutionary treatment and exaltation of women (see John 4:7-30; Mark 5:25-34; Luke 8:1-3; Matt 15:21- 28; John 20:1-18, etc.). The Gospel ideal is the return to the Eden model. Paul emphatically declared: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28). This is not merely a statement on equal access to salvation among various groups (cf. Gal 2:11-15; Eph 2:14-15). Rather, it specifically singles out those three relationships in which the Jews had perverted God's original plan of Gen 1 by making one group subordinate to another: (1) Jew-Gentile, (2) slave-master, and (3) male-female. By using the rare NT terms "male-female" (arsen-thēly) instead of "husband-wife" (anēr-gunē) Paul establishes a link with Gen 1:27 and thus shows how the Gospel calls us back to the divine ideal, which has no place for general subordination of females to males. Thus, Paul's choice of terminology upholds the equality of men and women in the church, without changing the position of the husband as head of the family. Within the cultural restraints of his day, Paul and the early church (like Jesus) did not act precipitously. The subordination of Gentiles was difficult to root out (even in Peter! [Gal 2:11-14]). Slavery was not immediately abolished in the church (see Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22; Phlm 12: 1 Tim 6:1). Likewise, women did not immediately receive full and equal participation with men in the ministry of the church. However, Phoebe is mentioned as a “deacon” (Rom 16:1) Junia was a female apostle (Rom 16:7), and the leaders of the church at Philippi were women (Phil 4:2–3). Priscilla assumed an authoritative teaching role over men (Acts 18), and the “Elect Lady” (2 John) may well have been a prominent church leader with a congregation under her care Paul's list of qualifications for elders framed in the masculine gender ("husband of one wife"--literally, "a one-wife husband"--[1 Tim 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9]) does not exclude women from serving as elders any more than the masculine gender throughout the Ten Commandments (Exod 20; see esp. vs. 17) exempts women from obedience. Rather, these passages are again upholding the Edenic ideal--the principle of monogamy (Gen 2:24). God does not speak directly to the question of the ordination of women in the NT, just as He does not deal directly with the abolition of slavery, with vegetarianism, abstinence from alcohol, and many other issues based on principles set forth "from the beginning." But He has given clear Biblical principles to guide our decision-making. In these last days, when the fullness of the everlasting Gospel is to be preached, God has called His church to return to His original blueprint for every area of our lives: our diet, our day of worship--and the three human relationships mentioned in Gal 3. Our church has already taken courageous stands against slavery and racial prejudice. God also calls us to return to the Edenic ideal for male-female relationships that allows women equal access to the gifts of the Spirit for ministry (Joel 2:28-30; Eph 4:11-13) 3 Likes |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by Nobody: 12:00pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
torres89: This here is where I have my concerns about what the church today is. It is neither here nor there. The passage OP quoted is as you claim for the Jews. Christ came to fulfill the law you say? But the same Christ said in Mathew 5:17 "Do not think I have come to abolish the law". The present day preachers/pastorprenuers have altered Bible teachings to suite their their manipulative tendencies. They condemn portion is the old testament and say Christ came to fulfill the law when the need certain portions of the old testament suppressed. Then at some points they will invoke "I have not come to change the law" when they need your tithes which was a Jewish law too and practice. Honestly, the confusion is killing. 1 Like |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by Kingnonny(m): 12:03pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
The truth is that most of the things written in the Bible were traditional Jewish practices and norms. Remember that's why that's rarely much provisions for women and thus appears in the scripture cos Christ himself was a Jewish. So I think, the reason for those scriptures where women are meant not to take lead in churches as part of Jewish traditions. Now Christianity being a product of Judaism or have came from Judaism, there has to be some elements of the tradition in the religion cos you can separate one from the other. Therefore, the point is that bible does not endorse women ministry but it's evident today and has been accepted every where. |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by arrestdarrester: 12:04pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
Here we go again bandying about words and splitting hairs. Are the fruits of Christ manifest in you? I mean the graces of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness etc. Are you fulfilling His personal call in your life? Or you are not even aware He called you to do a particular thing on earth here? Why not bother about that which you have been called to do instead of judging what another has been called to do? 1 Like |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by Shafiiimran99: 12:06pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
asuustrike2009:Ok, what do u think and y women can not be pope? |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by Nobody: 12:06pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
torres89: Why modify the Bible? Did you write it? The Bible is like God's manual handed to us and if your believe in God's omnipotence, omnipresence and all knowing, you won't remove what he put there through His messengers. |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by Nobody: 12:07pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
Shafiiimran99:That's Catholic doctrine? Why do you think we have reverend sisters were no strong biblical backing? |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by Kingnonny(m): 12:07pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
This was a radio sponsored program topic yesterday on Magic 102.9 Aba. The truth is that most of the things written in the Bible were traditional Jewish practices and norms. Remember that's why that's rarely much provisions for women and thus appears in the scripture cos Christ himself was a Jewish. So I think, the reason for those scriptures where women are meant not to take lead in churches as part of Jewish traditions. Now Christianity being a product of Judaism or have came from Judaism, there has to be some elements of the tradition in the religion cos you can separate one from the other. Therefore, the point is that bible does not endorse women ministry but it's evident today and has been accepted every where. |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by Newtaiwo99: 12:13pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
Freethought:It is a commanded to all male/female to preach d word of God |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by Nobody: 12:13pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
CandidSeeker: In relation to the statement I crossed out, are you now implying that Christ at some point in his life on earth lied? According to you Mathew 5:17 was because they were trying to arrest him. Hah! Nothing wey person no go hear. 2 Likes |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by mylander(m): 12:13pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
These so called Christians with their Contradictions. O ga o. |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by Nobody: 12:14pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
torres89: so we shouldn't do what Paul or the other apostles said? forgetting that the word christains was coined during the time of apostle paul. |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by uchemelvin20004: 12:16pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
torres89:Is Tithe not from the Old Testament? Why are they still collecting it? Old things have passed away except Tithe because its money. |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by rasiyorum: 12:17pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
EvilMetahuman:My brother The world of God standeth supreme come rain or Sun, the Lord destroyed soldom and gormorah because of gayism and lesbianism, why then will a man called by "God" be gay? It is a direct attack by the devil against the church no offence to Christians, most of them are lookwarms just going to church for going sake, you call yourself a Christian and you have never opened the book of the Lord to study, you call yourself a Christian and you have never fasted, ask a witch how much they prepare going to meeting everynight (i really Dont know sha but thanks to nollywood) how many Christians can go to church every day without complaining or grumblng. In a nutshell most Christians are religious not spiritual . thank you. |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by Nobody: 12:21pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
solid3:Lol, funny |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by lonikit: 12:22pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
blueseacats: tnk u bro. and Jesus Christ who is the author and finisher of faith never preached tithe ooo. |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by chigo003(m): 12:24pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
You can not form doctrine from one scripture alone. Additionally, do not quote and interpret the Bible out of context. You need to understand the background to that scripture and support it with another before you conclude. |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by torres89: 12:25pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
Joavid: there comes a time in the Bible where we have to pick who to follow I always choose to follow Christ, because am a Christian and that's what christainity teaches. so I follow the way of Christ which was clearly stated in the Bible Christ didn't say anything about women preaching in temple, but Paul said something about it. it's difficult to understand St Paul's motive , but it's very easy to understand that of Christ which is LOVE love conquers all... let me ask u some questions who would you pick first between Paul and Jesus Christ if u read only the words of Jesus Christ only and follow his ways, then forget about the prophets and saints , will u still make heaven |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by torres89: 12:28pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
uchemelvin20004: lol most teachings on tithe are false we have so many fake and selfish pastors in our mist Christ warned us about them |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by Shafiiimran99: 12:37pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
asuustrike2009:Are catholic not xtians? |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by xnsandrxns: 12:39pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
Just look at the confused bunch Arguing over fake things You guys should get a life 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: Opinion: Is It Not A Sin For Churches Going Against This Portion Of The Bible? by lonikit: 12:40pm On Jul 02, 2017 |
Shafiiimran99: lolzzzzz. maybe he will say they are muslems |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (Reply)
Prophet Shepherd Bushiri Coming To Nigeria (Photos) / I Want To Know About The Freemasons. Are They Really Satan Worshippers? / God Saved Me And My Siblings From A Big Python In Port Harcourt.
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 83 |