winner01:
Naah, Dont miss the point Sir. Im only trying to let people realize that science is being hijacked by dishonest individuals in order to gain relevancy.
Science in no way supports creation without the Creator.

The bold is very true!

God is the ultimate scientist. He created our universe and everything in it, and the laws of science by which they are ordered.

While science and physical reality itself cannot tangibly prove the existence of God, because God is a spirit; I believe when science becomes devoid of sentiments, and we stop trying so hard to use science to prove there is no God and we simply just follow the trails of research where it leads, we will arrive at a dead-end where only creation by an intelligent and supernatural being or "something" would be the only rational explanation.

Even so, faith in Christ is the only way to tangibly encounter God, not science. God is a Spirit, and faith in Christ is the doorway to God's spiritual realm, and the only way to open our spiritual eyes to see it.

Shalom

While his explanation might not be a definite proof of God, I get what he is trying to say.

The universe is the fabric of all things physical existence. The universe consists of space, time, matter and energy. It is the enclave of physical reality.

So if the universe has a beginning (according to the NASA diagram), it automatically means that there is another existence outside the physical existence (universe)

It means that there is something outside the universe (space, time, matter and energy); that pre-existed the universe (space, time, matter and energy); that created the universe (space, time, matter and energy); and controls the universe (space, time, matter and energy).

Something that pre-existed time, and doesn't dwell in time, but that created time and controls time. Same thing for space, matter and energy.

It means something exists out there outside physical reality. Something exists outside our universe (our space, time, matter and energy) where there should be "nothing". And that "nothing" is active and powerful enough to create the universe with its space, time, matter and energy.

It other words, outside the universe, outside our fabric of reality is an active, powerful and creative "nothing"

There is no scientific explanation for this other than the biblical definition of Elohim (God).

Its thought provoking actually, for those who need scientific objectivity to believe in God, or a God. But I don't even need scientific objectivity to believe in God.

Shalom.

vooks:


The different between church planting and branch planting is the INTENT

How do you suppose churches should run?

Start with Ayoku called to start a church from his basement. Next?

You're right, its the intent. The matter of the heart is the heart of the matter.

A true ministry is run by treating souls as its greatest asset. When you begin to see a church branch being castigated or threatened because they are not remitting enough amount to the headquarters, you cannot help but wonder, what is the goal behind opening of branches?

Are these branches being opened to shore up the capital base of the mother church? Or to reach more souls?

Why threaten a church with shutdown or change of leadership because membership is still low or remittance to headquarters is not increasing?

I know firsthand a lot of the world-style politicking and tussle that goes on in many of such branch-based churches.

The church should be run as it was run in bible days. People should be mentored in doctrine and grace, and given the liberty to express their giftings without the mentor playing the Holy Spirit to them.

Let me tell you the truth. The present church model are just holding the fort for the real model that will take the church into the promised land.

The present model are like Moses, feeding God's people in the wilderness as the Joshua generation matures to take the rein. When they do, demoninationalism and branch-loyalty will be replaced by the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.

Presently, the church is not even remotely close to the glorious church Christ is coming for, in power, purpose, principles and personality. And we don't even have the church discipleship model yet for arriving at it.

We will get there though, because it is written.

opeaceo:


You talk as if most churches have the same doctrines or idealogies. In Nigeria, I see competition amongst worshippers, at the mention of their founder of GO, they loose all sense of reasoning, now tell me, how would they comfortably go sit in another church?

Pastors who plant churches and give them their full autonomy, they most times handle them to someone who has been under their tutelage and he continues in a way similar to the principles of the founder.

One of the primary purpose of a church is for the expansion of the Gospel, and it can't achieve that with just a branch, it has to spread its tentacles.

Don't confuse church planting for branch planting. You can plant churches without making it a branch of your own church.

I'm not talking about the Nigerian model of man of God-ism and hero-worship mentality. I'm talking about the church, the way it was meant to be.

Just because you mentored someone doesn't mean you should become the Holy Spirit to the person. Even those you mentor should be given the liberty to be led of the Spirit and express their unique giftings and grace.

Most times, branch planting is just to spread the influence and empire of the man of God, not to spread the gospel.

You can mentor someone and help him plant a church that will spread the gospel of Christ, without making his church a branch of yours. Just like Paul did for Timothy and Titus.

A lot of pastors that don't have branches, are mentors that have helped other pastors plant churches. But they gave their mentees the liberty to express their grace while they continue to counsel and interceed for the churches, like Paul did.

Church planting does not have to be branch planting. And God will truly prove that through what is coming. What is coming will soon make denomination and branches irrelevant. We will all be one body, a church, made up of churches, not branches of a religious empire.

Freemanan:


At bolded...
That's my main grievance...
They Dont even care about their members, so long offering and tithes are paid.

Can't those people go to other churches? Must they inconvenience themselves to attend just one particular church?

Some pastors simply believe in the universality of the body of Christ, and don't think you need to be a member of their church to be a member of the body of Christ or even to be impacted by their ministries.

I know many pastors with impactful ministries who don't have more than a branch. Some of them even plant churches elsewhere and give the ministries complete autonomy from them. Not as a branch of their own church. Gbile Akanni, Rick Joyner, etc are examples.

When you begin to see the universal church as one body, you won't feel the compulsion to spread your branches all over as if you wana be the dominant church.

Sometimes (not always) branch-based churches many times are just to increase the empire of the said ministry and man of God, not for the convenience of the members. And these are motives God will destroy in His next move.

When the body of Christ truly becomes one in the next move of God, denominations and branches of church empires will become irrelevant.

ABDULADINO:
There are sins of omission and commision. What about sins a believer isn't aware he did? If he or she didn't confess. It isn't forgiven right?

It is because of such sins Jesus asked us to pray, And forgive us our sins;... (Luke 11v4)

He didn't ask us to mention or narrate all our sins one by one.

We can't even remember all the sins we committed the day before, much less longer. And even if we remember all, and we have the time to mention them one by one; what of the ones we committed without even knowing that they were sins?

That's why Jesus didn't ask us to mention our sins one by one; its ok If you can. But if you simply say, "Lord, forgive me all my sins", that is still good enough for His blood to go to work and grant forgiveness and remission for all your sins.

Thanks for bringing that up. Because some people might be asking, what of sins I've forgotten I commited, or that I committed and didn't even know they were sins?

Simply asking for forgiveness of "all your sins" is good enough for the blood to round them all up and remit them -known or unknown, omission or commission. That indeed is grace!

But you must ask. Forgiveness is not automatic. It is ...he that asketh that receiveth (Luke 11v10).

Don't omit asking for forgiveness of your sins when you pray. Ask for forgiveness everyday.

Shalom

ABDULADINO:

jiggaz:

Is there a place for confession of sins? My friend, if you have just sinned, you can always tell God about it without feeling condemned.

Ofcourse I know that. We shouldn't repent or confess our sins to God in a spirit of condemnation but in a spirit of godly sorrow.

Godly sorrow means you realised you grieved the Holy Spirit by what you did, you're sorry for it and you apologize to Him in repentance.

While repenting in condemnation is repenting out of the fear of death (spiritual death in loss of salvation or the second death in the lake of fire)

2Cor 7v10 -Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow (or condemnation) brings death.

Godly sorrow results from love for God and the Holy Spirit when we grieve them, while condemnation results from fear of death.

The error I'm trying to correct is the impression that whether we repent and confess our sins to God or not, the sin is automatically forgiven and waived by God, and there is no consequence for it in this age or loss at the judgment seat of Christ.

That is a lie and there is no scripture that supports that ascertain.

Even though we should not repent in condemnation, we need to repent nonetheless for the sin to be forgiven and remitted by the blood, so that there will be no loss.

There is no scripture or new covenant principle that binds God to automatically forgive sins we do not repent of.

1John 1v10 - IF we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Proverbs 28v13 -He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: BUT WHOSO CONFESSETH and forsaketh them shall have mercy.

Luke 17v3 -Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and IF HE REPENT, forgive him.

v4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, SAYING, I REPENT; thou shalt forgive him.

You see the principles here?

In every single one confession and repentance always preceeds forgiveness, even with God. There is no automatic forgiveness or waiver for sins not confessed and repented of.

It is only sins confessed and repented of that are remitted by the blood (that is, pardoned and have their consequence blotted out)

Let's not take this grace thing too far.

Shalom.

jiggaz:

Ephesians 1:7
In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace

People have said to me, “Pastor Prince, I was taught that
only my past sins—from the day I was born until the day I
became a Christian—have been forgiven, and that my future
sins are not forgiven until I confess them and seek
forgiveness.”

My friend, when Jesus died on the cross, how many of your
sins were future?
Unless you are more than 2,000 years old, all your sins were
future then! Jesus took them all upon Himself, nailed them
to the cross and declared, “It is finished!” So if you are not
forgiven of all, then you are not forgiven at all.

“You mean Jesus also died for the sin that I have just
committed?”

Yes!

“And also for the sins which I will commit?”

Yes! That is why He said, “It is finished!”

But many of us are inconsistent in our believing. One part of
us says, “God has forgiven me of all my sins.” But another
part says, “Yes, but I must still confess my sins to be
forgiven of them.” Are you like that?

Beloved, you are forgiven not because of your work of
confession. Your confession cannot wash away your sins.
You are forgiven because of the blood of Jesus shed for
you. His blood alone cleanses you.

You cannot believe that you are forgiven of your past,
present and future sins, and still think that there is
something for you to do to make that forgiveness complete.
If you do, then it becomes your work too, not Jesus’ alone.

Is there a place for confession of sins? My friend, if you
have just sinned, you can always tell God about it without
feeling condemned because you know that you already have
forgiveness and that Jesus was condemned in your place.
But you don’t confess your sins to God in order to be
forgiven. You already have total and complete forgiveness
because of the blood of Jesus!

Thought For The Day

You are forgiven because of the blood of Jesus shed for you. It
is His blood alone that cleanses you.

http://www.josephprince.org/daily-grace/grace-inspirations/single/total-and-complete-forgiveness/

I think we should be careful to let the word say what it said and not interprete scripture with sentiments.

Look at this;

1Cor 3v13 -Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

v14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

v15 If any man's work shall be burned, HE SHALL SUFFER LOSS: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Scripture says here that those whose works are considered carnal (either works of the flesh or works done in the flesh) will suffer loss at the judgment seat of Christ.

If our carnal works are forgiven and written off automatically, even when we don't repent of them, why will they still cost us at the judgment? Can a debt be written off and still cause a loss?

This should not be if indeed our sins and carnal works have automatic remittance through the blood even when we don't repent.

Jesus will not forgive and write off a sinful work, and still make you suffer loss for it again. Ofcourse not! If you suffer loss for a carnal work at the judgment seat of Christ, it means the sin was not written off or forgiven.

This goes to show that sin has consequences even for a believer at the judgment seat of Christ. There is no automatic remittance for sins and carnal works you don't repent of. The sins will still make you suffer loss at the judgment seat of Christ.

It may not be loss of salvation or eternal life but it will still be a loss nonetheless, if you don't repent.

That is why apostle John admonished us to confess our sins.

1John 1v9 - If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

And mind you, he was writing to believers.

1John 2v13 - I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.

So believers still need to confess their sins and repent of them, for it to be forgiven, and for it to not make them suffer loss at the judgment seat of Christ.

Also, look at everything Jesus said He will do to the Asian churches in Relevation if they do not repent.

Rev 2v5 -Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Rev 2v16 -16  Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Why would He do that to them, if there is automatic waiver and forgiveness for sins not confessed or repented of?

Sins in the life of a believer need to be repented of for them not to have consequences in this age and at the judgment seat of Christ. There is no automatic waiver or forgiveness for sins not repented of.

Shalom

THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW

Salvation by Grace through faith was NEVER plan B as many seem to think. It wasn't as if God thought the law would work at first, then when He discovered it wouldn't work, He decided to opt for plan B, which is grace through faith in Christ's death and resurrection. NO!

The law was never intended by God from the beginning to be the standard for attaining justification and righteousness in His kingdom or for receiving the promise of the Spirit and eternal life.

There is no law you can keep and no commandment you can obey that can justify you before God or make you righteous by the standard of His kingdom.

Romans 3v20 -Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Even if you were able to obey all the commandments, you still will not receive the promise of the Spirit or eternal life.

Galatians 3v21 -Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

And this was not a later discovery to God, He knew this was the case from the beginning.

Acts 15v11 -But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

v18 - Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

God knew from the beginning of the world, that salvation, justification and eternal life would be by grace, through faith in the death and resurrection of Christ.

That was why the lamb of God was slain from the foundation of the world.

Rev 13v8 -...the lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

And remission through His blood foreordained before the foundation of the world.

1Peter 1v19-20 -But with the precious blood of Christ, as of the lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was FOREORDAINED before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.

The law was given to bring men to the end of themselves and then introduce them to God's saviour -Jesus Christ.

Galatians 3v24 -Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

It was given to shut men up, silence their pride, and bring them to the end of their self-righteousness and then introduce them to God's righteousness, which is through faith in Christ.

Romans 3v19 -Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

So that God can now introduce us to His righteousness, which is by faith in Christ Jesus

v21 -But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

v22  Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Secondly, the law was a prison to restrain transgressors, pending when faith in Christ would bring the cure to sin through Christ's death and resurrection.

Gal 3v19 -Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made;

Its like when there is a zombie apocalypse or a disease epidemic, and those infected are contained and restrained in a prison or a containment facility, while scientists are working on a cure. That is the law.

Gal 3v23 -But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up (or imprisoned) unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

The law is not the cure to sin, it was just a prison, a containment facility for transgressors, pending when faith in Christ, through His death and resurrection would bring the cure to sin.

Galatians 3v21 -Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

v22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Only through the blood of Christ do we have remission for sins. Only through faith in His death and resurrection are we imputed with the life of Christ and the gift of righteousness. And only by being filled and led of His Spirit do we work out that life of Christ and the righteousness.

Galatians 3v25 - But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

v26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Trying to preach the law to those who now have the Spirit, is tantamount to keeping those who have been cured still under containment.

1Timothy 1v7 -Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

v8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

v9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, ...

So what do we preach to the new creation? We preach the new commandment -LOVE.

John 13v34 - A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Love is the new commandment for the new creation. That is what we preach through Christ to the new creation and walk in as new creation.

And how do we obey and walk in love? Is it by struggling and pretending to fake or force the love? No! It is by surrendering to the Spirit.

Romans 5v5 -And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit that we've already been given. Every christian who has the Spirit, has by default, the ability to love God and love like God, through the Spirit. We only need to learn surrender to that Spirit.

But wait a minute, are you trying to tell us that we don't need to keep the ten commandments anymore? Yes, that's exactly what I am saying!

Jesus called love the new commandment. When God calls one new, it is because He has made the former old and obsolete.

Hebrews 8v13 - By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

God does not bring in the new to run with the old, He brings in the new to replace the former.

Hebrews 10v9 -Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Hebrews 7v18 - The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless.

Ephesians 2v15 - He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations. He made peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new people from the two groups.

So yes, that's exactly what I am saying. We don't need the ten commandments anymore. We are to be Spirit filled and led now, as the new creation. We are to practise surrender to the Spirit.

Romans 7v6 - But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

The more we learn how to stay filled and led of the Spirit, the more the love-life of Christ becomes our natural lifestyle -even without the ten commandments.

You can't be led of the Spirit and of the law at the same time.

Galatians 5v18 -But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Carnal christians don't need the ten commandments, they need surrender to the Holy Spirit. The love of Christ is not shed in our hearts by the ten commandments. Infact legalistic christians tend to be the most loveless set of people.

The love of Christ is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.

Galatians 5v16 -This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

He didn't say "Do not fulfil the lust of the flesh, and ye shall walk in the Spirit". He said "Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh".

If you walk in love by walking in the Spirit, you won't need any ten commandments to tell you not to cheat on you wife, or not to commit murder, or not to bear false witness against your neighgour. The love of God shed abroad in your heart by the Holy Spirit will constrain you.

2Cor 5v14 - For the love of Christ constraineth us; ...

Joseph lived centuries before Moses, yet he didn't need any ten commandments to make him flee fornication with potipher's wife. His love for God and His master constrained Him.

Genesis 39v9 -There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?

The law and the ten commandments are not against the Spirit and love. But they don't walk together or work hand-in-hand either. When the Spirit and the love comes, the law and the ten should step back. Just as Moses and Elijah (the law and the prophet) disappeared on the mount of transfiguration -leaving only Jesus (grace).

Mark 9v8 -And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man anymore, SAVE JESUS ONLY with themselves.

To be Spirit filled and led is the way to obey the new commandment of LOVE. If we practise surrender to the Spirit, we will love God, and love men like God.

Shalom.

Kay17:


Now you agree with me that sin is the disobedience of God's commands? If so, doesn't God punish the exercise of freewill in as far as it goes again God's commands?

God let's us reap what we sow. What's the issue there? That's justice.

frank317:
God knew man will fall... Could man not have fallen?

Since God knew man would fall and if man finally hadn't fallen, what would we have said if what God knew? I mean would we have said God "knew" wrongly? So I ask again since God already knew man would fall, did man have any other "choice" but to fall? Remember God can't be wrong of what he knows.

God's foreknowledge cannot be wrong. God knows the end from the beginning. God sits on the circumference of eternity; and past, present, and future is a gigantic present to Him. It is us that lives in time.

If God knows you will do something, it is because He has been to the end and back. But that doesn't mean He is the one that manipulated your freewill to do that thing and end up there.

I think that's where you are having a hard time. You believe once God knows the end of a man, it is because God Himself orchestrated that end.

That's far from the truth. God can know what you will do and He is not the one that manipulated you to do it.

You wrongly believe that once someone can know the future, that means the person orchestrated that future. That is an error.

frank317:
Again... What does warning us of what he already knows will happen mean? If he warns us of what we know, does it mean he want us to so what he does not know? Does it make any sense to warn us of what he already knew must come to pass?

On the issue of why does God bother warning us, when He already knows what we will decide to do.

It is because God does not judge us based on His foreknowledge of what we will do, but based on what we do. Justice is letting people reap what they sow, not what you know they will sow.

If people are not warned or told the truth, they have a tenable reason or excuse on judgment day to say they didn't believe because they didn't hear.

And even if God knows that even if they had heard they still wouldn't believe, it would still be unjust to send them to the lake of fire.

Those who reject Christ after hearing of Him, did so of their own freewill. But for God to refuse to send them the warning because He knows what their response would be, would make God's judgment unjust.

Everyone still needs to hear the gospel and the warning, so that it would really be established and revealed that they truly did reject Christ of their own freewill.

You need to understand that foreknowledge is not the basis for a righteous judgment. People should be judged for what they did, not what you knew they will do.

You can't put someone in jail because you knew he will commit a crime in 5years time.

Foreknowledge is God's ability to know the end from the beginning because He dwells in eternity. But He doesn't judge us by His foreknowledge of us, He judges us by our actions. He relates with us in time.

Shalom

Kay17:
Is there a great moral value behind the reason God gives man free will?

Ofcourse there is a moral reason behind freewill. Freewill makes where a man end up entirely his choice and doing. And that is justice.

Kay17:
Doesn't man still manifest God's will by exercising it?

With freewill you can obey or disobey the will of God. But whatever you do will be your choice. So you don't automatically manifest God's will when you exercise freewill.

You can use your freewill to disobey God and go against His will.

John 1v11 -He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Acts 7v51 -Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

Kay17:
Can a man alter God's plan by using his freewill?

Yes, with our freewill we can alter God's will for our personal lives. God's will is not always done. Our choices can delay or even derail God's will for our personal lives.

It is not God's will for anyone to go to hell.

2Peter 3v9 -The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance.

The lake of fire was made for the devil and his angels -not for man.

Matthew 25v41 -Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Lake or fire was prepared for the devil and his angels. And its not God's will for any man to end up there. Men end up there of their own freewill -against God's will.

So yes, God's will is not always done in our lives. We have a freewill, and what we do with it is our choice and the attendant consequence is our doing.

Shalom

Alexyswiss:


thanks bro....I get you totally

but since he has power to...why don't he just manipulate it so that we don't choose wrongly
since he also dislike it??

You're right, God has the power to manipulate a man's freewill. And there was even an instance in scripture where He did. When God made King Abimelech to not touch Sarah.

Gen 20v6 -And God said unto him (Abimelech) in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.

You see that? Abimelech did not refuse to touch Sarah out of his own freewill. No, God made him not to touch her. So yes, God can manipulate freewill.

But I have done some little study, and I stand to be corrected. But not only were the instances in scripture where God manipulated a man's freewill less than one percent, God also did it only when the fulfilment of a messianic prophecy or promise was at stake.

It seems that when it has to do with the kingdom mandate and the fulfilment of messianic prophecies, God always plays His sovereignty card.

But the other 99% of the times, when it has to do with the everyday choices of man, God does not manipulate man's freewill. He leaves us with our freewill and choices we make with it.

He will only warn us about our actions, and the consequences of those actions. But in His grace He will also make provisions for our remission and redemption if we are willing to accept the offer.

If God just goes around pulling His weight on all of us and manipulating our freewill up and down; then judgment day would be a charade. Since God would then be judging us, not for what we did, but what He manipulated us to do.

And secondly, God is raising a family of priests and kings who will reign with Jesus in the age to come.

If God just manipulates our will, then our Christlikeness will not be a true reflection of our love for God and our personal desire to be like Him, but a product of God manipulating our will and moulding us by force into the image of His Son. That will not be true maturity.

So God swooping in and saving the day everytime by making sure that what we do is always the good He manipulates us to do. That would not make us tried and tested priests and kings. It will not make our maturity true.

There is so much more to be said. But let me stop here. The Holy Spirit will open our understanding and guide us into all truth in Jesus name.

Shalom.

Alexyswiss:


but since God gave you freewill...I agree

he is all knowing he also know you going to make a wrong decision ??

Yes, God knows if a man is going to make a wrong decision with the freewill He has given you.

But He will not manipulate your freewill to make you not make that wrong decision. That would not be freewill anymore or justice.

The best God will do is warn you in your conscience or by His Word and Spirit about it.

For example, God knew Cain was thinking about killing Abel. He warned Cain but didn't force or manipulate him to not do it.

Gen 4v6 -And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

v7 -If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him

God will show us His will and warn us about our choices, but He will not manipulate our freewill.

Cain eventually killed Abel and he was banished from among his kindred. The same scenario played out in the case of Adam and Eve. God gave them a warning but didn't force or manipulate their freewill not to disobey.

The idea that since God is the Almighty He should go around pulling His weight and manipulate man's freewill up and down is unfounded and not scriptural.

And also, just because God knows the choices you will make with your freewill doesn't mean He is the one manipulating you to make it. No, you made it all on your own.

Jesus knew that Judas would betray Him

John 6v64 -But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

But it wasn't Jesus that made Judas betray Him. Judas trangressed all on his own.

Acts 1v25 -That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

Hope all these helps a little?

Shalom

Alexyswiss:
Please I'm a little bit confused about this thought..

They said God is omnipotent..and even omnipresent and he sees the future... And know everything that would happen next right?? And can even do and undo.

Okay... Does this means that God knew Eve would be deceived and Adam would fall with her?

Ofcourse yes! God knew man would sin and fall.

Rev 13v8 -And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Also;

1Peter 1v19-20 -But with the precious blood of Christ, as of the lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was FOREORDAINED before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.

You can see this two verses? It says Jesus is the lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world and that His death was foreordained before the foundation of the world.

Meaning God prepared the propitiation for the sins of mankind and made a plan for man's redemption and restoration even before the foundation of the earth, ever before man sinned and fell.

So yes God knew man would sin and fall. And He made a plan for the remission of our sins and for our redemption ahead.

Alexyswiss:
Why did he let that happen?

It wasn't God that let it happen as much as it was Adam that chose to disobey and fall.

God gave man a freewill. It would be wrong of God to give man a freewill or the right of choice to make personal decisions, and God will still be policing that "freewill" and/or manipulating it so that man only does what God wants.

Technically that would no longer be freewill, would it?

So it was Adam's choice to disobey and sin and fall. And God did not manipulate Adam's freewill to prevent the fall. God only prepared a plan of remission and redepmtion for man after it happens -should man accept the offer.

Alexyswiss:
Does this also means he wanted man to fall so that sin would come into this world and man would go through suffering?

No it wasn't God's will or desire for man to sin or fall or suffer. But it also wasn't God's intention or desire to manipulate man's freewill to prevent the fall, if man chooses to disobey and fall.

See this;

Eccl 7v29 -Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Can you see? God made man upright, and He wanted man to continue in that uprightness. But He also gave man the freewill to choose to search out many inventions and lifestyles.

Man chose the latter, and God didn't manipulate man's freewill to prevent it. Because that wouldn't be freewill or justice anymore.

Shalom

LEGALAide:
Abubakar Audu , APC's Governorship Candidate confirmed ALIVE!

Reporting live from the APC secretariat, Minna.

I just called someone now in Lokoja and he said its true.

I'm not sure though. Let's wait for official source

Modified:

They said he has been buried, that he has been interred.

The earlier report was just a rumour.

nickkylawve:
Good morning everyone!! Please is it wrong to be on your monthly circle and still go to church I asked my neighbor this morning reason why she's not goin to church today then she said Is because she's on her monthly circle that is a sin, and that church of God should be clean and not dirty!!! Same God made us like this why is it now a sin worshiping him with what he created? Does your church also condems it please share??

Romans 3v19 -Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law:

And are christians under the law?

Romans 6v7 - But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Galatians 5v18 -But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Believers in Christ are delivered from the law and we are no more under the law. Infact to still continue to seek justification by the law after you've been made righteous through faith in Christ is to fall from grace.

Galatians 5v4 - Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

So saying we christians are no more under the mosaic law but now under grace through faith in Christ is sound biblical truth.

Our justification, cleanliness and rightstanding before God is now through faith in Christ.

So all those ceremonial laws that a woman should not enter God's house during menstruation, or a man should not shave his beards or all the sacrifices etc no longer apply to the new creation in Christ Jesus.

Churches that claim a woman on her period is unclean in God's eyes are preaching what God through Christ has delivered us from -the law. And its heresis.

Shalom

oluwajjayfabric:
9th of November 2014 we lost a world class leader.. Myles munroe died in a plane crash along side his wife Ruth and seven others..


Today we remember them..

Drop your favorite quote of him..

Wow! It's a year already? Time no longer flies, it teleports now.

This is one of my favorite quotes of him:

"What you can tolerate, you can't change."

Shalom!

Befitting:
Hey Nairalanders, I'm a northern girl who hails from Adamawa state. My both parents hail from adamawa, thesame local government but different villages. They're both christians. My mum died 2006 and my dad even remarried before her death. The 2nd wife is from a muslim home but converted to christainity for reasons best known to here. Since then we've been living in peace although she hasn't bore a child yet and I don't think my dad is considering marriage.
Right from childhood, I've been around muslims, I've always admired their religion ofcourse apart from the jihad and terrorism. But every other thing about them I love. Now, I'm thinking of converting, I've let my muslim friends know about my decision. But what I'm not certain about is if to let my family know about it, because I know the consequences that would come with it. I'll be disowned and thrown out of the house. But my mind is made up already. I don't know what to do. I'm the 1st daughter and we're just 2gurls.
I know somany of you will condemn me for this but I'm ready to receive all the condemnation and insults from my christian brothers and sisters.

If you're scared that if you tell your parents about the decision you're considering, you will be disowned and sent out of the house; I can understand why you're considering islam.

Its obvious the family you grew up among were not really the very Christlike type. No Christlike christian will disown his or her daughter for considering change of religion.

Granted, your choice is truly a decision of eternal consequence. But what they should do is keep you close and keep praying for you, not send you farther away from where you can receive godly counselling and the conviction of the Spirit.

That was what Jesus did for Peter when He knew Peter was about to deny Him.

Luke 22v31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

v32  BUT I HAVE PRAYED OF THEE, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Jesus prayed for Peter when Peter was been tempted to deny Jesus. And that's what we should do too.

Infact I just checked your profile now, and saw your other thread topic about how your father reacted because you had a spill over in school and didn't serve with your mates.

Its obvious, your father's character is partly what is responsible for your confusion about christianity.

But I blame you partly for that. At your age and how long you've been a professing christian, you mean you're still judging Christ and christianity by the character of others?

Can't you study the bible for yourself and find out who Jesus is from His word for yourself? It means you never really developed a strong personal relationship with Jesus all the time you called yourself a christian. That was why the enemy was able to sneak in and confuse you.

I always tell believers this, that if someone else's carnality can make you lose your faith in Christ, it means even you yourself never had a strong relationship with Jesus. You were not a disciple of Christ, you were a disciple of man's ideology.

But I must tell you this, Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God; and He died for your sins and rose for your justification. And salvation is only through faith in Him and what He did.

Talk to Jesus in prayers, and ask Him to help you. Stop defining christianity by the character of unchristlike people, and study the bible for yourself to know Jesus, asking the Holy Spirit to help you.

I pray Jesus will strenghten you, that your faith in Him will not fail.

Shalom.

vooks:

What is the difference between prophecy and teaching because these are two distinct gifts as far as Paul is concerned?

When I study the bible and I gain some insight and I'm explaining the insight to others in my own words, I am teaching.

But when you prophesy, you are speaking under the inspiration of the Spirit. It is the Spirit supplying the utterance. Prophecy is like speaking in tongues in a language all can understand.

The Holy Spirit can teach through prophecy too. He can exhort, comfort or fortell through prophecy. But the utterance are directly His, like in speaking in tongues.

But then again, teaching itself is a form of prophecy. Because the bible says;

Rev 19v10 -For the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy.

So to testify of Christ is to prophesy and to prophesy is to testify of Christ. So everytime you preach or teach Jesus; that is prophecy on a level.

And to God, there is no gender restriction on the gift of prophecy (the gift of speaking unto men to edification, exhortation and comfort of the church).

Acts 2v17 -...I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons AND YOUR DAUGHTERS shall prophesy, ...

But what's your deal on this arguments of prophecy and teaching? If a woman can prophesy to the edification of the church, it means not only does God not want a woman to be silent in church; He wants her to be heard in church.

Whether the prophecy is in the form of exhortation or prayer or fortelling changes nothing.

This argument of teaching versus prophecy is useless in this discussion.

Shalom

vooks:
Obviously prophesying and praying is not TEACHING. Isn't this why there is a gift of prophecy and another of teaching?

Prophecy means to speak under the inspiration of the Spirit. Whether the Holy Spirit chooses to teach (exhort) or pray or sing or fortell through the prophecy is up to Him. And He does that through women too.

Shalom

The scripture said the daughters of Philip prophesied.

Acts 21v9 -And the same man (Philip) had four daughters, virgins, WHICH DID PROPHESY.

The gift of prophecy is for speaking unto the edification of the church

1Cor 14v3 -But he that prophesieth SPEAKETH UNTO MEN to edification, and EXHORTATION, and comfort.

Scripture went further;

1Cor 14v4 -...but he that prophesieth EDIFIETH THE CHURCH.

If the Holy Spirit wanted women to keep quiet in church, why would He give women the gift of prophecy -the gift of speaking unto men to edification and exhortation of the church?

The gift of prophecy is to speak unto men to exhortation and comfort; and to edify the church. That gift should be forbidden to women; if God wanted women to keep quiet in church, and to not exhort in church.

On the day of pentecost, it wasn't only the men that spoke in tongues of men, there were women among them too; and they all spoke out in tongues of men. And that was the move of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 1v14 -These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, WITH THE WOMEN, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

Acts 2v4 -And they were ALL (the women inclusive) filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to SPEAK with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Women spoke out in tongues of men just like the other brethren, to the amazement of the heathens and the exhortation of everyone.

Acts 2v11,12 -...we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. And they were all amazed, ...

The Corinthian church was a very rowdy church, so disorderly in their conduct of worship; in holy communion, in practise of tongues etc. And Paul wrote to them to set things straight and in order.

We should understand some things in the epistles in this context; so that we would be more spiritual and less dogmatic in interpreting the instructions Paul gave to some churches in the conduct of worship.

Because if we are to judge by the antecedents of the move of the Spirit in the scriptures, even in the biblical church; we will see that God also gave women the gift of exhortation and edification of the church in word (either through prophecy or interpreted tongues).

This should not be, if God wanted women to shut up in church, and/or have nothing to do on the pulpit.

1Cor 14v31  -For ye may ALL prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

If God gave women the gift of prophecy, it means God also has something to say and teach through women, and He wants the church to also learn from them. If God wants to exhort through a woman, who are we to shut them up in the name of dogmatism?

Let us apply more spirituality and humility, and less dogmatism and legalism in interpreting the instructions Paul gave to some churches concerning conduct of worship.

Shalom.

xcelentattitude:
Jesus said "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel".

JUDAS IS SUPPOSEDLY AMONG THE TWELVE DISCIPLES, SO DID HE MAKE HEAVEN?

Look at this scripture;

Matthew 26v24 -The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! IT HAD BEEN GOOD FOR THAT MAN IF HE HAD NOT BEEN BORN.

Jesus said concerning the person who would betray Him; that it would have been better for him not to have been born.

The only scenario under which it would be better for someone not to have been born, is if the person ends up in the lake of fire.

No matter the adversity that befalls a man in this life, and no matter the loss he suffers in the age to come; as long as he still makes heaven, then it is still good that he was born.

Only someone who ends up in the lake of fire can be said that, it were better for him not to have been born. And that is what Jesus used to quality the person who would betray Him.

About that verse you quoted;

Matthew 19v28 -And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, YE ALSO (Judas inclusive) shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Judas was obviously included in this promise of Jesus, because he was still among the twelve when Jesus said "ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones".

But this just goes to show that we all have a part to play in the fulfilment of God's promises over our life. That God promised us something doesn't mean it will happen whether we like it or not.

I always say this; Pre-destination is not cast in iron. Even Jesus Christ; even though He was "the lamb of God slain from the foundation of the earth" (Rev 13v8); He still needed to voluntarily submit His will to the will of His Father for what was written concerning Him to be fulfilled.

Whether what God has promised us or destined us for would be fulfilled or not is up to us.

Judas did not keep the faith, he didn't follow to the end. He went his own way; the way of perdition -by betraying the Son of man. And Jesus said it were better for him not to have been born.

The only scenario that would make it better for someone not to have been born was if that person ended up in the lake of fire.

Shalom

JudgementHammer:
Its simple

WHO IS CAIN'S WIFE? Or WHAT'S THE NAME OF CAIN'S WIFE?

Simple as it sounds, the bible did not give any common detail as tracing who Cain's wife really was. After killing Abel, he made love to his wife and bore Enoch. Adam and Eve were Cain's parents. So who was Cain's wife?

Cain and Abel were not the only children of Adam and Eve.

Gen 5v4 -And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

Adam and Eve also had daughters too, but only the names and stories of the sons were mentioned and narrated in scripture.

So if we are to use what is revealed in scripture to draw conclusion; the wife of Cain must have been his sister; since Adam and Eve were the first humans and first parents, and their children were the first generation offsprings.

So the first generation offsprings could only have married their brothers and sisters. Before they too can now start having children who would be siblings, nephews, nieces and cousins.

So to answer your question.

1. Who is Cain's wife?

Using what is revealed in scripture to conclude, It can only be his sister. One would need to come up with extra-scriptural doctrines to imply otherwise.

2. What's the name of Cain's wife?

The bible didn't mention the name of Cain's wife. Just as it also didn't mention the names of Lamech's, Enos', Enoch's, Methuselah's and even Noah's wives.

This is another detailed answer

Czar01:
I hope you remember that in those ancient times of the Old Testament (and even in world history) it was common for siblings to marry each other. Everybody at that time was a descendant of Adam and Eve, so Cain basically married a relative. Adam lived for 930 years, so you can imagine how many children, and grandchildren, and great grandchildren (and great great grand...etc etc etc) that he had.

By the way...
“And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bore Enoch: and he built a city, and he called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.”

Jst so you know, the Bible never said he found the woman when he ran away to the land of Nod. It just said he knew her there.

know someone in the biblical way/sense: to have had sex with someone (MacMillan dictionary definition)

Cain knew his wife in Nod..so she conceived and bore Enoch (you understand this, right?). So he already married her before he ran away

Does this make sense to you now?

Shalom!

ifeness:
Why do Pastors and their flock of sheep ignore this verse?

Please don't say God works in mysterious ways

What do you mean that pastors and christians ignore this verse? What new testament doctrine does this verse teach us, for it to become an emphasis in the church now?

That scripture was a prophecy of God's impending judgment on the Babylonian empire.

Psalm 137v8 - O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

And if you understand anything about the nature of judgment under the old covenant; you will know that;

One, judgments are not just visited on the perpetuators, but also on their offsprings, even generations after him.

Exodus 34v7 - Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

And two, that people reap what they sow. And this judgment was a harvest of the cruelty the Babylonians have meted out to other nations. The Babylonians were reaping what they have sown among every nation they've attacked.

Psalm 137v8 -O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee AS THOU HAST SERVED US.

Jeremiah 50v1 -The word that the Lord spake against Babylon and against the land of the Chaldeans by Jeremiah the prophet.

v15 -Shout against her round about: she hath given her hand: her foundations are fallen, her walls are thrown down: for it is the vengeance of the Lord: take vengeance upon her; AS SHE HATH DONE, DO UNTO HER.

The Assyrians and the Babylonians were very sadistic empires. And God gave them a taste of their own medicine through the Medo-Persian Empire under Darius and Cyrus.

But, that being said; if this scripture is not popular in churches now, its because its an already fulfilled prophecy against Babylon and its message is not of any relevant emphasis under the new testament. Unless to just say you will reap what you sow if you don't repent.

Shalom!

HCpaul:
God has created man with the power of choice which is power to make decision.
Now, in the world to come which the bible assert that all saints will be equal to an Angel. What if some saints still choose to disobey God?
Don't tell me that there won't be temptation there, because the first Angel to sin was actually not tempted.

First of all, the new creation is not like angels; we are a superior class of beings to angels because we are born of God. We shall even judge the angels.

Then secondly, human beings who were born in the sin image of the first adam, and lived in this age of sin and lawlessness against God, and of rebellion against His ways; humans who were faced daily with challenges and adversities of life; confronted with external fights from the devil, his demons, and the world, and contended with internal fights from the lust of the flesh, carnality in the soul and confusion in the mind; but yet still rose above all these to become new creations in Christ, and fought by His grace against all that the world, the devil and the flesh threw at them, to live a Spirit-filled and Spirit-led life for God, daily submitting their will to the will of God, at the risk of pain, poverty and persecution.

I don't believe these new creation will now get to the new earth, where there are no devil, demons and immoral world system to deal and contend with; a new earth with no lust of the flesh to tempt us, no carnality of the soul to draw us, and no confusion of the mind to deceive us and make us presumptuous of God's ways. I don't believe these new creation will now get to this new earth and sin again or use their freewill to rebel against God.

Its just like chicken pox sickness, once you've had it and overcome it, your body becomes immune to it forever. I believe humans who rise above the carnal ways of this age to become new creations in Christ will never fall for the ways of this present world again in the age to come or eternity.

I believe we will be done with the issue of rebellion once and for all eternity. The sacrifice of Christ, the judgment of God, and creations better revelation of the perfect ways of God and the selfish consequence of rebellion against Him will guarantee that.

Shalom.

Yahushuabride1:
At the close of the passage the teaching is totally different than putting a covering, a katakalupto, on your head. The passage in Greek teaches women to do that and in addition it teaches that your long hair is like a vest. When the passage says, "instead" the hair is given instead of a covering the Greek is saying that the hair is given instead of a vest, not instead of the head covering katakalupto.

I know it's difficult. I know it would have "popped" out so much more clearly if the translators had simply translated the close of the passage the way the Greek does ...

"A woman/wife is have long hair, glory to her it is; for the long hair instead of a vest is given to her."

That is the exact teaching in Greek.

There is no way the Bible is saying wear your hair instead of your vest. It's saying that your long hair could be vest-like, mantle-like it covers that well. But the passage does not say that your hair/vest is THE covering, the katakalupto, so painstakingly taught above.

Its not difficult at all; you think it is difficult because you're the one trying to maneover the definition of "katakalypto".

Katakalypto is not a noun; there is no head covering called katakalypto. You keep making this mistake. I don't know if it is a honest mistake or a deliberate maneovering.

Katakalypto is a verb; it means "to cover up or to veil one's self".

Katakalypto is not a head covering; it is the act of covering one's self. What you cover yourself with is a covering (peribolaion). Peribolaion is the covering.

Peribolaion means "a wrapper, a mantle, a veil". And the hebrew word for the greek "peribolaion" is "Lebowsh", which also means "raiment, garment, clothing".

Peribolaion is what you cover yourself (katakalypto) with.

This is the way it is:

You cover yourself (katakalypto) with a covering (peribolaion).

And a peribolaion includes things like a wrapper, a mantle, a veil, and a long hair (according to scripture)

This thing is very easy to understand, if you're not trying to be dishonest with scripture; and maneover you way to making it say what you want it to say.

Peribolaion is the covering; katakalypto is the act of covering yourself with a covering. Katakalypto is not a head covering.

You're trying so hard to make it mean a covering. Let the scripture say what it said. And let the greek words mean what they mean. Don't turn verbs into nouns to suit your ends. It makes you begin to look dishonest.

Shalom!

Goshen360:


What kind of question is that? Didn't the simple text says, a man ought not to have long hair. ...and this long hair has been given by God to a woman for her covering. Is it then hard for you to understand the man is NOT already covered by keeping short hair? Why do we made void the simplicity of the word?

Thank you!

Its so easy and self-explanatory.

Yahushuabride1:

If the woman's long hair is the 'covering' why don't all Christian men ensure that they are bald before they pray or prophesy ?

You don't need to be bald to be uncovered. Long hair means hanging hair; a hair that hangs down the lenght of your face. That is what covers your head.

So even if you're not bald, but your hair does not hang down the lenght of your face; then you have a short hair, and your head is not covered; it is uncovered.

Most guys don't have hanging hair like women, so even if they're not bald, their head is still uncovered. So its not until you're bald that your head is uncovered as a man.

Shalom!

imas:
My God, no be small thing dey go on for here oo, I begin dey see kpatakalypto and peribololoan all because some women want to show off their braids while others want to cover their thread style

imas:
But on a more serious not, even though I do not agree with the OP and her postulations, I think 1cor11v16 has a very important role to play in all of this,when Paul had finished his argument he said "But if anyone seems to be contentions, then we have no such customs, nor do the Churches of God." kjv

Brother, you're right, and its very unfortunate about the petty things we let divide us in the church. I even feel ashamed getting involved in this debate and letting everyone see the petty things we christians are still arguing over.

We need to understand the pagan practise of the time of the apostles to really appreciate the reason why Paul said what he said to the Corinthian church.

During that time (the first century church), many women in pagan worship, always cut their hair in sacrifice to their gods, when they need something. And some keep short hair as an act of penance for sin or for self-mutilation as a sign of piety or devoted worship. That practise is even still common in hinduism and budhism.

I believe this was the practise christian converts from pagan worship were trying to bring into the Corinthian church. Using cutting of their hair as tool of supplication to God, or keeping short hair as a symbol of piety and devotion.

And Paul gave instructions to counter this pagan worship culture that new converts from paganism were bringing into the church.

He told them (I'm paraphrasing), your hair is given you as a covering by God, don't cut it in supplication to God, or keep it short as an act of worship to God. If you will not grow your hair, why not just go bald altogether? If you're ashamed of going bald, then cover up with it by letting it grow.

The pagan worship of cutting the hair as a tool of supplication or keeping it short as an act of sacrifice and worship was the custom Paul said we christians don't have in the church.

The whole instruction was about stopping the introduction of that pagan practise into the church. In christianity, God does not need your hair as an offering or sacrifice to answer your prayers.

But along the line; hard line conservatives highjacked the doctrine and went above what was written; and said even the hair is not covering enough, you must wear a veil on top of the hair. When scripture already said a woman's hair is her peribolaion (covering, mantle, veil).

The custom the churches don't have is the pagan custom of cutting the hair in supplication or keeping short hair as an act of sacrificial worship or devotion.

Shalom!

Yahushuabride1:
J

In the original Greek bible the word 'Katakalupto' is the word that the Apostle Paul used in I Corinthians 11:4 -13. 'Katakalupto' means ' to cover up', or the covering you have to put on, such as a scarf, hat, veil.
Then the Greek word for 'covering' in 1 Corinthians 11:15 is 'Peribolaion'.
Therefore, 1 Corinthians 11:15 is saying that God gave a woman long hair as a 'Peribolaion' - a natural covering or mantle or veil to distinguish her physically from a man.
So despite the God-given 'Peribolaion', a Christian woman still has to practice 'Katakalupto ' when praying and prophesying. Thank you

Let's study it carefully:

1Cor 11v15 -But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a COVERING (peribolaion).

"Peribolaion" -means "a covering thrown around or a mantle or a veil".

So from this verse, a woman's hair is her covering, her mantle, her veil.

You defined your own "peribolaion" as " natural covering or mantle or veil". That's not true. The "natural" part was added by you to aid your argument. And its wrong.

Peribolaion simply means a covering, a mantle or a veil; whether natural or not. Look at this:

Hebrews 1v12 -And as a VESTURE or veil (peribolaion) shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

You see this? Here peribolaion is used as veil or vesture, and not in the context of natural covering. Natural or not natural is immaterial to the definition and scriptural usage of peribolaion.

So when scripture says a woman's hair is given her for a peribolaion (covering); it means that to God, a woman's hair is a mantle or a veil for her. Her hair is just like a literal mantle or veil in God's eyes.

So a woman wearing a literal veil on her head and a woman with a hair that covers her head are both covered. Because to God, hair and veil are both coverings (peribolaion).

Then for the other word -"Katakalypto"

1Cor 11v6 -For if the woman be not covered (katakalypto), let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered (katakalypto).

"Katakalypto" -means "to cover up; to veil or cover one's self."

So what is the difference between "katakalypto" and "peribolaion" ?

Katakalypto is a verb; it means to cover up or to veil one's self. It is the act of covering one's self.

While peribolaion is a noun; it means a covering, a mantle or a veil. It is the thing you cover up with.

So you cover up with a covering. In other words; you katakalypto with a peribolaion.

Katakalypto is not an extra covering on top of peribolaion as you implied. No. "Periobolaion" is what you "katakalypto" with. And peribolaion can be a veil, or a mantle or a woman's hair.

In the eyes of the scripture (and of God); a womans hair is her peribolaion (covering). So a woman with hair that covers her head is covered (kaatakalyto).

If a woman decides to wear a mantle on top of her hair, that's fine. But even if she doesn't, her hair is covering enough in the eyes of God.

Mantle, veil, wig, weave, hat, beret ...and a woman's hair ARE ALL PERIBOLAION (covering). They are things you cover up (katakalypto) with.

Shalom

I've discovered that most doctrinal divisions in the body of Christ are caused by men attempting to say and go above what is written.

Paul said a woman should cover her head. That's all he said.

Whether you cover your head with natural long hair, or weave or wig or veil; all are coverings for the head.

Trying to say natural long hair is a head covering but weave is not a head covering is going above what is written. Saying veil is a head covering but wig is not is going above what is written.

And these are all the causes of doctrinal division and confusion in the body.

This is similar to the doctrinal division of drinking wine and getting drunk.

The bible didn't say we shouldn't drink wine; even the wine used during communion was alcoholic. It only said we should not get drunk.

But some will go above what is written and say drinking wine is a sin. That's the cause of confusion.

If you want to go the extra mile and not drink wine all together; that's fine, but those who drink without getting drunk are fine too according to scripture.

So also if you want to go the extra mile and cover your head with your hair and then cover the hair with a veil; that's fine. But those who decide to cover their head with just their long hair or weave or wig are equally fine too.

Cover you head was what the scripture said. And long hair, weave, wig or veil all cover the head.

Let's stop going above what was written and causing confusion and division in the body.

Shalom.