Follower of Christ

I see.
So you want me to say what YOU want to hear, and then shut my mouth for the rest?
Im not preaching at you.
Trust me, I dont preach.
Ill telll you what I believe and why, thats about it.

Now please show me if Ive told you to repent (aka ''preaching'')

I find the ''young friend'' comment somewhat humorous tho

Follower of Christ

Faith alone saves.....works are a requirement to maintian the relationship.

Works arent what WE search for to do tho.
They are what God has prepared for us beforehand.
They can be as simple as a single mother with 5 children raising them in a godly manner.
Everyones ''works'' will be different.
But the works do not and can not save.
Only faith can do that.

Follower of Christ

I dont separate Pauls teachings from Chists.
They were approaching two differnt groups of people.

Jesus had a mission that had to be carried out the way it was planned.

Youll even see a couple times where things were seemingly done for no other reason other than to fulfill prophecies in the OT.

It was pretty much choreographed.

Pauls ministry was different.
He was going more to the gentile who had little knowledge of the God of Abraham and trying to teach them in a manner that didnt allow them to get caught up in the old Covenant (Im assuming there must have been Jews all over trying to undermine his NT teachings based on how ofter he was opposed by them)

Follower of Christ

Yes.

Which is why it is said that He had to come to His own to be rejected.
He came to the Jew first.
in fact He says this.
Now one can run with that comment and make it say no one but the Jew can be saved, or we can look at the whole bible and see that Jesus came to the Jew first, died, resurrected, then came to Paul on the Damascus road and sent him to the gentile nations.

I want to make it clear here, Im NOT preaching.
I couldnt convert the first one of you here and no intentions of even bothering to try to anyway.
Im just answering questions.

Zadok001

Ah, FoC, you've migrated to MY home turf now. Long time, no see.

I am curious if you'll bother to agree with the statements Ierrellus pointed out. i.e., you've stated that you believe what Paul has to say about homosexuality, do you by implication accept ALL statements Paul made, including the claim that women have no place as part of the hierarchy of the church? Or that long hair is bad? In short, care to actually present your beliefs as a coherent batch instead of masking the issue?

Gawen

Yeah, decades later after the supposed/alledged events took place.

Follower of Christ

Paul never deviated from the man/woman idea that the bible always shows as a marriage, and seeing that ALL sex outside a marriage is sin, there isnt any way for a homosexual to be involved sexually with another man an not have it be sin.

Long hair.
I had hair down to my waste for over a decade.
I read the hair passage hundreds of time and kept telling myself that it doesnt actually SAY that its a ''sin'' for years.

Finally a pastor made the comment (since it does seem to say it goes against nature) ''wouldnt you just want to be sure?"
I went home hacked it off myself and its never been long since.

Heirarchy.
This is where I differ from the church altogether.
Those folks put into areas of leaderships arent suppose to lord over those below, but to teach them until they are ready to teach others themselves.
I dont see this structure that most churches have where the pastor is almost idolized and put above the rest and the laymen are a bit less than those of the clergy.

I see men sent out to lead and teach and SERVE until those they teach are able to do the same.(maybe what one would see in a mission field say in Africa)
I see a body where each man is accountable to all the others in the body so that corruption is kept at a minimum (kind of like the system here).
The ''heirarchy'' in the text I believe omits women in general from positions that teach adult men.

Personally (and I do mean personally)....Id prefer we followed the text and dealt with whether it was an issue of culture later on when we can ask Paul what he meant directly.

Im no chauvanist. And I wouldnt shut a woman up in the church as Im not sure what Paul was dealing with at the point he wrote.
But he brought it up at least twice once with the Corinthians, where i could almost say it was just to keep that church under control, and once again with Timothy if memory serves so I have to conclude there was something to it.

Im not pushing my will on anyone.
If a woman speaks in the church and she is wrong, thats on her head.
If she asks me what my opinion is, then Ill sit with her and show her scripture and let her draw her own conclusions. What she does isnt my responsibility.

What do you want me to say?
Youd prefer for me to say either Id bash the woman about the head and neck until she was silenced?
Or may just that its a cultural thing so you can start bashing what I beleive?

I will say this.
The 14 chapter of 1 Corinthians is dealing with the issue of tongues.

that is where Paul says
Its talking about tongues before this part and after.
If I were to conclude anything from it I would have to say that Pauls word HERE are regarding the use of tongues.
Otherwise he was just jumping around all over the place as he was writing.

BUT.....as I said.....Id prefer sticking to the text instead of risking it.

Follower of Christ

May I ask who was jotting down notes while those little wars were going on thoughout the cunturies ?

Follower of Christ

Hey Zed....Did you get banned over at Nazi Central too (CF)?

dmarker

Perhaps they just made it up.