UnderGround Forums
 

HolyGround >> the judaization of Christianity


9/6/10 12:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17894
One thing I'd like to go back to though is the thread header.

I think Luke 24 is an important chapter to read concerning the relevance of the OT (which by the way, the gospels are still technically under the OT. The book of Hebrews says that a will is not in effect until the death of the testator. It was not until the death of He who wrote the will and the pouring out of His Spirit that the New Covenant even became in effect).

Anyway, the Risen Lord appears to 2 disciples on the road to nowhere. He asks them why they are so down and they begin to tell Jesus about His own death etc.

Luk 24:15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed [together] and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.

Luk 24:16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.

Luk 24:17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications [are] these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?

Luk 24:18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?

then here's the kicker...

Luk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the PROPHETS HAVE SPOKEN:

Luk 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

Luk 24:27 And BEGINNING AT MOSES and ALL the PROPHETS, he expounded unto them IN ALL THE SCRIPTURES THE THINGS CONCERNING HIMSELF (FROM THE OT SOLELY).



9/6/10 12:12 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
zealot66
20 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 11308
 I agree. I take alot of jabs but it initiates conversation. disagreements are the most vigorous way to analyze what it is you believe. 

I think the idea of house rules are silly myself unless you are talking about major lifestyle problems. You dont want a minister who also heads to the clubs on friday night. I would think that living a 'christian' lifestyle you would naturally gravitate towards the right behaviour without it being imposed on you. I mean the sillyness of women not able to wear pants or wear their hair short of other rubbish is backwards and reminds me of the imposition of muslims who make women wear head scarves. I know paul talked about hair but culture changes and one thing that a hundred years ago might have connotated a certain message, today it doesnt do the same.
9/6/10 2:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17895
MoJom, that was good reading. That was what I was trying to articulate. Thanks!
9/6/10 2:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17896
z: I think the idea of house rules are silly myself unless you are talking about major lifestyle problems.

me: maybe, maybe not. Companies have rules that they believe reflect them, or their brand. Some companies (banks) demand/impose business suits for just about everyone. Others allow business casual once a week, and others business casual everyday. Some business casual is pretty strict (in case clients come in), others are looser (I went to Morningstar in Chicago and they wear flip flops and shorts). I worked for a financial firm and people were coming to casual (spandex shorts, etc.) and it was cancelled.

Certainly your role also may demand a different look. My boss hardly goes anywhere without a suit. He believes you never dress casually in front of clients. Anyway, not to spend to much time on it but I see some merit to house rules, especially for those in leadership positions.

you: You dont want a minister who also heads to the clubs on friday night. I would think that living a 'christian' lifestyle you would naturally gravitate towards the right behaviour without it being imposed on you.

me: agreed. I'm not sure anyone should *impose*. At least not in our modern day and culture. In the US, demanding or imposing usually has the opposite effect as opposed to ministrying, teaching, leading by example, etc.

you: I mean the sillyness of women not able to wear pants or wear their hair short of other rubbish is backwards and reminds me of the imposition of muslims who make women wear head scarves.

me: Well, no one "makes" anyone do anything. The doors swing both ways and no one has a gun to their head :-) My daughter wears judo pants and depending on the activity my wife or daughter are not exclusively wearing skirts. However, I understand the principles, and the identity that the UPC is trying to promote. It is a principle of modesty, and a principle of gender distinction. Both the principles are biblical. To the extent that someone disagrees with the application (never cutting or trimming your hair, never wearing pants, etc.) I understand. And not being a woman, it's less impactful to me. But I understand the spirit of the teaching, I understand it's role in trying to protect certain biblical notions and certainly it is aimed towards and is part of a long term Christian discipliship teaching and not something for the unconverted or the new converts per se.

There are godly elders in our church who live a very narrow, very strict lifestyle. It's not onerous to them, it's not imposed and it's (in their estimation) liberating. They are not encumbered to wordlier notions of how to live, but have a narrow walk built around the word of God, fasting, prayer, church ministries.

you: I know paul talked about hair but culture changes and one thing that a hundred years ago might have connotated a certain message, today it doesnt do the same.

me: maybe, maybe not. Principles of modesty, gender distinction (representing femininity and masculinity vs androgyny and gender confusion), etc. are timeless in my estimation.

I couldn't go around like I used to in spandex shorts only and flip flops, body shaved, tan, etc. It's not godly.

IMO ;-)
9/6/10 4:12 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
zealot66
20 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 11309
 I wear spandex when I ride my bike. Yes like all the pro cyclists. 
am I immodest ?????? lol
9/6/10 5:51 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17898
zealot: I wear spandex when I ride my bike. Yes like all the pro cyclists.
am I immodest ?????? lol

me: you will have to answer that for yourself based on who you are around.

spandex with your "buddies" outlined around females probably isn't the way to go if you were to do a biblical study on modesty ;-)
9/7/10 4:46 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
zealot66
20 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 11310
 Well, the clothes serve a purpose. Cycling stuff appears gay or sexual to the untrained eye but it is necessary and practical.
9/7/10 5:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17903
z: Well, the clothes serve a purpose. Cycling stuff appears gay or sexual to the untrained eye but it is necessary and practical.

me: very true!
9/8/10 2:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 299
Thanks for the reply, Rooster.


"But I have met many wonderful trinitarians who although they attend a trinitarian church and consider themselves trinitarian, their beliefs are practical monotheism. I'm very good friends with an Assembly of God pastor and you really can't find a difference between how I describe the Godhead and he does."

This was one of the points I was trying to make. It seems a lot of this disagreement is a matter of semantics. You believe that God was in Heaven and fully God, while indwelling Jesus, who was also fully God, and God's spirit is omni-present and fully God, correct? Insisting that this is true, but that God is "one" is no stranger an idea than the trinity, and they are both beyond human understanding.

One other thing: You said a couple of times that Jesus is subordinate to the Father in the trinitarian model and therefore can't be equal. Do you consider your wife an equal? I would hope that the answer is yes. And yet, Scripture calls wives to submit to their husbands leadership. This is a voluntary thing for the sake of order and not a reflection of status.
9/8/10 3:46 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17908

me: to your 2nd paragraph, I think we actually agree. I'm not out to judge other views, but merely to present what I feel to be a more biblical model. I do think it's important but i'm not out to force anyone to change. I would hope that it presents some challenges to consider and also would ultimately draw people closer to God in Christ.

inlikeflynn: One other thing: You said a couple of times that Jesus is subordinate to the Father in the trinitarian model and therefore can't be equal. Do you consider your wife an equal? I would hope that the answer is yes. And yet, Scripture calls wives to submit to their husbands leadership. This is a voluntary thing for the sake of order and not a reflection of status.

me: very good reply. But a man and wife are truly 2 separate beings. Can we have a true monotheistic view and use this model?

I would submit that your point is well taken in that when God was in Christ, He humbled Himself, He imposed limitations by virtue of being in flesh. So things like prayer are understandable under the prism that He subordinated His human nature to His divine nature because His humanity was not "co equal".

But the trinitarian model says that God the Father and God the Son are two distinct persons and "co equal". God does not pray to God.

The book of Psalms says that "all flesh must come to God in prayer" and the book of Hebrews says that Jesus prayed "in the days of His flesh".

So that being said, I think it's a tough haul to compare it to a man and a woman. And while my wife may be equal to me in value (being as we are both humans created by God) she's not equal to me in authority (under a biblical model) nor equal to me in strength etc (though I'm not her equal in budgeting, and other things ;-)

So, I'm not sure that model is completely tranferrable but it's an admirable attempt.
9/8/10 4:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
zealot66
20 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 11311
 btw, there are women cyclists and some suprisingly are calendar models. However, I watch alot of cycling and though their lines are viewable, I dont see anything but the bike, the rider and the race.  kind of bizarre.

I would compare it to bjj, half the positions, most of us have engaged our spouse or girlfriend in sexually however, I dont recall watching any fights thinking, man it looks like they are !@#$!@#%.
9/8/10 6:20 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17909
z, maybe not all men are as "blurry" as you. That's great if women are in body hugging clothes, or missing clothes does not get your man radar buzzing. For others of us, it's a challenge :-)

The bible says that looking at a woman with lust is sin...

So, there is probably some joint responsibility between what a man should be focused on and on a woman due to man's propensity to be visually minded.
9/9/10 4:23 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
zealot66
20 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 11313
 I wont go down that road. Some of the dress codes for women are simply cultural because of times. I will say when you see a police man or a fireman, you expect certain things. When you see a 'tart' dressed up, you expect certain things.

Maybe I have low testosterone. You in bjj, have you ever had to roll with a girl ? I havent but that would be more uncomfortable than tittilating. I'd be redfaced the whole time.
9/9/10 5:09 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 3009
zealot66 -  I wont go down that road. Some of the dress codes for women are simply cultural because of times. I will say when you see a police man or a fireman, you expect certain things. When you see a 'tart' dressed up, you expect certain things.

Maybe I have low testosterone. You in bjj, have you ever had to roll with a girl ? I havent but that would be more uncomfortable than tittilating. I'd be redfaced the whole time.
What other codes change over time? Divorce, remarriage, slavery, sex before marriage, homosexuality, women leaders in the church...?
 
9/10/10 9:34 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17917
z: Maybe I have low testosterone. You in bjj, have you ever had to roll with a girl ? I havent but that would be more uncomfortable than tittilating. I'd be redfaced the whole time.

me: you have low testosterone ;-) But hey, I'm Latin, we have high testerone in our '90's!

I have rolled with attractive, really nice smelling ladies and it's um...problematic.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.