top

Dress And Grooming While Visiting Bethel.

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Shelter Forum Index -> Current Issues among Jehovah's Witnesses
Author Message
Bangalore
Reading Matthew


Joined: 30 Oct 2007
Posts: 84

PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:35 am    Post subject: Dress And Grooming While Visiting Bethel. Reply with quote

Dress And Grooming While Visiting Bethel.



Warm Christian Love
Bangalore
_________________
http://spiritualbrother.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bangalore
Reading Matthew


Joined: 30 Oct 2007
Posts: 84

PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote



Warm Christian Love
Bangalore
_________________
http://spiritualbrother.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bangalore
Reading Matthew


Joined: 30 Oct 2007
Posts: 84

PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote



Warm Christian Love
Bangalore
_________________
http://spiritualbrother.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bangalore
Reading Matthew


Joined: 30 Oct 2007
Posts: 84

PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote



Warm Christian Love
Bangalore
_________________
http://spiritualbrother.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Anchor
Reading John


Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 381
Location: Goldendale, Wa

PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for sharing this Bangalore. This is beyond ridiculous!

I was wondering when they would finally get around to ban denim skirts. Whew! They are going waaaaaay beyond Scripture making rules of men.

And what Scripture says that sneakers are inappropriate? If they want to adhere closer to the Scriptures why don't they make it a rule that everyone only wear garments made of white linen and foot wear sandels? They are forcing the word "Modest" to have way more meaning than what the word actually has!

In those first three pictures how on earth could anyone be "offended" by their dress? Offended by whom? By only the old men upstairs? All of the dress styles looked pretty modest to me. Even the shorter skirt in the later picture didn't look all that short. The slit in the skirt was questionable, but what is said when women are in less modest attire when they are in a bathing suit for baptism for the whole convention to stare at while being baptized? Same with the guys in T-shirts and shorts. Haha

Straining the knat. Now if a man came to tour Bethel dressed in rags, I wonder if he would be allowed in.

The outside of the cup is white and looks clean and pure yet full of disgusting things and dead mans' bones.

Why does the Governing Body do this? Especially since their rank and file is dwindling smaller and smaller every day. Are they actually trying to get less visitors to tour Bethel? I'm sure that some of them are annoyed by it. Perhaps this is the reason for the stricter dress style?

E-Gads! I am so glad that I'm out!


Anchor
_________________
"Carry each other's burdens and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ." Galatians 6:2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seraphim
Reading Ephesians


Joined: 23 Oct 2007
Posts: 1262
Location: london

PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Funny how a woman wearing trousers is OK dress, considering how in love with laws they seem to be. Its just an `outward appearance` version of not being allowed to use Gods name.


Deu 22:5 A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doth these things is abominable before God.


And why are not the men wearing beards?


Lev 19:27 Nor shall you cut your hair roundwise: nor shave your beard.


My goodness some of the lady's don't have long hair and appear to have cut their hair at some point in the past.


1Co 11:14 Does not nature itself teach YOU that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him;
1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? Because her hair is given her instead of a headdress.


1Co 11:6 For if a woman does not cover herself, let her also be shorn; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be
covered.


Oh my goodness its getting worse, one of the men has a head covering.


1Co 11:7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, as he is God's image and glory; but the woman is man's glory.


Talk about out right rebellion against God righteous standards. The WT is obviously a very liberal organization indeed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dina
Reading John


Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 444

PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LOL! It's amazing how big of a deal they make out of one seam from a Bethel room and a dining room! Bizarre, I to am glad I'm out of that religion.
_________________
If you are not a liberal at twenty you do not have a heart, if you are not conservative at forty you do not have a brain.
Unknown
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Constantine
Reading Mark


Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 168
Location: London England

PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John the Baptist wouldnt have got past the door then.

Lets hope he isnt hanging around the gates of Heaven when any of those dandies arrive and ask to get in. Laughing

Constantine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jaycee
Reading Matthew


Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 21
Location: California

PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very Happy Apostle Paul
Liberator of Women

For centuries women have been subordinate to men, often little better than slaves, and only rarely rising to be their equals. Some decades ago, radical secular feminism tried to swing the pendulum to the other extreme.

But, what we want to know is, what is the Bible position on these matters, especially for Christians (both men and women)?

The apostle Paul is generally considered as putting some severe restrictions on women in the Christian arrangement. We will consider various texts, and try to show that Paul is much misunderstood, and is actually the friend and liberator of women (especially in the Christian arrangement).

But first, a few points to keep in mind:---
1. Paul is in full harmony with the other N.T. writers, and with Jesus himself.
2. Paul sets forth two basic guidelines for all Christians, and all his comments need to fit within those guidelines. These are: (1)full equality, and (2)mutual submission. See Gal. 3:28; Eph. 5:21.
Submission meaning gracious yielding to one another’s preferences where no principles are involved. Submission is always voluntary, and is motivated by agape love.
3. Paul was the proponent of Christian LIBERTY, not bondage.
4. Punctuation was basically unknown when the Bible was written.
Especially important is the lack of quotation marks in Paul’s remarks. Statements that are “jarring” or “unlike Paul” (i.e., in marked contrast either with the immediate context or with Paul’s known views) are almost certainly not his words, but quotations from a letter Paul has received, or reference to some material contained therein.
5. The “covering” is generally considered to have been a head-covering such as a scarf or shawl; it was not a veil over the face.
6. Paul’s precepts are for the church arrangement. Outside that, in public, he always urges Christians to follow the local customs as far as they can, avoiding anything that would bring disrepute on the Christian community.
7. Paul draws on universal, timeless truths and provides answers to specific local situations and conditions. We need to find, and use, the same universal truths and apply them to our specific situations today. The truth is changeless, but situational details may be quite changeable.

1 Cor. 11:1-16.

The Tallith (Jewish prayer shawl) was a sign of guilt, shame, and humiliation worn by the Jew in worship to signify condemnation before the Law. But what has the Christian to do with such a sign when professing that “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law”, and “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus”? For such believers (men and women) to wear a sign of condemnation is to nullify the worth of the atonement, and so dishonor Christ who released them from condemnation.

The man covering in worship dishonors Christ, his Head (who had atoned for all his sins), and Paul strictly enjoins against this practice. In the worship services, Paul ideally wants all Christian men and women to be uncovered before God (they have a higher standing in Christ [even that of sons] than the holy angels who approach God uncovered), but recognizes some additional considerations for women due to rather strong prevailing social customs. Nevertheless, his conclusion is that it is the woman who has power or control over her own head and she alone can decide whether to cover or not during worship. She would know her situation (marital, family, financial, etc.) better than anyone else, and what the repercussions might be.
For example, a Jewish woman who became a Christian, but her husband did not, found herself in a delicate situation. The customs of the Jews placed the wife terribly in the hands of her husband. It was a serious matter to ask a Jewish woman to uncover if it meant that she could be branded a woman of ill repute and divorced by her husband with the loss of her marriage portion; in which case the only alternative to starvation might be a life of sin. Similarly, the Jewish husband favorably disposed towards his wife’s profession of Christianity, and towards the practice of uncovering in worship, might be compelled by his relatives, or the synagogue authorities, to divorce his wife if she uncovered during worship.

Or some Christian woman (Jew or gentile) new in the faith might at first feel uncomfortable, or even “shameful”, uncovering her head during worship, perhaps feeling she would thus bring reproach on her own personal head (i.e., reputation) or disrespect to her matrimonial head (i.e., her husband).

Thus Paul says, let the woman decide whether or not to uncover her head during worship.

To those who would contend for using the Tallith in Christian worship, Paul says “we have no such custom”.

Jewish Christians (converted from Judaism) had a strong tendency to bring traditions and customs with them from the synagogue. Some (known as Judaizers) were quite vocal and persistent in their view that gentile Christians must keep at least some important parts of the Law of Moses (such as circumcision) and various Rabbinic traditions, and they were a real “thorn in the side” to Paul, who preached liberty in Christ.

The matter of Christian liberty was one that was difficult for the early church to learn, and the apostle Paul constantly struggled to teach the principles of liberty. There were an abundance of traditions (especially from those having a Judaistic background) that constantly intruded into the Christian life and worship.

Paul is answering (starting in 7:1) questions and statements from a letter that the church at Corinth had sent to him. In 1 Cor. 11:5-6, we read ---
“5. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6. ‘For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn’. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.”
These “jarring” words are a quotation from that letter (not the words of Paul) and come almost directly from the Jewish oral traditions as taught and practiced in the synagogue (the first sentence in verse 6 is a direct quotation from that oral tradition, to support the Judaizer’s position).

In verse 5, these particular Corinthians seem to admit that Paul had taught the women to pray and prophecy in the assembly, and that they were indeed doing so. While seemingly accepting this, these Corinthians said it must be done “properly” (i.e., with heads covered). So, verse 5 gives their basic premise. The first sentence in verse 6 gives their “proof text” from the oral law, and the second sentence in verse 6 gives their conclusion --- “If it is shameful... (and they certainly thought that was the case), then let her be covered.”

Paul reasons on the matter in the following verses, and concludes that the Christian woman in worship has power to decide for herself whether to cover or not. The ideal being for the women to worship with head uncovered, even as the men were to do.

Man is the “glory of God” (i.e., a being for God to display as a creature He is pleased with in His creation; one created for God’s delight, communion and companionship). Woman also is the “glory of God” in exactly the same sense as man, but in addition she is also the “glory of man”, created from man for man’s delight and companionship. Thus woman does not have an inferior “glory”, but actually has a double “glory”.

The words (vs 13) “Judge among yourselves” are better construed as the closing clause of verse 12 rather than the beginning of the next.

I am not a Greek scholar, but I have read that (in verses 13, 14 at least) the order of the Greek words would be the same, whether it was a question or a statement (unlike English --- is it; it is). Also that there is no interrogatory (who, why, when, etc.) Greek word in this sentence. And punctuation (such as the question mark) came long after the Scriptures were written. Therefore, this sentence of verse 13 should be read as a statement by Paul, rather than as a question, like this:--- “It is proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered”.

Verse 14: "Does not even nature itself teach you...?" Well, NO! Paul, nature does NOT teach me that. Where in nature does it teach that? Lots of men (including the ancestors of the Corinthians) have had long hair (Jesus probably did), and lots of women have had short hair. This is not “nature” teaching, although it may be customary in many cultures. We need to use some common sense in the Scriptures, even as we do in daily life.

Therefore, this sentence of verse 14 should also be read as a statement by Paul, rather than as a question, like this:--- "Even nature itself does not teach you..."

Verse 15: "But if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her, for hair is given to her for a covering." One of the big questions back then was veiling (meaning covering the head; not the face). Jewish men did it with the Tallith, or prayer shawl, even as they do to this very day. It was considered, by the oral law of the Jews, extremely disgraceful for a woman to remove her covering and reveal her natural hair. Paul is saying (Chapter 11) it was NOT proper for men to cover their heads in Christian worship, as it would dishonor their head, Christ. Women also had this same freedom to uncover before God and fellow Christians, but might find it difficult to do so (because of the strong local "traditions"), even when
circumstances were favorable. Paul says that if any "traditionalists" were upset by this uncovering in the worship service, then the women should consider their hair (and it was usually long) as their veil or covering, and that it was a "glory" to them, and that they should not be ashamed of uncovering it, whatever the Judaizers might say.

The whole question of 1 Cor. 11:1-16 has to do with liberty, even freedom from condemnation through Christ; and also with decorum and order in worship. Paul (in the Christian worship service) is not advocating and supporting the customs and traditions of the synagogue, or of the Roman or Greek populace. Rather, he is against these, and advocating liberty in Christ.


The only tiny restriction the Scriptures allow, is that men and women should be recognizable as men and as women. That is, they should not dress alike, nor wear the same hair styles, etc., to such a degree that the sex of the person cannot be properly identified. The distinction of sexes was to be maintained, even though in Christ there is truly "neither male nor female".

* * * * *

What about “head” in verse 3? The word is “kephale”, used figuratively as meaning source, source of life, originator --- not ruler, boss, power, or authority. If Paul meant ruler he would have used the word “archon”; for power he would have used “exousia”.

This verse in not about heirarchy (God being listed last is a clue), but about “source”. If it were intended to state heirarchy, it would have been listed as:---
God
Jesus
Man
Woman
But Paul seems to go out of his way to show that he was not imputing authority to males, when he says in verse 12 “For as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.” Then Paul concludes by saying “Judge among yourselves” (first part of verse 13).

Gnostic views then prevalent had several levels of beings (“emanations” or “aeons”) between the creator and mankind, with the Logos only a mid-level being; man was created by one of the other “emanations” (not the Logos), and woman was formed from some material that was between man and animal. Paul wanted to clear away all this nonsense before beginning his discussion. So, he made clear that the Logos (later Jesus) was the direct creation of God, his source; man’s source was the Logos (God’s creative agent); the woman’s source was also the Logos, but additionally, she could claim man as her source. Thus woman was fully human, and fully qualified to be man’s companion.

In Christ, if the head of man is Jesus, then the head of woman is also Jesus. There is only one head of the church, and that is Jesus --- set there by God Himself. Christ does have authority over the church. But most passages that deal with Christ as the head of the church do not point to his authority over the church, but rather to the oneness of Christ and the church (similar to the ideal of husband and wife).

Used figuratively, Kephale meant more the heart than the mind; more agape love than authority
* * * * *

There was a general belief in the pagan world that woman was a lesser being, formed from material somewhere between human and animal. When Paul said (vs Cool that woman came from man, he declared woman fully human and fully qualified to be an equal companion to man.

================

1 Cor. 14:34-35. “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for women to speak in the church”.

This statement is coming from the Judaizers (Jewish Christians who wanted to retain much of Jewish legalism). The “law” referred to was not Moses’ writings in the Old Testament, but rather was the oral “law” as found in the Talmud. The O.T. has no such teachings, but the oral traditions do --- almost word for word.

Paul is quoting their argument and then answering it in the next two verses:
“What? Came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”

* * * * *

Paul never relied on the “law” to support his views. Rather, he claimed his teachings were direct from God (or in a few cases, his spirit-filled “opinion”).

================

Eph. 5:21-23

Ephesians 5:21-33 certainly reflects the general Jewish and Greco-Roman understandings of marriage in which wives were understood to have the responsibility to submit to their husbands in all things, as Ephesians 5:24 indicates. However, it is clear that this cultural understanding of marriage is significantly qualified for those in Christ, so that the passage teaches an overarching concept of mutual submission.

Verse 23 shows that “head” is not literal here, but is used figuratively in a head-body metaphor, to show the unity of husband and wife, and of Christ and the Church. Unity, in fact, is the point of the whole passage.

Verse 21 (“submit”) is addressed to all Christians and obviously included husbands and wives. Naturally, as part of this mutual submission of all Christians to each other, wives are to “submit” to their husbands. In verse 22, the wife must “submit” with the same kind of submission demanded of all Christians in the previous verse.

“Submit” means gracious yielding to one another where no principle is involved. This is the “oil” that keeps the Christian arrangement running smoothly, and the same holds true for the marriage relationship --- egalitarian, full equality, mutually yielding to one another, each seeking the other’s best interests.

Christ’s headship of the church is described thus, “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (vs 25). Christ gave himself up to enable the church to become all that it is meant to be --- holy and without blemish. As Christ is the enabler (the one who brings to completion) of the church, so the husband is to enable (bring to completion) all that his wife is meant to be. The husband is to nourish and cherish his wife as he does his own body, even as Christ nourishes and cherishes the Church (vs 29). Giving oneself sacrificially to the other is an excellent example of the submission wives and husbands are to have toward each other.

-----

The figurative meaning of “head” (kephale) can include exalted originator and completor, source, base, derivation, enabler (one who brings to completion), source of life, top, crown.

Drs. Eddie L. Hyatt and Susan C. Hyatt write:--- One of the most complete Greek lexicons, Liddell, Scott, Jones and McKenzie, lists various meanings for “kephale”, but it does not list “authority over”, “ruler”, “boss” or anything similar as a definition.

Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, in their study of headship in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) discovered that when the Hebrew word “rosh” (“head”) was used figuratively to mean “source” or “beginning”, the translators used the Greek word “kephale”. However, when “rosh” was used figuratively to mean “ruler” or “boss” (e.g., the head of the tribe of Judah), the translators used the Greek word “archon”, meaning “ruler”.

================

1 Tim. 2:8 - 3:15

* * * * *
This seems like a reasonable explanation.

Commentary by Don Rousu
“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression (1 Timothy 2:11-14 NKJV).

"The translation hinges on the Greek verb, authentein. The problem is that this verb is found nowhere else in the Bible. From years of studying biblical languages, I know that translators learn the meaning of a word by studying it in other Bible passages. Where there are no other Bible passages, they must look in comparative literature of the same time period. Although most translators of 1 Timothy have interpreted authentein to mean 'to usurp authority' over a man, or 'to have authority' over a man, such a translation violates both the context of Paul's writing and the first century usage of the word in other literature.

"Around the time the New Testament was written, the most common meaning of authentein was 'to be, or claim to be the author or the originator of something.' To underscore the point with a pun, this appears to be the authentic translation of authentein, the crucial verb of 1 Tim. 2:12.

"Not only have translators overlooked the prevailing meaning of the word authentein at the time the New Testament was written, but they also seem to have missed the cultural context in which Paul wrote his letter to Timothy.

"Timothy was in Ephesus. Ephesus was the world center of paganism governed spiritually by the female deity Artemis, whom the Romans called Diana. The cult of Artemis taught the superiority of the female and advocated female domination of the male. It espoused a doctrine of feminine procreation teaching that this goddess was able to bring forth offspring without male involvement. The cult was characterized by sexual perversion, fertility rites, endless myths, and elaborate genealogies traced through female rather than male bloodlines.

"Also present in Ephesus was a contingent of Jewish Gnostics who represented the first century's equivalent of the New Age movement. The Greek word for 'Gnostic' is gnosis meaning 'knowledge.' Gnostics acknowledged spirit guides and combined the teachings of Artemis with the teachings of the Old Testament story of Adam and Eve.

"In the most prevalent Gnostic version of the story, Eve was the 'illuminator' of mankind because she was the first to receive 'true knowledge' from the Serpent, whom Gnostics saw as the 'savior' and revealer of truth. Gnostics believed that Eve taught this new revelation to Adam, and being the mother of all, was the progenitor of the human race. Adam, they said, was Eve's son rather than her husband. This belief reflected the Gnostic doctrine that a female deity could bring forth children without male involvement.

In light of the authentic meaning of the word authentein and of the social context within which Paul wrote his letters to Timothy, let me offer what I believe is an appropriate rendering of the text in 1 Timothy. I believe Paul is saying, 'I am not allowing (present tense for that situation) a woman to teach or to proclaim herself the originator of man.' Do you see how this translation offsets false doctrine?

"The word that is frequently translated 'silence,' hesuchia, also means harmony, peace, conformity or agreement. I therefore suggest Paul goes on to say, 'she must be in agreement,' meaning agreement with the Scriptures and with sound teaching in the Church.

"He continues in this vein saying, 'Adam was formed first, then Eve.' This statement militates against the doctrine of Eve as progenitor. He also says, 'Adam was not deceived, but the woman was! And sinned!' This statement directly contradicts the notion that Eve was the 'illuminator,' and carrier of new revelation."

1 Timothy 2:11-12 (Paraphrased and Amplified)

“[Now in response to the Gnostic teaching stemming from the worship of Artemis that Eve was the originator of Adam and the goddess of life], let a woman learn (in agreement with sound doctrine) with all submission (to that doctrineAnd I do not permit a woman to teach that she is the originator or the illuminator of man, but to be in agreement (with the church). For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived [his was direct disobedience], but woman being deceived [thus not being infallible], fell into transgression [proving that she was human.]”

“There is a liberating peace from the Lord about this interpretation. I believe it is THE correct one. It corresponds with the practice of Paul and other Scriptures. Men and women, be set free!”
End commentary by Don Rousu

-----

Eve being “deceived”, has not passed that trait on to all generations of women so that they are more likely to be “deceived” than are men. Likewise, Adam being a “willful” transgressor has not passed that trait on to all generations of men so that they are more likely to be “willful” sinners than are women.

The truth is, once any one (man or woman) has accepted Christ as Savior, been “washed in the blood of the Lamb”, and become a New Creation --- all the past shortcomings in that person’s life have been cleared away, as though they had never been. Thus in Christ there is a new life wherein there is neither male nor female, Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, rich nor poor. Liberty in Christ.

“Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!” (MLK)

* * * * *

Verse 9, “in like manner also that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing”. (See also 1 Peter 3:3)

The hair styles of some women in Ephesus were a work of art, and they vied with one another to have the ultimate design. The hair was built up (somewhat like the “beehive” style of decades ago) and laced with gold and silver threads, precious stones, etc. Why didn’t Paul just say “Ladies, put on a head covering”? Because the matter of head coverings was not an issue in this locality and this time (as it had been at Corinth). This shows that the matter of head coverings (and Paul’s solution) was not to be considered universal (for all the church, for all time) but was merely a local cultural issue for a certain situation, time, and place.

* * * * *

Verse 15, “Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.”

So, does this mean a woman will be “saved” to eternal life simply by having children, but a man must accept Christ as his savior? Of course not.

Childbirth was very dangerous centuries ago, and many women died in childbirth or from later complications. Paul is merely saying that Christian women will be divinely protected during the childbirth process, and the resulting offspring will also be protected. This may not be an absolute guarantee, but might be similar to 1 Cor. 7:14 “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.” A relative holiness, or protection, would be provided; especially true if both parents were sincere Christians.

-----

It is also possible that verse 15 has some relation to Gnostic theology, in which a mother was thought to have a more difficult time to reach “heaven” than a man or childless woman. If so, Paul would be saying this prevalent Gnostic idea was wrong, and that there was no reason for a Christian woman to fear, as children would not hinder her heavenly quest.

* * * * *
================
=============== Quotes or references by Paul ===============
These are NOT Paul’s words

1 Cor. 7:1 --- “It is good for a man not to touch a woman”. From Paul’s previous teachings, the Corinthians gathered that this was a definite principle. Paul acknowledges there is some validity to this statement (verses 7, 8, 26) for those who have self-control, but it is not a command or universal principle. In general, Paul says (verse 2) “Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.”

----------

1 Cor. 8:1 --- The Corinthians asked about offerings to idols, and included their own statement “We know that we all have knowledge.”

Paul’s answer, to moderate that bare statement, begins with “Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies”. Then he further explains about idols, knowledge, love, not exercising your liberty, etc.

----------

1 Cor. 6:12-13a ---
Corinthians:--- “All things are lawful for me”
Paul:--- “but all things are not helpful”
Corinthians:--- “All things are lawful for me”
Paul:--- “but I will not be brought under the power of any”
Corinthians:--- “Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods”
Paul:--- “but God will destroy both it and them”


1 Cor. 10:23 ---
Corinthians:--- “All things are lawful for me”
Paul:--- “but all things are not helpful”
Corinthians:--- “All things are lawful for me”
Paul:--- “but all things do not edify”

----------

===================================================

by Larry Schneider
_________________
1 Peter 5:6-11Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time.7casting all your anxiety upon Him, because He cares for you. NASB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bangalore
Reading Matthew


Joined: 30 Oct 2007
Posts: 84

PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There seems to be too much emphasis on outward appearance.

Warm Christian Love
Bangalore
_________________
http://spiritualbrother.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
alethia
Reading Luke


Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 237
Location: sheep pen

PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You know how much these pictures irritate me.

Ugh Ugh and more yuck. The first bunch would have been better off spending their money at the dentist. The rest look like stuffed shirts.
If Africans can enter in national costume I hope they allow Scots in with their kilts.


I'm an ancient Brit. can I come in woad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2Gxd9zhsag&feature=related men of Harlech
http://www.frivolity.com/teatime/Songs_and_Poems/woad_ode.html Ode to Woad, sung to men of Harlech

The real words
Hairy coats were made for goats,
Gorillas, yaks, retriever dogs and llamas.
Tramp up Mill Hill with our woad on,
Never mind if we get rained or snowed on,
Never need a button sewed on,
Impoverished pioneers.


If you don't know what woad is .......look it up! Next time I ever go to Bethel I will be wearing my best woad.


Bethel was the southern centre of calf worship. And I think still is.
_________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnNOzngbfNg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Athanasius
Reading Matthew


Joined: 09 Aug 2008
Posts: 66
Location: Northern California, USA

PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Funny how the JWs are so hung up and dress codes. I've visited the Mormon Temple complex in Salt Lake City, and though the tour guide was dressed in formal attire, most of the visitors were tourists and wore casual clothing.

Do the JWs now require non-JWs to dress formal in order to visit the Watchtower Vatican?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:    View previous topic : View next topic  
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Shelter Forum Index -> Current Issues among Jehovah's Witnesses All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum