Methodist church

[Endeavourer]

C'mon. You know that the concept is found in scripture, even if that isn't the word used. There are all sorts of words and terms that we all use which refer to some Biblical principle

This is exactly what I was trying to point out.

Words have specific meanings. It's very easy to be using a man made root word which distorts the actual words in the Bible.

For example: the Bible does not use the word "accept" anywhere when describing salvation. Yet millions of people say that salvation is "accepting Jesus". In fact, without looking it up, can you describe the actual words the Bible uses to describe how to be saved?

Edited to add: Nor does it use "choose" or "choice" in any verses about salvation, yet those words are also commonly used by millions of people when describing salvation.

If you limit your description to actual words that the Bible uses, would that change your understanding about salvation? For the purpose of this response, I'm not arguing whether I feel it does or doesn't because that is irrelevant to my question -> I'm asking about you.

The question is... do you have vigilance in identifying a filter? Can you recognize a word that is made up by man and do you challenge yourself to ensure that the man made word is an accurate representation of Scripture?

 

[ToBeLoved]

The Bible is beautifully, inerrantly and unfailingly correct, including that verse and all other verses.

The question I posed to you is: have you challenged yourself on whether your understanding of it is correct? Are you reading that verse through a filter that you don't even realize is there?

Be careful for which translations you use when studying out this issue, however. The ESV translation was chaired by a man who is heavily into a perversion of the headship doctrine, and he translated the verse this way:

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wifea]">[a] is her husband,b]">[b] and the head of Christ is God.

Notice he substituted "wife" for "woman" in the text, while including notes that imply the literal translation is "woman" and "man". Wife instead of woman is an enormous difference.

He also made this change in Gen 3:16:

..Your desire shall be contrary to a]">[a] your husband..

which is vastly different than:

...and thy desire shall be to thy husband...​

The specifics of headship per se are not the point of my comment. My comment was just pointing out that most (all?) of us have filters that we don't even recognize are filters. Some of our filters inadvertently pull doctrines of the devil into our sincerely held beliefs. We think we are understanding something as the pure, unadulterated Word of God when it isn't necessarily so.

Infamously, the devil's best line is "yea, hath not God said...." and then with a small twist you think you are understanding what God said but it is actually entirely different.

So, the only question I pose to you is: have you challenged yourself on whether your understanding of it is correct? Are you reading that verse through a filter that you don't even realize is there?

No, I'm really fine with this verse and the concept.

 

[hedrick]

Notice he substituted "wife" for "woman" in the text, while including notes that imply the literal translation is "woman" and "man". Wife instead of woman is an enormous difference. ​

The same Greek word is used for both. Since English has two different words, you have to decide from context which to use. There are reasonable arguments for both, though probably "woman" is more likely. Note that ESV is a revision of the RSV, and the RSV used "woman" and "husband," thus implying that it was wife.​

 

[Endeavourer]

The same Greek word is used for both. Since English has two different words, you have to decide from context which to use. There are reasonable arguments for both, though probably "woman" is more likely. Note that ESV is a revision of the RSV, and the RSV used "woman" and "husband," thus implying that it was wife.

I am unpersuaded that Westcott and Hort were worthy translators, and the RSV was based on their work. Some of their personal viewpoints and writings, if properly attributed, are very alarming.

I have no use for the ESV at all due to the purposeful revisions that were made to it with respect to gender roles. I noted two above.

If you are a woman being subjugated to abuse under the twisting of Scripture, particularly under some of the more egregious variants of the the headship doctrines, the ESV passages on gender roles cloud a clearer understanding of your right to be equally valued and the ESV even contributes to such twisting.

Most versions, including my favorite, the KJV, do use "man" and 'woman" in 1 Cor 11:3. To my reading, that makes far more sense than husband and wife and is more in line with my research on what the original words would have represented to Paul during his time.

I personally see quite a few issues with interpreting "head" as "authority" in this verse instead of as "source". I feel the "headship" argument would need to come from other areas in the Bible, if it is to stand, but that this particular verse does not support it on an in-depth study. I see too many issues in this verse against the logic typically used to argue for headship.

If the nouns are changed to the possessive, husband and wife, instead of the general, man and woman, to my reading it loses the whole point of a very rich meaning.

 

[All4Christ]

AMBASSADOR HAT



Please remember that this is not a debate forum. It is dedicated to giving Christian Advice. Do not debate theology here. Address your posts to the OP, and please stay on topic.

Thank you!

 

[LoricaLady]

There is no right or wrong Church to go to per the Bible as the concept of Church, as we know it, is not in the Bible at all. Fellowship, yes, but not a big building with a cross on top where people worship on Sundays. As for Christmas, I'm sorry but nothing in the Bible says that the Savior was born in winter, much less on December 25. The Shepherds were "keeping watching over their flocks", which was common at lambing season. You know, our Savior was born to be our sacrificial Lamb.

It is not we people who can guide you in what to do You have the Bible and the Holy Spirit. The Bible says "You need that no man should teach you but the Holy Spirit will teach you" He will always lead you in ways that agree with Scriptures. As for traditions of men, Messiah spoke out against them very firmly.

 

[Ovlov90]

healthy

 

[Albion]

There is no right or wrong Church to go to per the Bible as the concept of Church, as we know it, is not in the Bible at all. Fellowship, yes, but not a big building with a cross on top where people worship on Sundays. .

Strawman alert. No one here thinks that the meaning of "church" is confined to a building. We sure hear that claim made often by people who don't want to attend church services, tho.

 

[Ovlov90]

Im in the same but opposite dilema. Im trying to downsize my traditional celebrations. I just feel so strongly that we should be looking at the seven feastdays God appointed. Christ has fulfilled four and has yet to fulfill the last three. My church family looks at my like I have three heads. I get comments like “oh were not required to do them anymore”. Im well aware of that, and dont rest my salvation on them. I will celebrate Christmas this year, but in a much more relaxed manner. If you want to do Christmas with gusto have at it! I believe when Paul said let no one judge you in the keeping of new moons and festivals it cut two ways. If you are not sinning in your celebrateing and its for His glory them its a personal choice and enjoy. I know how it feels to do thing different than your church family. There is pressure to conform. But if you want to celebrate just the seven feasts or just Christmas and Easter or all them your within safe bounds.

 

[Sketcher]

Methodists have their advent calendar in December, and the Methodist family members I have celebrate Christmas at the same time as we do, which is also the same time that Catholics and Baptists celebrate Christmas.