• Help Spread the Fire
  • Click here to read Dr. Brown's latest article
  • Mother’s Day Musings, Thoughts on the NFL’s Homosexual Kiss, and Your Calls

    May 12, 2014 | 81 Comments

    Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

    [Download MP3]

    Dr. Brown shares some stories about his mom and the importance of mothers, gives his thoughts about the NFL’s first homosexual kiss, weighs in on other news issues, and takes your calls. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.

     

    Hour 1:

    Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Keep you heart and mind focused on God, in the Word, refuse to be desensitized by the decadent culture and speak up and speak out according to the Truth!

     

    Hour 2:

    Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: As we celebrated Mother’s Day over the weekend let’s remember mothers and fathers are unique in this world. Mothers and fathers have an awesome role to play in cultural transformation!

     

    SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY! 
    This week, we’re offering two important resources from Dr. Brown, his brand new book, Can You Be Gay and Christian?, and his DVD debate with gay activist (and professing born-again Christian) Harry Knox. You can get both of these key resources for the super low price of just $25! Postage Paid! That’s a $15 savings!
    Order Online!

    Other Resources:

    Is Mary Really the “Mother of God”?

    You’ve Got Questions, We’ve Got Answers – and a Special Interview with Jason and David Benham

    Questions Concerning the Possibility of an Openly Gay NFL Player, and Dr. Brown Takes Your Questions

    Be Sociable, Share!

    Comments

    81 Responses to “Mother’s Day Musings, Thoughts on the NFL’s Homosexual Kiss, and Your Calls”

    1. Bo
      May 13th, 2014 @ 6:52 pm

      Ray,

      I do not know what you are getting at. It might be good for you to listen to the links that Benjamin posted.

    2. Ray
      May 13th, 2014 @ 7:05 pm

      Bo what is it you don’t understand?

    3. Bo
      May 13th, 2014 @ 7:21 pm

      Never mind Ray, but you might want to listen to the links. They are not about 1 Cor 14:34, but about 1 Cor 11.

    4. AaronC
      May 13th, 2014 @ 7:26 pm

      Greg should have spent more time studying Boswell’s “Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality”. Boswell comes to conclusions that are the direct opposite of Greg’s.

      http://books.google.com/books/about/Christianity_Social_Tolerance_and_Homose.html?id=v-MR5_AdG68C

      [Page 25] “Plato argued that pairs of homosexual lovers would make the best soldiers…and the Thebans actually formed an army of such pairs in what turned out to an extraordinarily successful experiment…”

      [see also http://www.laits.utexas.edu/ancienthomosexuality/readindex.php?view=26 for a discussion of the Theban “Sacred Band” of adult male lover pairs]

      [Page 28] “Unfortunately, an equally distorting and even more seductive danger for the historian is posed by the tendency to exaggerate the differences between homosexuality in previous societies and modern ones.”

      “One example of this tendency is the common idea that gay relationships in the ancient world differed from their modern counterparts in that they always involved persons of different ages: an older man (the lover) and a young boy (the beloved). Some scholars even propose that such age-differentiated relationships cannot be considered examples of ‘real homosexuality.’ …On the other hand, it does NOT seem likely that, with a few exceptions, the apparent prevalence of erotic relationships between adults and boys in the past corresponded to reality.” [my emphasis] “It was, rather, an idealized cultural convention. It is useful to note here that in modern European and American [Page 29] culture teenaged girls are ubiquitously standards of feminine beauty: advertisements, popular literature, pornography, movies and television, even vulgar humor…assume the sixteen–twenty-year-old female as an archetype of feminine beauty. It would certainly be wrong, however, to infer from this that most men either wish to or do have sexual relations with women in this age group. It is not even clear that this is the age group most attractive to all men…”

      “The same was manifestly the case with erotic relations in the past. Beautiful men were ‘boys’ to the Greeks just as beautiful women are ‘girls’ to modern Europeans and Americans. The actual age of the male involved may have mattered to some Greeks; to others it obviously did not. ”

      [Page 28] Footnote 52. [about pederasty] “The distinction is consistently drawn only in Greek, as ‘erastes’ and ‘eromenos’; it may only correspond to conceptual peculiarities of the Athenians. Whether these terms resulted from some sort of definite role expectation is difficult to assess at this distance. It is apparent that the roles were not predetermined, since there was often uncertainty about which person played which part, even when their respective ages were known…The same person, moreover, might be both lover and beloved of different persons at the same time…It is clear that in many cases it was superior beauty which earned one the position of beloved, not inferior age: while Socrates, known for his homeliness, always appears as the lover of others, Alcibiades, equally famous for his beauty, was a beloved all his life. In any event, one did not have to be young in any accepted sense: Euripides was the lover of Agathon when Euripides was seventy-two and Agathon forty; Parmenides and Zenon were in love when the former was sixty-five and the latter forty; Alcibiades was already full-bearded when Socrates fell in love with him. According to Plutarch…Achilles was a beloved when he was a father.”

      “Plato carefully [Page 30] distinguishes in his dialogues between men who are attracted to boys and those who are attracted to other men, but few ancient writers were so careful. Most used terms which suggested erotic attraction for young men and for older males interchangeably, clearly implying that age was a not a consideration. The term “pederasty” frequently has no more relation to the age of the objects of desire than ‘girl chasing.’ The convention of using terms implying youthfulness to express affection or intimacy survived throughout the Middle Ages. The persistence of Ganymede as a symbol of the gay male as well as Christian symbolic filial relations (e.g., between monks and their abbot or ‘father’) enriched the tradition even further. Alcuin addresses a cleric he loves as ‘beautiful boy’; Sain Aelred refers to Simon, his lover an contemporary, as a ‘boy’ and calls him ‘son’; Marbod, Bishop of Rennes, even refers to himself as a ‘boy’ in a letter to his lover.

      [Page 30, N.58] “Often the beloved in a discussion of ‘pederasty’ will be designated with a word which refers to an adult…and in very many cases where both parties are known to be full grown the words used imply youthfulness on the part of the beloved…IN THE MAJORITY OF INSTANCES HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONS ARE DESCRIBED AS OCCURRING BETWEEN FULLY GROWN PERSONS, AND NO DISPARITY IN AGE IS IMPLIED OR STATED.” [my emphases]

      Paul was a man who was educated in Greek culture and history. He could quote, off the cuff, even minor Greek philosophers and poets such as Aratus and Cleanthes (Acts 17:28), Epimenides (Titus 1:12), and Menander (1 Corinthians 15:33).

      Certainly, Paul knew about famous Greeks and their “committed, loving” adult relationships–yet he condemned them anyway. And God knew as well, which is ultimately meaningful to those of us who believe that God inspired the Bible.

    5. Sheila
      May 14th, 2014 @ 7:40 am

      Aaron C,

      Thanks for that. Pretty much sums up the matter as addressed in the New Testament. I feel absolutely certain that the Hebrews were known for their historic view on homosexuality and that it was considered aberrant behavior and one condemned by God no matter the era one lived in. I’ve no doubt the injunction against homosexuality further set apart the people of God from the rest of the nations. God condemned it, therefore it is considered sin just as it states.

    6. Greg Allen
      May 14th, 2014 @ 7:41 am

      jon,

      >>Greg, your review of the book was just terrible, terrible.

      Jon,

      Ironically, I have to ask. Did you read my review or did you call it terrible without reading it.

      In _my_ review of Dr. Brown’s book, I didn’t just call it terrible. I mentioned specific, key, aspects of the books and reflected on them. And (I managed to find a positive thing or two as well! )

      NOBODY here did that with my review. A review I wrote after you guys demanded I read the book.

      So, don’t just tell my that my review of the book is terrible. Tell me WHY it is terrible. And can you be fair and balanced enough to find something positive?

    7. Sheila
      May 14th, 2014 @ 7:43 am

      That it is sin is no different than one who once stole for a living. When one repents there is in the definition of the word, a turning away from that sin. We wouldn’t repent and accept salvation and then go on stealing!

    8. Greg Allen
      May 14th, 2014 @ 7:53 am

      Benjamin,

      Not to split hairs — but I wasn’t asking people to comment on MY theory.

      I want to know YOUR theory.

      There are just a small handfuls of verses on homosexuality, yet Dr. Brown has written two books, done years of articles, shows and countless comments on the subject.

      Over a handful of verses, half disputed. None ever included in any core Christian professions.

      And all the polling data shows that this is a generational thing. This obsession tends to leave the younger generation scratching theirs.

      And the polling data show that it tends to be men more than women who care so much about leaving older men as the hardcore of opposition to the gays. (Think John McCain, James Dobson, Dr. Brown)

      Google it yourself — this is not really contested.

      Why do you think this is?

      ———————————–

      PS: I’m reluctant to share my theory because it is just a theory. You guys will dog-pile me on it and I’d have to defend it with sociology, not my strength. My training is in bible, education in science.

    9. Greg Allen
      May 14th, 2014 @ 8:04 am

      Benjamin,

      I’ll address this in a second post:

      Thank you for the olive branch. You, more than most, have actually debated me. Thanks.

      I get attacked here — a lot. People often jump straight to ad himinem.

      Dr. Brown is one of the worst, honestly.

      I’m sure part of it is because he’s busy. (or at least I hope that is why).

      I have a pretty thick skin but, for example, when he used the term “anti-Jesus” when I differed with him about so-called reparative therapy, that hurt!

      I dearly love Jesus!

      And I love the bible! I took the time and effort to graduate from both bible school and seminary. It was a huge commitment but I learned to read the Greek. I have spent my life reading and studying the bible. Countless hourse I love the bible! I believe it is inspired and authoritative.

      But, because I differ on the “culture wars” with you guys, I get accused of hating the bible!

      I gotta say, that hurts to be accused of that.

      I love passionate debate. I can handle being told I’m wrong. Even very wrong.

      But some of the guys really pull out all the stops in their judgmentalism.

    10. Greg Allen
      May 14th, 2014 @ 8:08 am

      Aaron,

      >>Greg should have spent more time studying Boswell’s “Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality”.

      I’m tired of this. I spend weeks reading his book.

      Sheesh.

      When you come out of the shoot with the personal taunts, I’m done with your post.

      Sorry. Maybe I’m just tired. Try again later.

    11. Sheila
      May 14th, 2014 @ 8:25 am

      Greg,

      I honestly don’t see how we could be reading the very same Book and come away with such a liberal interpretation. And I don’t mean “Liberal” as opposed to “Conservatiive” in the way of politics. I mean liberal as in “really stretching” and “grasping at straws” in your interpretation of Scripture. Seminary or no, you’re not reading the peshat of the verses but are reading into them what you would like for them to say according to your personal beliefs.

      That’s how you’ve presented your case time and again.

      Because of acquaintances and family members, it’s very tempting to back away from the truth, but I’ll not change what the Bible says is sin just to make them feel better about their lifestyle. And they know how I feel therefore we have no problem but there is still some tension even though they’re treated no differently. They don’t flaunt it like, “in your face” but the difference in opinion is clear between us.

      Did you lose your backbone somewhere along the way?

    12. Doug
      May 14th, 2014 @ 8:33 am

      Greg,

      “Over a handful of verses, half disputed. None ever included in any core Christian professions.”

      First hardly any moral issue is discussed in a “core Christian profession” and most of those were developed in response to particular errors in the church. So this is a red herring.

      Second it is not just that the Bible condemns gay sex in the strongest possible terms in several verses (what else gets this much treatment). There is also Jesus’s and Paul’s positive teaching about marriage you are ignoring and the Bible’s strong condemnation of sexual immorality in general which includes gay sex. Actually there are few things in the Bible that are as clear as its teaching on this. To ignore this teaching and keep others is totally inconsistent.

      Please reconsider your promotion of this sin.

    13. Greg Allen
      May 14th, 2014 @ 8:40 am

      Sheila,

      >> God condemned it, therefore it is considered sin just as it states.

      But have you researched what God was actually condemning?

      Was God condemning monogamous gay marriage?

      Or was it pederasty and temple prostitution?

      In other words, homosexuality as it was known and practiced back then?

      I STILL condemn pederasty. There is no question about that.

      (I’m not aware of any modern temple prostitution but I condemn that.)

      Yes, of course, there were gay partners in the ancient times. This was especially true in the cities. Plato’s symposium talks about homosexuality at length, including what we would call “sexual orientation”

      Put Plato’s world and the Jewish worlds were very different worlds!

      When the Jews thought of homosexual behavior, where they thinking of someone like the loving, monogamous gay couple who just moved on your block?

      Not likely!

      The Jews and early Christians would be thinking of men with boys, “down low” affairs and temple prostitution.

      Not 21st Century gay legal marriage!

      As an exegetical principle, I believe that God spoke to what the readers — BACK THEN — were thinking. To the Jews. To the early Gentile converts. Not to Plato.

    14. Greg Allen
      May 14th, 2014 @ 8:42 am

      Once again,

      I gotta go.

      I may or may not check back here.

      As Dr. Brown’s shows keep moving on, I hate to get stuck on one.

    15. Sheila
      May 14th, 2014 @ 9:00 am

      Greg,

      The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to have sex with male strangers! Are you meaning to imply that those two angels were young boys? Please. They’re described as men. And there was no temple at Sodom that is even remotely mentioned in the text.

      —“Put Plato’s world and the Jewish worlds were very different worlds!”

      Yes, Greg, they were “very” different! God did not call the Greeks to represent Him, He called the Hebrews. Our New Testament, because it was written in the Greek does not sanction the immorality as found in that civilization or that of the Romans. What does it mean to “come out and be separate?” Don’t be like the heathens that don’t know God. Hebrews wrote the New Testament and it’s nowhere stated that it’s okay to now adopt their sinful lifestyle. It says the exact opposite.

      The gay couple on the Jewish person’s block was not given special treatment by way of proximity! Sin is sin is sin… We don’t get to re-write the Bible to fit the current climate of the day. God “does not change” does He? Therefore what He says in the New Testament is reflected in the First. He destroyed 2 cities because of it! And don’t claim differently. Have you been reading “The Queer Bible” or something?

    16. Sheila
      May 14th, 2014 @ 9:11 am

      Greg,

      Alright, I retract this statement and apologize: “Have you been reading “The Queer Bible” or something?”

      I see a lot of people these days are re-writing Scripture to cajole those living in sin, that way they don’t have to feel uncomfortable in confronting them, is what I think.

    17. jon
      May 14th, 2014 @ 9:14 am

      Sodom certainly gets the criticism for it’s sin. What must not be lost on the lesson on Sodom is that they were foremost fornicators. That lesson needs to be understood here in what has happened to us in the last 70 years is that this all is an out growth from the same thing. It did not start out as same sex marriage, this all started with us as Christians in the break down of sacred marriage.
      We fornicated, we lived together to try out a relationship. We had kids out of wedlock, we fornicated for decades. What we have now is a harvest of our sins. This is a very strange society especially contrasted with the way things ought to be.

    18. Sheila
      May 14th, 2014 @ 9:29 am

      And there was no Greek civilization when Sodom and Gomorrah was still standing. It was no doubt practiced in the nations surrounding Israel. They were an island in a sea of pagan nations. And it’s a mystery to me why Lot ever chose to dwell there in the first place except that guwr signifies a temporary sojourn. But; the Bible counts him as righteous among sinners. What do you make of that? It’s clear what his righteousness was. He pleaded with the men of Sodom to “not do such wickedness.”

      Gen 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

    19. Sheila
      May 14th, 2014 @ 9:37 am

      That’s “quwr” rather.

    20. Sheila
      May 14th, 2014 @ 9:38 am

      jon,

      I have to agree.

    21. Bo
      May 14th, 2014 @ 9:42 am

      Greg,

      You wrote:
      “Once again,

      I gotta go.

      I may or may not check back here.

      As Dr. Brown’s shows keep moving on, I hate to get stuck on one.”

      One more cop-out for your record books, Greg. You failed to answer many posts and very many points. You are dodging and being coy. How about sticking this one out to the end…for once?

      I repost the core of one of my posts that you completely failed to answer:

      2 Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
      2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
      3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
      4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
      5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away…
      13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
      14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
      15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
      16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
      17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

      According to Paul things will get worse, not better in the last days. Homosex has gotten worse, not better. Now it is committed and deceptively called love when it is not. It is not Biblical love. Paul says that there will be religious people that fall for this sort of thing and that they should be shunned. Greg, you are deceived and you are deceiving others. Paul says to go by the scripture, not by culture that is getting worse. Homosex is not a good work. It is not righteous.

      Greg, you did not answer why Paul and Moses use generic terms that are all encompassing instead of specific terms concerning the type of homosex that was being practiced. I agree things have changed, but the application does not go in the direction that you presume.

      Ro 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
      27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
      28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

      Paul is not saying that men used to use female prostitutes but have now switched to male prostitutes. He did not say men with boys. Paul is not speaking specifically against male cult prostitution and pederasty. He is condemning all homosex in both men and women. Please show how it is not homosex in general that is being condemned here.

      Also you really were intellectually dishonest with Aaron C’s post. Out of one side of your mouth you say that committed homosex relationships did not exist, so Paul could not have been condemning it, then when proof is presented that it did, you say that Paul wasn’t thinking of it when he wrote scripture. So you consistently dodge and justify with nothing more than your opinions and intellectual dishonesty. You have not presented anything that actually answers Aaron or my posts. You hold your view in spite of the facts so that you can bow to culture. You are a stumbling block to others, for you would rather they feel better now instead of be better now and in eternity.

    22. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 14th, 2014 @ 10:56 am

      Good morning!

      I was asked by Greg, “Why do you think older conservative men (especially) single-out homosexuality for some extra-special status?”

      Well, I have not interviewed them to get first-hand testimony, but I would think that it is because the younger generation is dropping the ball on that particular issue, and it’s the older generation that is still promoting the Biblical stance on this topic. I do not hear many messages on homosexuality in Church. Typically marriage, child raising, divorce and living for Jesus are much more discussed topics in the congregations I attend. My Church does verse-by-verse studies usually doing an entire book before it moves to another. So homosexuality tends to only get raised when the book of Scripture we are studying speaks about it.

      Dr. Brown gets much more opportunity to speak about it since it’s bombarding us in the media these days. Sure there are other issues in the media, but homosexuality is very prevalent in the social realm today, specially in big cities (which I happen to live in one).

      Take head-coverings as an example of the older generation compared to the younger. My Mother is 70 and she remembers that all women (that she can recall) when she was young wore coverings to Church (hats, shawls, etc.), most of her generation would probably remember the same. I think the reason for the hats/shawls began to be forgotten till younger generations faded it out not realizing the Biblical significance, or folks began to say “that’s not for today”.

      In conclusion I would say that the older generation has more of a tendency to continue the fight for Biblical truths. But we do also have some fine young folks coming up in the faith who are listening.

    23. Brian R.
      May 14th, 2014 @ 8:19 pm

      “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.” (1 Cor 14:34)

      The best rendering of this passage is understood to be Paul’s address to “wives” as opposed to all women in general. The noun translated as “women” can also be rendered as “wives.” The same Greek word and its construction finds its precedent from Paul’s previous teaching which leaves the context unquestioned.

      “Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” (1 Cor 7:3-4)

      The specific counsel that the Apostle gives the woman to keep silent, regarding the verse in question, gives strong contextual evidence that he is focusing on husbands and wives, for he says:

      “And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home…” (1 Cor 14:35).

      Hence the subjection is in reference to the husband and wife union, and not all women towards every single man in the church. Notwithstanding, it would be fair to assume that every single woman was not married in the Corinth assembly, since Paul previously gave instructions to the unmarried in the same letter (7:8).

      With this in mind, one would be fair to conclude that the Apostle was not presenting a sweeping statement to silence all women in every church, especially in light of those who had prominent positions such as Phoebe, Pricilla, and Juna. This compliments Paul’s understanding that women do, in fact, pray and prophesy in the church (1 Cor 11:5), but that all things are to be done decently and in order.

      shalom

    24. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 15th, 2014 @ 10:12 am

      The audio links posted above deal with many of the issues, and in a fair manner.

      Bo, check out Part 7 (starting around the 18 minute mark) as he doesnt discuss 1 Corinthians 14, but an identical passage over in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 which should shed light on Chapter 14.

    25. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 15th, 2014 @ 10:13 am

      (sorry if this is a duplicate post)

      The audio links posted above deal with many of the issues, and in a fair manner.

      Bo, check out Part 7 (starting around the 18 minute mark) as he doesnt discuss 1 Corinthians 14, but an identical passage over in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 which should shed light on Chapter 14.

      Part 7:
      http://www.cornerstonebible.org/audio/HC7.mp3

    26. Bo
      May 15th, 2014 @ 10:54 am

      Benjamin,

      I listened to most of each link. I am pretty much in full agreement with what he presents. As for us, we do not have our unmarried daughters veil. We think that the passage is not just dealing with “in the assembly.” He alluded to this slightly in regard to a future study on 1 Cor 14…I think. I was mostly wondering where this finally came down after the consideration of 1 Cor. 14.

      One issue that I think should be fully addressed is: What is prophesying? I would think the term should be broadened to encompass all meanings found in scripture. I would say that it is anytime someone is verbalizing truth about YHWH, whether to Him or to others. This would include preaching, singing, blessing, and prophesying the future.

      The “because of the angels,” the call to the authority structure being portrayed, and the purpose and way that man and woman were created seems to make the practice all encompassing for most of our waking hours. I doubt that Paul would approve of women standing up front prophesying, but was expecting that they would would be worshiping in song and would have many opportunities throughout every day to speak into the lives of their family and friends. It would not be much different for most of the men most of the time.

      I appreciated his history lesson about the the culture and how Paul was actually speaking against the culture of the day in some of his instructions. It is obvious just from reading the passage that Paul does not appeal to or intend to appease culture, but the historical proof was a good second witness to prove this point.

      I would also say that 1 Tim. 2:1-15 tells us more about head covering than meets the eye in English. There are some very close parallels to 1 Cor. 11 in the passage. I think that Paul is describing the woman’s veil when he says “shame facedness” and “modest apparel.” He is dealing with men and women praying. He appeals to how man and woman were created. He begins by speaking about authority. Too much to go into now.

      Thanks for the links and effort.

      Shalom

    27. Sheila
      May 15th, 2014 @ 11:29 am

      Bo,

      I appreciate your broader interpretation of what is meant by “prophesying.” I imagined it had to mean more than just speaking future events. It must include proper interpretation of Scripture as well.

      The definitions of prophesying are outlined in the Greek concordance as these:

      1. a discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God, whether by reproving and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things hidden; esp. by foretelling future events

      2.Used in the NT of the utterance of OT prophets

      of the prediction of events relating to Christ’s kingdom and its speedy triumph, together with the consolations and admonitions pertaining to it, the spirit of prophecy, the divine mind, to which the prophetic faculty is due

      of the endowment and speech of the Christian teachers called prophets

      3. the gifts and utterances of these prophets, esp. of the predictions of the works of which, set apart to teach the gospel, will accomplish for the kingdom of Christ

      Thanks for bringing that up!

    28. Bo
      May 15th, 2014 @ 11:52 am

      Sheila,

      Thanks for thanking me 🙂

      I just see too many times in scripture where prophesying is singing or worshiping or that the intent is not to predict the future or pronounce a judgment. It is probably Paul’s intent in 1 Cor. 11 to mean this kind of thing that happens in every assembly and throughout our day in which we bless YHWH, serve others, and teach our children. Not too mysterious…instead, very practical.

      Shalom

    29. Brian R.
      May 15th, 2014 @ 5:07 pm

      There are different degrees of prophecy to be understood. Scripture identifies the office of the Prophet, the gift of prophecy, and as Bo indicated, which is the spirit of prophecy, as referenced below.

      And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” (Rev 19:10)

    30. Faye
      May 17th, 2014 @ 7:13 am

      Yep, homosexuality is going crazy in Israel, Japan, Germany, most of Europe and the UK. Americans don’t understand what a huge influence we are on other nations and we need to be a huge influence on the topic of righteousness.

    31. Van
      May 17th, 2014 @ 11:46 am

      “As a football fan, I think it’s disgusting. It’s degraded the game. It’s a blemish on the NFL, and on television that covers the news when they “report” such things without speaking against them.”

      > Your post looks like something a third grader would say. You are offended because you think something is icky. Grow up.

    Leave a Reply