• 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

    Spread the Word:
    • E-mail this story to a friend!
    • Facebook
    • Digg
    • del.icio.us
    • Mixx
    • MySpace
    • Technorati
    • Sphinn
    • StumbleUpon
    • TwitThis

    Comments

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

    1. Sheila
      May 12th, 2014 @ 1:22 pm

      I wish I could catch the whole show because I’d like to hear how many callers would suggest boycotting the NFL games.

      It’s like offensive television, turn it off.

    2. Bo
      May 12th, 2014 @ 1:29 pm

      Sheila,

      You can hear the whole show online…or after the fact via the mp3 download.

    3. Tinker
      May 12th, 2014 @ 2:27 pm

      Miami Dolphins safety Don Jones fined for tweets (“OMG” and “Horrible”) about Michael Sam. The dark beginnings of the new defacto social sedition laws.

      [H]e who is unrighteous─let him be unrighteous still, and he who is filthy─let him be filthy still, and he who is righteous─let him be declared righteous still, and he who is sanctified─let him be sanctified still:

      Revelation 22:11
      Young’s Literal Translation

    4. Greg Allen
      May 12th, 2014 @ 4:18 pm

      Sheila,

      >>I wish I could catch the whole show because I’d like to hear how many callers would suggest boycotting the NFL games.
      >> It’s like offensive television, turn it off.

      Are you aware of the horrid stuff the heterosexual football players have been caught doing?

      http://goo.gl/cJeFA7

      I doubt that a chaste little gay kiss is going to get many TVs turned off. Heck, it might get some turned-on.

    5. Greg Allen
      May 12th, 2014 @ 4:36 pm

      On today’s show, Dr. Brown complained about people who accuse him of having a personal problem with homosexuality.

      On a previous blog entry, he chastised me for doing that.

      I want to be clear… I do _not_ think Dr. Brown is one of those self-loathing gay, gay bashers.

      But, he should understand that it’s not malicious to wonder why someone is so fixated on the gays. And this seems especially true of a certain generation of men.

      Furthermore, it doesn’t fully explain things to say, “I preach against sin.”

      There are _a lot_ of sins in the bible! And many are listed equally along side the gay thing.

      Has Dr. Brown written two books, many articles and countless radio denunciations against, let’s say, greed or perjury?

      Those sins are listed right along side homosexuality and surely ruinous as well.

      So, why the fixation on homosexuality? It’s a fair question to ask.

    6. Greg Allen
      May 12th, 2014 @ 4:38 pm

      I really should say “some” of those sins are listed equally among homosexuality. It’s not many.

      Mainly, I supposed, because homosexuality is not mentioned many times in the bible.

    7. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 12th, 2014 @ 4:58 pm

      Now you confuse me Greg. I thought you supported gay “marriage”, etc. But now your speaking out against it?

      You said,
      “There are _a lot_ of sins in the bible! And many are listed equally along side the gay thing.”

      And also,
      “Those sins are listed right along side homosexuality and surely ruinous as well.”

      I agree with you. It is listed “equally along side” many other sins which we are to turn away from with all our hearts. Yes, all the other sins “listed right along side homosexuality” are “surely ruinous as well”. I agree with you in these quotes.

      “And this seems especially true of a certain generation of men.”
      - What defines this generation you mention? I ask since Dr. Brown and I are from different generations.

    8. Bo
      May 12th, 2014 @ 5:52 pm

      Benjamin,

      Good point. Greg had a Freudian slip and finally agreed with what the scriptures actually say for a change.

      Greg,

      Is the problem with a certain generation of men or is the problem with many generations of Biblically illiterate sinners?

    9. Greg Allen
      May 12th, 2014 @ 6:00 pm

      Benjamin,

      I have long acknowledged that the bible condemns homosexuality.

      Homosexuality — as it was practiced back then.

      I believe it is a tragic mis-application of scripture to condemn gay people now for a practice that was very different back then.

      And, this is not some sort of liberal hermeneutic. Do you force your women to stay silent in church? Why not? Because the role of women was very different back then. Do you demand that the men in your church cut their hair? Probably not. The meaning of hair length was very different back then.

      While scripture has not changed, society has changed radically. This changes how we apply scripture. Or at least it should!

    10. Bo
      May 12th, 2014 @ 6:05 pm

      Greg,

      Paul gives reasons for the women keeping silent in the assemblies and not one of them is about society. They are about how YHWH created man and woman and the authority structure that portrays YHWH’s government. The same goes for the hair thing. The only reason most churches have failed to do what the scripture commands is because of idolatry and rebellion. It is getting worse and it is time to come out of the great whore of Babylon.

      Re 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

    11. Greg Allen
      May 12th, 2014 @ 6:10 pm

      Benjamin,

      You did not address my core premise.

      Why do you think older conservative men (especially) single-out homosexuality for some extra-special status?

      For sure, they obsess over it compared to, let’s say, greed, gluttony or lying.

      I have a theory but you won’t like it.

    12. Bo
      May 12th, 2014 @ 6:12 pm

      Greg,

      You wrote:
      “I have long acknowledged that the bible condemns homosexuality.

      Homosexuality — as it was practiced back then.

      I believe it is a tragic mis-application of scripture to condemn gay people now for a practice that was very different back then.”

      Paul uses terms that ar completely generic and all encompassing. He was not only against some extant form of homosex. The Holy Spirit, through Paul and Moses, condemned all homosex of any type in any culture. You know it and will not admit it. You are causing little ones to stumble and the necklace that you are lusting after does not make a good life preserver.

    13. Bo
      May 12th, 2014 @ 6:16 pm

      Everybody,

      Be sure and note how Greg will continue to slip himself clear of answering any pertinent scriptural questions.

    14. Greg Allen
      May 12th, 2014 @ 6:24 pm

      >> Paul uses terms that ar completely generic and all encompassing.

      Does Paul use the term “homosexual orientation”?

      If not. He wasn’t’ all encompassing.

      Obviously, Paul was condemning homosexuality as he knew it — pederasty and temple prostitution.

      The bible was written in a time and a place for a specific circumstance.

      In order to apply the bible, we have to know that time, place and circumstance.

      I’m curious — what research have you done into how homosexuality was practiced in the first century? If you don’t know that, you don’t know what Paul was condemning.

    15. Greg Allen
      May 12th, 2014 @ 6:25 pm

      Bo,

      >> Be sure and note how Greg will continue to slip himself clear of answering any pertinent scriptural questions.

      Please stop bearing false witness against me.

      I have answered you more than anyone else.

    16. Joe Shmoe
      May 12th, 2014 @ 6:29 pm

      I am new to commenting on the sight, but wanted to weigh in briefly on the comment Greg made. If society determines how God’s Word is applied, then society is now the law and not the Word of God. Just think, in generations past, slavery was socially acceptable. That means, that society could interpret the Bible to mean something it never intended to encourage, like stealing a group of people from their homeland and forcing them into labor because of the color of their skin. Yes, that has been since overturned, but this was the prevailing thought of society for over two centuries. There have been many more instances like this; abortion, prayer in schools, evolution, etc. When society becomes the determining factor in what is or is not acceptable, corruption prevails. Judges 21:25 says it this way,

      “In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes.”

      Proverbs 14:12 also states, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.”

      You bring up issues of women in church and men with their hair length, these are issues that are very minor and only briefly highlighted in scripture. It is not a situation where someone will be condemned eternally for not following them. However; issues concerning sexual sin (all sex outside of marriage), murder, theft, lying, etc. are heavily mentioned as being damnable without repentance. Yes, homosexuality is in this lot as it is mentioned in the Old and New Testament.

      Just a thought.

    17. Bo
      May 12th, 2014 @ 6:30 pm

      Greg,

      Your posts make it quite clear that you serve culture instead of YHWH. You base your beliefs upon society instead of on what scripture, which is YHWH’s idea of truth. It is idolatry for you to do this. You really need to wake up.

    18. Greg Allen
      May 12th, 2014 @ 6:31 pm

      Bo said,

      <<You are causing little ones to stumble and the necklace that you are lusting after does not make a good life preserver.

      "the necklace that I am lusting after" ?!?!

      What in the world does that refer to?

      "Lusting" makes it seem like some creepy sexual reference. What else could it be? A noose? I honestly don't know!

    19. Bo
      May 12th, 2014 @ 6:33 pm

      Greg,

      You have not answered the scriptures that are brought up, just as I said. I have not born false witness, but you have only asserted it like you do with everything you write. You almost never engage in the discussion of scripture.

    20. Greg Allen
      May 12th, 2014 @ 6:33 pm

      Bo,

      >>Your posts make it quite clear that you serve culture instead of YHWH.

      Scripture applies to culture. It always has from the first day it was written up until now.

      But, as culture changes, the application changes.

      This is rock solid, conservative use of the bible.

      By the way… are you Jewish? Why do you refuse to use the name, God?

    21. Bo
      May 12th, 2014 @ 6:34 pm

      Greg,

      You do not know the scriptures or the power of YHWH.

      Mr 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

    22. Greg Allen
      May 12th, 2014 @ 6:36 pm

      Bo,

      I really need to do something else.

      I will probably check back, so feel free to respond.

      But please don’t falsely accuse me of not answering our posts.

    23. Bo
      May 12th, 2014 @ 6:36 pm

      Greg,

      You wrote:
      “Obviously, Paul was condemning homosexuality as he knew it — pederasty and temple prostitution.”

      If this is true why did Paul not use the Greek terms for such, but instead use the general compound word that means “man bedder”?

    24. Bo
      May 12th, 2014 @ 6:38 pm

      Greg,

      I didn’t accuse you of not answering my posts, but of not answering the scriptures that are brought up. You do not read my posts or the scripture carefully.

    25. Bo
      May 12th, 2014 @ 6:39 pm

      Benjamin,

      Would you or someone else address post 18.

    26. Ray
      May 12th, 2014 @ 6:42 pm

      The idea that homosexuality is somehow practiced better today and so it’s “OK now”, is stupid. What a stupid argument!

      It’s like saying that any baker who would refuse to put two grooms on a cake is somehow refusing to serve someone because of who they are, and that there’s nothing more to it than that.

      Crazy.

      It’s about the work some people want to impose on someone else who has the right to simply say, “Hey, we don’t do that kind of work, and it’s got nothing to do with who you are or who you think you are. We simply don’t do that kind of work for anybody. We wouldn’t do it if Moses or an angel from heaven walked in here and asked for such a thing.”

      Who do these people think they are to impose their gay agenda on others?

      Who do they think we are?

      Do they think we’re stupid?

      Crazy.

    27. Bo
      May 12th, 2014 @ 6:47 pm

      Ray,

      “Stupid” “Crazy”

      Lot of truth in those words.

    28. Ray
      May 12th, 2014 @ 6:55 pm

      Any man who is for the gay agenda, who would plead for it, ought to seriously examine himself to see if he is in the faith or not.

    29. Nicholas
      May 12th, 2014 @ 6:58 pm

      I’m sure it won’t be too long before Michael Sam proposes to his boyfriend on the Jumbo Tron, then it’s off to Hawaii for a white wedding. I can just picture the cover of Sports Illustrated. Can’t wait.

    30. Ray
      May 12th, 2014 @ 7:14 pm

      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.

      I wonder if there will be movement among Christian athletes who will stand against such things. I wonder if many of them will leave the game because of the corruption and what it’s becoming.

      How is it that they have penalties for carnal displays of pride and arrogance, and then put on some team openly homosexual athletes?

      They should be barred from the NFL.

      It’s disgusting.

    31. Bo
      May 12th, 2014 @ 7:17 pm

      Greg,

      You wrote:
      “The bible was written in a time and a place for a specific circumstance.

      In order to apply the bible, we have to know that time, place and circumstance.

      I’m curious — what research have you done into how homosexuality was practiced in the first century? If you don’t know that, you don’t know what Paul was condemning.”

      This is like saying that because there were no handguns in Bible times the only kind of murder that is spoken against is with swords, clubs and arrows.

      The idea of applying the scripture to culture or technology is not to excuse new forms of the same sin, but to continue to hold the same standard. Just because we are better at murdering babies in the womb does not make it OK. Just because we do not use oxen that might gore someone does not mean that we should not make restitution for our cars harming someone. Just because there was no form of internet or telephone fraud when the Bible was penned, does not mean that they are not stealing.

      Both Paul and Moses used generic terms for homosex. If they would have been specific about a certainn type of homosex, Greg might (I use that term purposefully.) have a point. They didn’t and he doesn’t.

      The Meanings of the Greek and Hebrew words used by Moses and Paul are obvious to both scholars and laymen alike if they care to know. It is only in very recent times that there were so called scholars that have tried to postulate that only pederasty and temple prostitution were intended by Paul and Moses. These ideas have been fully demolished by real Greek and Hebrew scholars over and over. Greg hangs on to liberal scholarship and agenda for his truth instead of the scripture. This is abundantly evident in his posts.

      And yes Greg, I am aware of the things that went on in Biblical times. I know about how they practiced homosex and murder and fraud. We do all of these a little differently and they are all still horrendous sin. The problem with your twist of scripture is that the Greek that Paul uses specifically condemns the committed homosex relationship. It literally says that anyone that continues in homosex loses his inheritance in the kingdom of heaven. And he does not use the words for temple prostitution or pederasty. He uses generic, all encompassing terms. He actually, probably coined the term that means man-bedder in the Greek. He probably did it to make sure that no one twisted his words to their own destruction thinking that they could be lawless or find a loophole in it.

    32. Doug
      May 12th, 2014 @ 8:34 pm

      Jesus defined marriage for all time and all places and condemned sex outside of it. He was quire clear about that.

    33. Dr. Michael L Brown
      May 12th, 2014 @ 11:22 pm

      Greg, out of my 25 books, which have you read other than A Queer Thing Happened to America? How about Go and Sin No More, dealing with holiness and morality and sexual purity without a reference to homosexuality? Or all the books on the need for revival and repentance in the church? It looks like you’re showing up late on the scene and not realizing the issues that are crushing our society today.

    34. jon
      May 13th, 2014 @ 6:54 am

      The NFL has a monopoly on America and exerts it’s politics and social justice in too many areas. I gave up cutting the cable over 3 years ago on the NFL. This is not Jack Lamberts game any more! I can not see Jack running around in pink cleats.
      What the NFL did to Tim Tebow still makes me upset. If millions of people will cut the cable and subscribe to alternative things like the Blaze, or this website is still free! If you love sports go see a soccer game or a AAA baseball game. It is not so bad not knowing much of the sheeple ESPN – Who cares the messiah is coming!

    35. Greg Allen
      May 13th, 2014 @ 7:48 am

      The hermenutic I use, regarding gays, is not liberal. It not novel. Every conservative Christian I know uses it. Almost surely, even Bo uses it — unwittingly, I’ll guess.

      As a case study, I’ll use it on a famous Pauline commandment: I Corinthians 14:34

      “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.”

      This commandment is unambiguous, seemingly-universal and has precedent in the law.

      Yet, the Pentacostals didn’t apply I Corinthians 14:34 to that amazing woman, Amee Semple McPherson! The little hard-rock fundamentalist church I grew up didn’t silence their woman. Your church probably allows women to speak. IN CLEAR CONTRADICTION TO THIS PASSAGE!

      Why? Because as Bo accuses me — you serve society and not YHWH? Because you don’t love the bible? Because you are ignorant of the bible? Because you probably aren’t really a Christian? Because of the dozen other things you have charged at me?

      No! Because you have the good sense to know that this verse can’t possibly apply to modern society.

      The role of women in society has so radically changed from 2000 years ago, we can’t just force this scripture on them.

      Even worse the Gospel of Jesus would be harmed if silenced women as Paul so clearly commandment. The world would (correctly!) know that we are so rigid, so doctrinaire that we are willing to hurt women in enforce our inflexible hermeneutic. In other words, our faith isn’t alive.

      The _EXACT SAME_ hermeneutical technique that 99% of American Christians apply to women — I apply to gays.

      Yes, Paul explicitly condemns gays. But, role of gays in society has so radically changed from 2000 years ago, we can’t just force the scripture on them.

    36. Greg Allen
      May 13th, 2014 @ 8:00 am

      PS: I meant to address the above post to Bo and Benjamin but I welcome response from anyone.

      Bo asked:
      >> I’m curious — what research have you done into how homosexuality was practiced in the first century?

      The research has been done. Scholarly information about ancient sexuality can be easily found if you want to find it. .

      People here demanded that I read “A Queer Thing” and I did. If I recommended a book on the history of homosexuality, would you have the courage and integrity to read it with an open mind?

      The most recent book I read on this subject was : “Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century” by John Boswell

      It’s getting a little dated but I found the book because it kept getting referenced in other stuff I was reading.

    37. Ray
      May 13th, 2014 @ 8:01 am

      Greg, to the cross. Self justification is no good.

    38. Ray
      May 13th, 2014 @ 8:03 am

      The gay agenda is all about self justification.

    39. Greg Allen
      May 13th, 2014 @ 8:20 am

      Dr. Brown,

      I have only read the one book. But I have heard countless hours of you on the radio and read many of your articles.

      Here is what people here don’t understand — I share your commitment to morality and holiness. I share your grief over the issues that are crushing our society.

      I just don’t think that loving gay couples are crushing our society.

      At your request and others insistence I read “A Queer Thing” and I found it completely unconvincing.

      Your response? You accused me of not reading it!

      (I tried not to dwell on the obvious insinuation — that you think I’m a liar.)

      I spent hours, not just reading your book but studying it and following quite a few of your footnotes. (not an easy task, considering what a mess they were).

      When I was done. I had post-its sticking out everywhere and pages of my own notes and research.

      When I felt like I fully understood your book, I wrote A reflection on the book, which I posted on-line and linked here several times.

      What did you do?

      You assured me of not reading the book!

      I know you are busy and I don’t expect a full engagement you.

      But _NOBODY_ on this blog gave a thoughtful response to my review of your book.

      Others even accused me of not having even read your book! After all those hours of studying it!

      In light of that — why would I read another one?

    40. Greg Allen
      May 13th, 2014 @ 8:33 am

      Ray,
      >>Greg, to the cross. Self justification is no good.

      I am not gay. This is not self-justification

      But it is good, time-tested, bible interpretation.

      And, by the way, I am a born-again, Evangelical Christian. I am saved what the grace of God through Jesus’ work on the cross.

      So what do you mean “to the cross.” ?

      Care to give a meaningful response to my post?

    41. Greg Allen
      May 13th, 2014 @ 8:35 am

      I must get to work.

      I will check back here later if anyone cares to give a _meaningful_ response to explanation of why I don’t think the bible condemns modern gays.

    42. jon
      May 13th, 2014 @ 9:56 am

      Greg, your review of the book was just terrible, terrible. It is as if you did not grasp the simple truth to it. How do you review and accuse/sulley a plain facts view to the boiling water us frogs are sitting in????
      Plain and simple it gives plain jane facts to the nuts and bolts to this queer thing that Lincoln or any in his generation could not imagine. Wake up ! The only thing I have written before is that the debate with Shmuley the rabbi made a good point that the queer thing started smoldering in the 1950′s we should have woken up to the smoldering fire then, now it is a raging fire! Greg, you would have to be completely intoxicated with our society if you can not see this simple point.

    43. jon
      May 13th, 2014 @ 10:02 am

      Greg forgive me for not congradulating you on your foolish review on the book. I do not see how in world you ever came up with such stupidity. This is a rough review on your review, but how could anyone in God’s name possibly review the book the way you did! It seemed to be way off the reservation of any possible way to review it. You do not have to accept it all, but your agenda seemed to color your glasses a dark sinister shade of wackiness.

    44. jon
      May 13th, 2014 @ 10:09 am

      Greg, What region of the country do you live in?I will tell you what, I am looking for an opportunity to go to one of M.b. meetings in which he invites listeners to go to. If this in your region I will make it a priority to go to this if you would also be interested in going. I hope that might be in the Rocky mountain region, but will travel to Ca/Dallas/and possibly even North Carolina. If your interested let me know.

    45. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 13th, 2014 @ 10:27 am

      Hello Greg.

      I hope you are good this morning. Also I hope you have not taken anything I have said to you in recent threads as personal attacks as I have not said anything negative to or about you. I try to ask questions and be precise about where I am coming from, and I may come across as straight forward most of the time, or blunt.

      You asked me, “You did not address my core premise.

      Why do you think older conservative men (especially) single-out homosexuality for some extra-special status?”

      Technically I did engage you on that premise in post #7 by asking you for more information so I could more engagingly respond, “What defines this generation you mention? I ask since Dr. Brown and I are from different generations.” What is older conservative men? 50′s, 60′s? I need more information about this generation before I can respond.

      I would also really like to know what your theory is you mentioned above about why this generation is so concerned with this particular topic. I encourage you to put it out there even if you think I will not like it. How does one learn anything if he is only exposed to things he will like? I will not take it personally. We are here to engage each other and learn from one another.

      You brought up,
      “And, this is not some sort of liberal hermeneutic. Do you force your women to stay silent in church? Why not? Because the role of women was very different back then.”

      - There are a lot of assumptions in that quote.
      But in response I will link to a sermon series from the Church I attended before I moved to another state.

      Head-Coverings:

      Part 1:
      http://www.cornerstonebible.org/audio/HC1.mp3

      Part 2:
      http://www.cornerstonebible.org/audio/HC2.mp3

      Part 3:
      http://www.cornerstonebible.org/audio/HC3.mp3

      Part 4:
      http://www.cornerstonebible.org/audio/HC4.mp3

      Part 5:
      http://www.cornerstonebible.org/audio/HC5.mp3

      Part 6:
      http://www.cornerstonebible.org/audio/HC6.mp3

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

      Part 8:
      http://www.cornerstonebible.org/audio/HC8.mp3

      Part 9:
      http://www.cornerstonebible.org/audio/HC9.mp3

      “I will check back here later if anyone cares to give a _meaningful_ response to explanation of why I don’t think the bible condemns modern gays.”

      Do you have a link to your explanation? I didn’t see the explanation above.

      Thanks.

    46. Bo
      May 13th, 2014 @ 10:30 am

      Greg,

      You wrote:
      “Bo asked:
      >> I’m curious — what research have you done into how homosexuality was practiced in the first century?”

      No! I did not ask that. You asked me that and I quoted you and I responded. And the best that I can tell you gave no meaningful response to my post.

      You can accuse some people that post on this site of not obeying Paul’s commandments or say that they are like you in relegating parts of scripture to culture, but our women keep silent in the church. They wear head coverings. They wear long hair. The men wear beards and short hair. We do not eat things that the scripture says not to eat. The others that you addressed will have to defend their views and show how what they are doing is not like what you are doing.

      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.

    47. Bo
      May 13th, 2014 @ 1:44 pm

      Benjamin,

      So what was the conclusion? Where is the teaching on 1 Cor. 14:32-38?

    48. Benjamin Warkentin
      May 13th, 2014 @ 2:17 pm

      I tried to locate it but this head-covering series was all that was archived that year. But I believe he affirmed Scripture which teaches that men are to lead in the congregation. I will have to contact them to see if they have it recorded somewhere.

    49. Ray
      May 13th, 2014 @ 6:38 pm

      So what is it about I Cor 14:34 and homosexuality?

      Is it that we should see that since God made man male and female and gave his only begotten son to save mankind, that since somewhere around half of the saved, the redeemed are women, that he is doing things through women, and may be doing more through women in the future as we get nearer and nearer to the end time, that in like manner, we should expect to see God use homosexuals more, in like manner….is that it?

      Should we suppose that just as God is not so concerned that a Christian is a man or a woman, so also we should consider that God isn’t concerned as to whether or not they are homosexual, is that it?

      Now, God made mankind either male or female. That was his doing and his alone, by whatever and whomever he did that through. (I’m thinking of Christ here, his only begotten Son)

      And there is no in between. One is either a man or a woman, and that is by God’s doing.

      And what about homosexuality? I always thought of it as mostly man’s doing, though I suppose for whatever judgment God determined, some might be in that situation for something they either have done, or have failed to do.

      I do not believe God would go around making some people homosexual at birth, randomly, or simply as some genetic fault.

      It doesn’t seem to be like a birth defect to me, though some might like to perceive it as such.

      I don’t believe God makes alcoholics at birth either.

      But what does I Cor 14:34 have to do with homosexuality?

    50. Ray
      May 13th, 2014 @ 6:41 pm

      Is it that some who would plead for the gay agenda call upon us to use discretion, while they themselves are not willing to use any?

    51. 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.

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

      Bo what is it you don’t understand?

    53. 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.

    54. 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.

    55. 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.

    56. 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?

    57. 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!

    58. 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.

    59. 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.

    60. 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.

    61. 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?

    62. 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.

    63. 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.

    64. 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.

    65. 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?

    66. 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.

    67. 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.

    68. 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.

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

      That’s “quwr” rather.

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

      jon,

      I have to agree.

    71. 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.

    72. 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.

    73. 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

    74. 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.

    75. 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

    76. 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

    77. 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!

    78. 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

    79. 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)

    80. 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.

    81. 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