Collapsing Angels and Echoes from Eden - is this good Theology?

You’re funny, Tiffy. I think it would be cool to hang out and have a beer with you, or go for a hike. I think we would enjoy talking to each other in person.

Taliban. LOL. No, sir. And I have no fear of man or woman, only by the grace of God. You are the one repressing women and demanding equality, bringing them down to the man’s level. True, we equally have eternal value to God. But, here on earth, women are not equal to men because they are in fact BETTER, MORE VALUABLE than men, and the scriptures teach this if you have eyes to see it. This is why we are called to love our wives more than our own life... or maybe you think that call is a myth or error.

To make women equal to men, the world has pulled them down into the DIRT, with the men. It is plain to see all around us. The biggest proof is ABORTION. To make women equal, to bring them down, we kill their babies. That way, they can keep doing what men do rather than be mother.

In the name of EQUALITY, more human life is being lost by abortion than in war. It’s true. An ugly, ugly truth that westerners refuse to look at. All wars in the 20th century - between 108 and 203 million deaths. Abortions worldwide since 1980 - 1.5 billion deaths.

Congratulations to everyone that thinks they promote women’s rights, while “rendering asunder” the holy being of a woman, wife, mother… in morbid and horrific ways, demonic ways. These stand with the demons against God, in the face of our Lord Jesus Christ who told us to NOT rend these things asunder… and nor should we do likewise to man, husband, father (Matthew 19:4-6). Yet, your C of E blesses people that do rend these things asunder. It is well that Welby does not want to call it a church anymore, for it is become a den.

And you are the one that seems vexed by what the scriptures teach, to the point of doubting that Paul wrote certain letters and you think that the Bible is myth or legend, you cherry pick the scriptures according to your worldly programming, tearing them apart, and sometimes disjointing them… like they did to the body of our Lord.

Yes, Tiffy. But always has there been a God’s order. There was an order in Eden. There was an order on the ark. There was an order on the mountain of Moses. There was an order in & even around the tabernacle. There was an order for the nation of Israel. Always, we strayed and there was a call back to God’s order. And in the New Testament, there is still a call to God’s order, taught to us by Christ, Paul, Peter and more. Not our order. God’s order. If we refuse it, we join ranks with the dragon and his third of the fallen stars who first broke God’s order... and that is what the world is doing with the feminist and gay pride stuff. It is Satan's pride that they participate in.

You wrestle with demons and wrong thinking. Accept that wife or mother is more valuable than you, man. Love her, more than your own life. We are Anglicans, who like liturgy, embodying what we believe. Men should open the door for their wives (not other women), just as Christ opens the door for his Bride into paradise. A woman should veil in the assembly, putting on display her sacredness, as well as the place of man and woman according to God's order.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqmV8UNYbB8

Did you see the video? THE END IS MIND BLOWING. Let her be woman, fully. Don’t pull her down in the dirt, with men. She was NOT made of the dirt, like men and beasts. No. She was made from a more blessed material. For God made man out of the dirt and breathed life into him. God raised him from animal to human. THEN, woman was made from that, a more blessed substance. Men led. Men fight. We do the dirty work, for the sake of our mothers and wives, rather than kill their babies and put them in a soldier’s uniform. What a shame to men this is. If a man is fat, lazy, unskilled, undisciplined, weak… he should repent and do better. Sin is at his door and he should master it, not eat it and make it part of him.



Die for your wife. Actually if you have to. And die for her to these fleshly ideas that you follow that are of the world and its god.

 

You are aware though that the Council of Trent is The Roman Catholic rebuttal and refutation to the Reformation, I suppose.

A very reactionary response to the revival of the faith of the Apostles and a re-insistence on the authority of the Pope and Roman Catholic church to unrepentantly compound its recidivistic errors.
.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqmV8UNYbB8
The video is NOT about the council of Trent. It is about veiling, a liturgical practice taught by Paul in 1 Cor. 11, embodying how we are to properly worship as man and woman, and not discriminate against the poor, lest we not properly discern the body and partake in an unworthy way. Following Satan's call, the hippies and feminists stopped veiling in the west in the 1960's. I've studied this for a long time and listened to many videos. This is one of the best. Listen to it. We should listen to what Catholics say, EO say, Anglicans say, all Christians say. If it matches the Bible, accept it, learn it, conform to it. It's arrogant to think we know it all. You should not have this knee jerk response, with a frowning face, to what other Christians say that are in some other denomination. Maybe it is worth listening to.


It's odd that you do that, yet you buy into woke things of the world. I understand in a way. We were told here about your wife's position as a priest, and so it makes sense that you would be pulled into the woke stuff. Yep, that's kind of awkward, considering the subject matter. I'm sorry about that, Tiffy, and I mean you nor your wife any disrespect. I am just trying to understand and move toward God, and I want to take everyone I know with me.

 

You can start a thread about that if you want. This one is about how the Anointed Cherub refused to stay in his place and fell, invaded Eden, and taught humans his sin. It involves gender, and how man and woman were bent out of line because of the serpent. Woman's ordination is an expression of that disorder. So is feminist pride and gay pride in general. It is also about how the people of God are called to His order, and how we can know what that is by understanding what the scriptures teach. That is what this thread is about. You are looking at the issues from the world's perspective, according to your context, your education and programming... as I once did the same. This woke perspective that you seem to follow is a vast worldly and demonic matrix that is hard to unplug from. It's fruit is rotten. They are cutting off our daughter's breasts and son's male parts. Giving them drugs to deny who they are. Same sexes marry, despite what Christ says. Babies are killed in the millions. But the scriptures teach us how to get back to God's order.... In a way, it might sound like we are saying the same thing. But not really. Your version echoes the fall in Eden. Chiefly, that is because your version continually asks, "did God really say...", just like the serpent.

 

It would seem that you are so confident that you know God's mind on all these matters, and I don't, that it strikes me there is very little point in us discussing what you have posted. I shall just read and learn from what you post.
.

 

I am a former Roman Catholic, but I simply disagree with and cannot relate to the premise set forth in the beginning portion of the video.

It struck me as preposterous when I heard the fellow say (around 4:30) that the statues and images somehow help or enable the Catholic to see beyond what is visible. I think the opposite is true: visible images hinder, not help, because the eyes focus the mind on the physical and visible things that are seen rather than on what is unseen.

Further, the concept of an ongoing liturgy in heaven is a supposition, and the concept of the altar functioning as a link between the earthly and heavenly liturgies is another supposition.

The cross does indeed function as an emblem of Jesus' victory over death, and yet the Catholics don't display the cross; they display the crucifix, which depicts Jesus still suffering on the cross, the victory not yet won. I consider this an abominable practice. So how can I have any respect for their views on when or when not to veil?

They veil the images during passiontide (it says at about 6:10) so that the people may better perceive the spiritual side of things. Well, if they admit that not seeing images enhances spiritual perception, then they should go all the way: get rid of the images! I mean, DUH, this is so simple, how could they miss it?? The images they veil during passiontide are a danger and a hindrance to Christians; the quote presented at about 6:50 illustrates that a real danger exists for believers to treat the images wrongly in their thoughts and beliefs.

Roman Catholic Eucharistic theology is warped. Calling the chalices and tabernacles "precious objects" to be veiled during passiontide misses the mark; they are just man-made objects, and they do not contain God in a Substantial way; Clement of Alexandria (in Stromata) quoted Euripides as having said,
“What house constructed by the workmen’s hands, With folds of walls, can clothe the shape divine?” to support Clement's point that "the Word, prohibiting the constructing of temples and all sacrifices, intimates that the Almighty is not contained in anything..."

Thus, any attempt to draw a parallel between the veiling of images & objects and the veiling of women crumbles apart.

I will grant the speaker one good point, however. He says that the veil "is a sign of great mysteries." And indeed this is true in the case of women, for what man can truly know the mind of a woman? It is a great mystery!


Any valid argument for women to veil in church should be sourced from the Scripture itself. And there is Scriptural reasoning in 1 Corinthians concerning the then-common tradition of wives covering their heads. If anyone were to skip the first 9:40 of the video, that is where they might finally hear some thoughts of relevance, but the relevance is still somewhat limited. For if we say that all Christian females should wear head coverings to signify their submission to Jesus Christ, then why would this be limited to time spent in the 'church' buildings? Why wouldn't the females want to show their Christianity overtly everywhere they go, and in everything they do during the day?

But this practice had to do, as Paul stated, with a tradition which was observed in his day. We have been set free from works of a legalistic nature, so perhaps women and girls should do as they feel their conscience guides them. In today's society, I doubt that any onlookers would understand what the veil or hat represents to the wearer, so what good would come of it?

But the sign of the level to which society, and Christianity, have devolved in recent years could indeed hold apocalyptic significance concerning the near future. Perhaps the unveiling of Christ in the clouds is truly near.

 

LOL. You are being funny again, Tiffy. No, sir. Do not sit at my feet. Instead, let's wash one another's feet, as Christ commanded. We both love Christ, and we both want to obey His commandments. Sometimes we need each other to understand them... because the world and the god of this world lies to us and makes us question God's word and deceives us into doing the will of Satan. His primary way to do this is to have us question what God says.

Tell me, Tiffy. Why do you think the head covering liturgy that Paul taught was abandoned by the church in 1960's? Did we find a new book of the Bible, or something? It was not just Catholics and EO that followed these scriptures, for our Protestant founders had plenty to say in support of the practice. The church fathers talked about it. Protestant founders talked about it. Though, in recent times, the head covering became a hat, but it was still a covering. Look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_covering_for_Christian_women


It has fallen into obscurity in the West. Why did we suddenly get too smart to follow that about 50 years ago? Did the Holy Spirit change his mind? Or do you think it had something to do with a social revolution? I see it as a litmus test... on whether or not we obey the scriptures.

That aside, I do like our shorter exchanges / responses. Often, I do not have time for long ones.

 

Ummm.... a question for you, @hereami : since 1Cor. 11:4 says, "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head," what motivated you to utilize an avatar picture of a man with his head covered? Just curious.

 

I’m not Catholic, nor have I ever been. The things he talked about outside of head covering were only a backdrop to head covering, at least to me.

Maybe because I process with the right side of my brain, I am not the same as you when it comes to images. Physical and visible things amplify the unseen, to me and maybe the people of the past,who often did not read so much. I think most moderns tend to think or process things differently than the people of the past, especially the ancients, many of which could not even read. That does not mean they were less intelligent. They just interacted with and processed the world around them in a different way, a more visual way.

So don’t listen to the Catholics. Listen to Paul.

Great quote. Agreed, to a point. But not with the woman, because we ARE the image of God.

Not my wife. I understand her completely. Everytime. 100%.

Fair points. And Christians used to agree with you, not so long ago.

A picture, or video, is worth a 1000 words, or more.
This video is from 1901. A mere 60 something years before the social revolutions. England. Anglican. White. Not Middle Eastern. Females covered! My, my how the rebellious lie. And we repeat them, and we don't even know.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/x4nhhrpA6wQ

And males wore hats. But males uncovered in the assembly, according to the liturgy taught by Paul. This video is PROOF that this was NOT just a tradition observed in Paul's day. You can find stuff like this if you dig for it. The West seems to have amnesia, or Alzheimer's, and forgotten that it was basic, routine for a woman to cover, even in the West... at least when it was more Christian.

Indeed.

 

Great question. Sharp eye. It is a drawing of John the Baptist. It was BEFORE Christ. BEFORE Paul's instruction. Jewish men cover in the assembly. I am told that the covering represents the law, because they come to God through the law. However, now we come to the Father by Christ. Therefore, we uncover. Christ is our head. Not the law. A man puts this on display when he does not cover. Of course, woman comes by Christ as well. Yet, she covers. It does not represent the law now but rather it represents submission to God. She testifies to the angels, both dark and light, that we follow the Most High, according to God's holy order, as male and female, the image of God. Do not listen to eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear and hearts that do not understand... and believe this represents inferiority of the woman. That is a lie. It does not represent that, just like Christ submitting to the will of the Father does not represent it. Understanding the Trinity is important.



Jesus, being a Jew, would have covered.

 

OK I'll relent and rejoin the debate, if it can rightly be so described, it seems to have become more of a propaganda campaign, against women celebrants and preachers, but be that as it may.

Faith - that's why. Faith in Jesus Christ.

Who do you mean by WE? If it is a command of the Holy Spirit, YOU'VE never had to obey it, you only seek to have it imposed on others. You don't cover your head, never have in church, or shouldn't do, neither do I. That's a convention. God won't strike us dead if we don't or if we do, I don't believe the God I worship is like that. Jesus would never strike anyone dead or curse them, or send them to hell, for breaking a hat wearing rule. He's God, and he doesn't change.

WHY: (1) There are 9 mentions of the word head in connection with coverings worn or not by women and men. ALL 9 of them are in just the first 15 verses of Chapter 11 of the 1st Letter of Paul to the Corinthians. There are NO other mentions of head coverings, male or female, in any other part of the whole New Testament.

WHY: (2) This letter from Paul was addressed to the Corinthian church. It was a troublesome church where some of its leaders opposed Paul and so disagreed with him that they accused him of not being an Apostle. The church in Corinth also had other unique 'problems', Both 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians letters of St Paul show signs of having been tampered with by perhaps some of Paul's detractors. (I suggest you do your own research on this). 1 Cor. 11: 3-16 may have possibly not been Paul's words. Skip them completely and maybe what Paul originally dictated to his scribe still makes perfect sense. There are not many other places in scripture where you could remove 14 whole verses from the text and it STILL make perfect sense. (I don't expect you to accept this, and I know your reasons for not accepting it, I just wanted to show you how it would have been possible for one of Paul's enemies in the Corinthian church to have doctored Paul's letter to insert his own ideas, so no one might suspect). Original scrolls were invariably copied once they were received and the copies read out in the churches. 2 Cor. may even contain a whole 3rd 'missing' letter from Paul towards the end. There are no original manuscripts of any of Paul's letters. All we have are copies of copies.

2. I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. 3 _________
17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, . . . . .

Verses 3 to 16 contain a logical contradiction with 1 Cor.14:34. Which is itself possibly an interpolation. In any case the prohibition on head covering AND the requirement for women to cover was probably addressed to the Corinthian church only, because of a local law or because of the custom in Corinth of prostitutes shaving their heads. There may have been some in the congregation, as possibly slaves, they had no choice about their profession in Roman Corinth. To leave it would have meant death as a runaway.

WHY: (3) Piety, for christian believers should not consist of outward appearance, reverential shows, fancy clothes, decorations, crosses, amulets or outward actions. Respectful worship does not require head coverings or any other paraphernalia for men OR women. What is required is a pure heart and faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ never told any woman off for not wearing a head covering, (unless you can show me the chapter and verse in any of the 4 gospels where he did. I may have missed it). If it was important Jesus would have said so.

 

It’s a joy to have you back, Tiffy! I missed you, buddy. But what you wrote above is false.

Seriously. That’s the best answer you could come up with. I’m sure you know, Christians DID have faith in Jesus Christ before 1969, when feminists started pushing to end covering.

No, sire. Not everywhere. Have you been to church in Texas? I live in Georgia. Southern boys love to wear their baseball caps, even in church. In fact, it is not uncommon in the non-denominational churches for guys to do that, wear baseball caps. Seen it with my own eyes many times. These guys are out of order.

No one has suggested such a thing. You are making a straw man. A silly one.

This is not very good. Study it some more.

But really, if you are going to just keep thinking that certain scriptures are wrong and corrupt when you encounter something you dislike, like you keep doing , you might as well stop reading the Bible. The Bible is not clay, that you can mold into an idol to your liking. You should be the clay.

No, sir. Incorrect. I can tell you to NOT eat in my living room. But then I can give you something to eat in my living room along with a bib and bowl and it would be just fine. That is not a contradiction. The passage in 1 Cor. 14 is about a woman judging prophecy. They should not do that. Nor teach a man. Judging prophecy and teaching a man has to do with authority, with headship. But a woman can worship just like a man, but she should cover her head while a man should not cover his.

That’s wrong, Tiffy. In 1 Cor. 11, verse 16, concerning a woman praying UNCOVERED, Paul writes, “we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.” The churches of God. As you know, Paul made many missionary trips and planted churches across the Middle East and into Europe. So, when he writes “the churches of God”, that obviously goes outside of Corinth.

Your social constructs and biased thinking are blocking you from right reading and understanding. It's hard. I know.

 

Sorry, Tiffy. I did not respond to this one, but will do so now. So, this is part 2.

Jesus did say so. Jesus said that if we love him we will obey His commandments. Since Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one, then to show our love we should obey the commandments in the OT, the commandments in the Gospels, and the commandments from the Holy Spirit in the NT letters. Jesus said them all. Those that love themselves more than God find ways to NOT obey His commandments and instead obey their own commandments, or the commandments of the world and god of this world.

 

And his prime commandment was "Love one another, as He, himself loves us". Jesus consistently refused to 'rule' by rules. Luke 12:13-14. He refused to allow the people to make of him a 'ruler' who imposes rules. John 6:15. He refused his disciples the right to make and impose rules on their fellows, like a ruler. Mark 10:42-45.

Any legalistic drive for control in the church seems to me to be more anti-Christ in character than guided by The Holy spirit. It seems to me that a slavish obedience to the written words of The Bible, are tantamount to the obedience that the heathen afford to their favourite idol, which they feel demands their absolute obedience.

The Bible simply should not be treated that way. The Bible contains the character of Jesus Christ, and to treat it as if it behaves the way you suggest here, insults our LORD's character.

Primarily we should obey Christ's newest command, yes. John 13:30-35. (Notice that Judas never heard nor obeyed this command. He left before he could hear it, yet he was a disciple up until then). All of the others should be understood and obeyed through the filter of that New Commandment from Christ himself, to his disciples in all ages. It is His spirit within us that decides whether we obey them or are excused. HE makes and interprets the rules. Luke 6:1-11.

That is why I am suspicious of anything I read in the Bible where a human being says "I don't permit . . . " ) That doesn't sound as if it's inspired by Jesus to me. It doesn't sound as if it's the 2nd person of the Trinity speaking. Too restricting, too controlling, too much abuse of power, lacking the freedom of the spirit. 2 Cor. 3:17.

You are of course referring to the unregenerate, for those that are in Christ will obey his commandment, and his commandment is to love one another, that is how Christ's disciples are identified. Those who do not love their neighbour are not disciples of Christ. Christ enables his disciples to obey this commandment, for without Him we can do nothing. John 15:5. Without the Holy Spirit, which is the spirit of Christ, indwelling us, all attempts at 'obedience' remain futile, no matter how much one's efforts at rule keeping, even if one can fool oneself into thinking one has kept ALL the rules. Your salvation is not granted you by God for your supposedly successful rule keeping.

To you, the Bible is a book of rules which closely regulates your conduct and decides whether you are worthy of salvation or not, as the case may be. Your case is decided by God on how well you have kept those rules once you knew exactly what they were, after you found them in God's 'word', the Bible.

I may be wrong in my summation but I think I detect through the spirit of what you have written that that is how you have been taught to treat all the words in God's word, the Bible.

To me. The Bible is a library of books, letters, stories and poems, written by people who encountered God sometimes, describing honestly their experiences. The most interesting part of the books in that library are the ones written by those people who gathered together the reminiscences of people who met and heard the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, The Christ, or even had met him themselves. St Luke and St Paul were two of them, and they wrote down for us all that they had learned from Jesus and from their studies of the scriptures, which strangely in many ways, are really all about Jesus too.

A Christian is a follower of Christ. it is He, Christ, that is God's Word, John 1:1-5. The Bible was written by people inspired by God, inspired by Jesus, inspired by the Holy Spirit. They didn't get EVERYTHING right, because they were still human beings BUT the stories they have left us, and their advice, (for the most part), is God inspired, trustworthy, and relevant and sufficient to our obtaining of salvation, through faith in Jesus Christ our LORD.

Can you see that there is the difference between us of a legalist who adheres to the letter of The Law, as written in a book, and a liberated adherent of the spirit of The Law as found in the person of Jesus Christ, who one trusts for one's salvation. Rom.7:5-6.

In whom is your trust? In the apparently binding rules, found in an infallibly inerrant Bible, and imposed by God, or in Christ himself, as can be found in a prayerful encounter with The Holy Spirit.

 

Wow, Tiffy. You are very determined to not talk much about my topic, aren’t you? LOL

This is the second time. This is the second time that you make a straw man, or it looks that way. You spent more time on this one. No, I do not think we get to heaven by following rules. To me, this looks like a tangent to the topic. But, I will engage with some of what you wrote.

You bring up 2 Cor. 3:17

“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”​

Wow. Put that on a t-shirt. What exactly does this mean to you?

Yes, you are wrong in your summation.

Christ. I trust in Christ. Now what?

If you keep reading, after the "freedom" verse in 2 Cor. 3:17, it says:

"And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God."​

Don't practice cunning or tamper with God's word. I know, I know. It's another one of those darn rules.

 

I don't think so, no. But judging from the way this 'debate' has gone so far, most of my opinions will definitely be dismissed and dissagreed with anyway. Ahh well!

 

Perhaps, or it may eventually cease to be recognizably Anglican.

 

I think Tiffy missed the operative words, "to show our love," and "we should obey". Whereas a legalism-bound person would have said, 'we must obey" (implying, 'or else!')

 

One might say that is the crux of the issue.

 

One certainly might. In fact Jesus was actually cru-x-ified expressly because he didn't keep the RULES as defined and numerated by those who conducted his trial. He was executed as a 'transgressor'. It was their obsession with making everyone obedient to the RULES, as they saw them, that executed their own Saviour and ours. So living according to the Spirit, rather than the Letter of man written RULES, (however WE or the modern day 'Pharisees' in the church may interpret them), becomes Crucial to rightly following 'The Way' (Jesus), and how that should be done, in Spirit and in Truth. That is Christ's Commandment, 'That we love one another', not that we control, regulate or police one another into keeping rules, (as WE see them).

Jesus generally did not lay down RULES. He told stories, stories aimed at getting his hearers and followers to choose to behave responsibly before God and their neighbours on earth. To look at their own bad attitudes and be less judgmental of others who fail to keep RULES, who still behave irresponsibly toward God and their neighbour because they are not yet fully back in 'friendship' with Him.
.