This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum. You may browse here but there are no updated threads or new posts since January 1st 2017. Forum members please see THIS NOTICE for information concerning your account at the new forum.

Pork. Also, head coverings for women.

Old Testament religious discussion apart from Biblical history

Pork. Also, head coverings for women.

Postby MissEllis » Wed Dec 23, 2015 10:40 am

Couple questions. If this is somewhere else, I apologize and please send me there, but I looked.

Should women still be covering their heads?

And about food. I have gone the route of giving up pork and shrimp and so also do the two children who still live with me. Husband....likes his pork chops. Is not convinced to give them up although I point out where it says he should. He's seem other things online that say its not necessary.

I remember hearing Mr. Finck say something somewhere, been a while now since I listened to it, that the thing in 2nd timothy means that we should give up these things as we feel compelled to the more stringent standard of wanting to obey Yahweh, but when sojourning so to speak with weaker believers that we should not turn down fellowship that involves forbidden foods. So as to let grace triumph and still be able to fellowship.

Do I have this right? When we visit his grandmother I eat pork chops if that's what she makes. And I made him a bacon cheeseburger . should I still accept grandmas hospitality, but refuse to buy or make pork for him?

Thanks
User avatar
MissEllis
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 7:43 pm

Re: Pork. Also, head coverings for women.

Postby wmfinck » Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:25 am

Pork is not food. Pork was not food to the apostles, it is not food in the Law, and Christians today should not consider it as food.

Your husband and your grandmother will not go to hell for eating swine. In my opinion, however, they should not compel you to eat swine, and they should respect your choice to follow God's Word and not eat swine. So perhaps you can reach them on those grounds.

As for head coverings: I explained in my presentation of 1 Corinthians Part 13 that a woman's natural covering is her hair. Paul's remarks were being made in the face of Greco-Roman culture where women were wearing short hair, and/or piling their hair atop their heads in elaborate braids. That was seen as a form of feminism in Paul's time. I have a gallery of images linked to the program notes to demonstrate the meaning.

Hope this helps.
Image
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
wmfinck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: Pork. Also, head coverings for women.

Postby MissEllis » Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:47 am

Looks very helpful, thank you. I will look at/listen to those tonight
User avatar
MissEllis
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 7:43 pm

Re: Pork. Also, head coverings for women.

Postby NicoChristian » Sun Dec 27, 2015 2:50 pm

I've had similar issues with my in-laws over pork. My wife stopped eating pork and shellfish when she met me; but her parents still tried to make her eat it. I blatantly refuse to eat it, regardless of whose company I'm in. In all situations I simply politely decline pork. I don't make a big deal about it like vegans or vegetarians demanding specially catered food; for example at one public dinner I was served pork, I simply ate the rest and left the pork.

Regardless of the above, no-body should compel you to eat swine and they should respect your decision.
YHWH bless.
NicoChristian
 
Posts: 450
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Pork. Also, head coverings for women.

Postby Fenwick » Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:38 pm

NicoChristian wrote: but her parents still tried to make her eat it.

I've no idea why people do that. It isn't even a particularly tasty meat in most forms. "Here, eat this bone-dry gammon that tastes of nothing but ammonia to prove you're not a towelhead".
User avatar
Fenwick
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:21 am

Re: Pork. Also, head coverings for women.

Postby brucebohn » Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:42 pm

Re: Pork
Postby brucebohn » Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:00 pm

Well worms, at least you are avoiding the worms, pun intended..lol
There are over one hundred varieties of parasites in pork. [worms]
The worst is trichinosis and I believe are commonly found in the
brain.. And yes, you can contract microscopic parasites, simply by
touching the dead carcass of swine.. I never ate much pork in
my younger days, and quit altogether in 1974 after a story related
to me of a certain woman, farm girl, who ate pork as much as twice
daily, who feel ill and her doctor warned that she should give up swine.
She started an herbal cleansing regimen and revealed that for several
weeks she was passing worms by the thousands, not just her stool, but
also through her lungs and nasal passage. At one point it was so profuse
that after using all handkerchiefs and TP, she resorted to ripping up
a bed sheet. This was the real eye opener for me.. We were always told
that pork should be well cooked before eating, however, scientist
performed experiments in killing parasites and discovered that after
putting swine in a microwave oven, it actually incubated certain parasites
instead of destroying................

brucebohn
"Do you not know that with those running in a race,while all run,
but one takes the prize? In that manner you run, in order that you shall obtain."
1Cor. 9:24
User avatar
brucebohn
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:22 pm
Location: GEORGIA

Re: Pork. Also, head coverings for women.

Postby Nayto » Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:02 pm

wmfinck wrote:As for head coverings: I explained in my presentation of 1 Corinthians Part 13 that a woman's natural covering is her hair. Paul's remarks were being made in the face of Greco-Roman culture where women were wearing short hair, and/or piling their hair atop their heads in elaborate braids. That was seen as a form of feminism in Paul's time. I have a gallery of images linked to the program notes to demonstrate the meaning.


I don't disagree, but I think it'd be a shame to reduce Paul's meaning to its components and context. The lesson would be for women not to be vain and adorn themselves, especially considering the following verses. So many women will dye, straighten, curl and sculpt their hair these days that I honestly don't see much of a difference. The same can even be applied to men, LOL.
Nayto
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:06 am

Re: Pork. Also, head coverings for women.

Postby Joe » Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:48 am

The NASB interpolates the word 'merely' at 1 Peter.

1Pe 3:3 Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;

I do not think that Scripture should be distorted obviously but I can see why they might do this. I don't want to argue against the plain words here, and I would try to live by them. But I have thought about this verse many times.

That is, I think if a good woman (not a bimbo), your own wife let's say, put a ribbon in her hair or wore some small earrings or a floral dress ...I would probably appreciate that. I mean God made her and she is beautiful. And she is a woman, and she appears as a woman, and there should be strong gender roles and differentiation between them. And a woman should appear feminine. So long as she has a gentle and quiet spirit.

But that would strictly be an adornment. So that would be against the words of 1 Peter.

And think about the devils, they all look the same, male and female look very much the same and have very similar qualities. And the arabs take it to the extreme by having their females wear a garbage bag all day.

So what do you guys think?
...and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
User avatar
Joe
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:23 pm

Re: Pork. Also, head coverings for women.

Postby wmfinck » Tue Dec 29, 2015 10:45 am

Joe wrote:The NASB interpolates the word 'merely' at 1 Peter.

1Pe 3:3 Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;

I do not think that Scripture should be distorted obviously but I can see why they might do this. I don't want to argue against the plain words here, and I would try to live by them. But I have thought about this verse many times.

That is, I think if a good woman (not a bimbo), your own wife let's say, put a ribbon in her hair or wore some small earrings or a floral dress ...I would probably appreciate that. I mean God made her and she is beautiful. And she is a woman, and she appears as a woman, and there should be strong gender roles and differentiation between them. And a woman should appear feminine. So long as she has a gentle and quiet spirit.

But that would strictly be an adornment. So that would be against the words of 1 Peter.

And think about the devils, they all look the same, male and female look very much the same and have very similar qualities. And the arabs take it to the extreme by having their females wear a garbage bag all day.

So what do you guys think?


I think the NASB is wicked for adding that word "merely" to the text. There is no word in the Greek of that passage which can possibly suggest the rendering.

"They might do this" so that they do not offend modern church-going bimbos, which are great in number among both (or, perhaps, all :shock: ) sexes.

That is a shame, because many of the Old Testament readings in that version are much better than the King James Version.

Nayto is right to point out that it is primarily vanity which is being warned against.

Peter literally says that the dress (adornment) of the conduct of women "must not be outward with braids of hair and applications of gold or putting on of garments"

That obviously does not mean that women should not wear clothes. They just shouldn't care to adorn themselves in vain and costly garments. So it follows that women are not completely forbidden from other adornments, but rather, they should keep those modest as well.

There is nothing wrong with a woman or a girl wearing a bow or an earring. But then there are bows and earrings and hair-tricks that are loud and vain, and attention-seeking which is immodesty.

But I see these things as a form of feminism as well, even if modern men do not understand that. So I did not think to mention it distinctly.

[I said in a program just last week, that today most men are also feminists.]

Here is the appropriate text by which to understand this:

Isaiah chapter 3 wrote: 16 Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: 17 Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts. 18 In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, 19 The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, 20 The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, 21 The rings, and nose jewels, 22 The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, 23 The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails. 24 And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.


This was feminism in Isaiah's time, when women vainly adorned themselves with luxuries so as to attract attention to themselves. And for what reason, other than whoredom? How is society these past 100 or so years not reflected in that? For that reason Christian women should not seek to make spectacles of themselves.
Image
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
wmfinck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: Pork. Also, head coverings for women.

Postby Joe » Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:03 am

Bill wrote
That obviously does not mean that women should not wear clothes. They just shouldn't care to adorn themselves in vain and costly garments. So it follows that women are not completely forbidden from other adornments, but rather, they should keep those modest as well.


Okay, thanks Bill. I did consider the 'should not wear clothes' angle and that Peter was certainly not suggesting that but I am a black and white thinker, so I was having difficulty drawing the line. I think you have given me a good point, in that those adornments should be modest as well.

And I do think it was wrong for the NASB to interpolate 'merely'.

But I see these things as a form of feminism as well, even if modern men do not understand that. So I did not think to mention it distinctly.


I agree with you there. In another thread you mentioned that your mother is a feminist but that she doesn't realize it because it is the new norm. My mother is the same, she will say absyrd things like "women are more logical than men" ...which is a totally irrational statement of itself. LOL.

Thanks Bill.

This was feminism in Isaiah's time, when women vainly adorned themselves with luxuries so as to attract attention to themselves. And for what reason, other than whoredom? How is society these past 100 or so years not reflected in that? For that reason Christian women should not seek to make spectacles of themselves.


Very true, that does give insight into the times we live, the origin of that behaviour and what we should expect from our women.
...and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
User avatar
Joe
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:23 pm

Next

Return to Old Testament Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron