Enough of this Hair-esy!
This blog is authored by Todd Weber, minister. You can find his original post here
This doctrine declares that a woman's uncut hair has mystical power to call down angels, and force God to answer prayer requests. The uncut hair is protection from demonic forces in a woman's house, but only if it is completely uncut.
Power Before the Throne, by Ruth Rieder-Harvey
Lee Stoneking states, "This book is a must for every woman of God who wishes to make her calling and election sure in His great kingdom." Ruth Rieder fearlessly raises her voice regarding God's purpose for women. She gives strong biblical reasons for women to have long, uncut hair.
Holy Magic Hair
As an introduction, we encourage you to listen to the following videos of a June 29, 2008 sermon by an evangelist named, Lee Stoneking, who teaches a Holy Magic Hair Doctrine.
June 22nd Update
- Power of angels?
- God compelled to pour out his gift of the Holy Spirit because of uncut hair?
- Receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost through the laying of hair?
- A distinct anointing?
- No results in prayer? Losing authority in prayer?
- The devil knows we carry the glory of God in our hair?
- A woman can gain power with God by having her hair grow long?
Cutting hair is a salvational matter?
Enough of this Hair-esy!
It seems clear now that leaders of the UPCI, and therefore the organization itself, is taking a stand in favor of the damnable heresy known by its opponents as Magic Hair Doctrine, which has flourished in our ranks for many years. In spite of apparently increasing numbers of opponents and the rising din of voices against it, the doctrine continues to advance unchecked by those in leadership.
My ire was raised when reading the first article (after the predictably alarmist editorial) in the July 2009 issue of the Pentecostal Herald titled “Memorials,” authored by none other than the foremost contemporary champion of MH doctrine, Ruth (formerly Rieder) Harvey (p.7). Following four paragraphs describing some of our nation’s hallowed war memorials and the value of remembering the costly sacrifices of our forebears, she stated the importance of “revisiting the landmarks erected by our spiritual forefathers” which “stand in mute testimony to their consecrated lives.” She noted that there has been a “changing of the guard. Our elders are passing the torch to this generation and entrusting us with their memorials.” She then quoted Proverbs 22:28 and 23:10 which warn against removing “the ancient landmark.”
Given the fact that Harvey is known far and wide for tireless and fervent advocacy of MH doctrine, including authorship of numerous books and speaking at countless conferences on the subject, only the most naïve observer would deny that such prominent placement of this article within the official organ of the UPCI amounts to tacit approval of MH doctrine at the highest levels.
Having personally opposed this heresy to the General Superintendent some years ago with a plea for corrective action, I am deeply disappointed that no repudiation has come forth. Meanwhile, this devilish teaching continues to flourish unabated, ensnaring many sincere believers and turning their faith and hope away from the only Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Furthermore, embarrassing and repugnant cultish expressions and behaviors continue to abound across the fellowship bringing reproach upon Christ and the gospel before the world, with many adherents going so far as to quote the writings of witches and pagans to justify their biblically insupportable dogma.
It is long past time for the UPCI to take a clear and unequivocal official stand against MH doctrine, regardless of who may be embarrassed or offended. Frankly, as a member of the generation receiving the aforementioned torch, I refuse to honor and champion any doctrine built on so tenuous a foundation and producing such bizarre and questionable acts as have been witnessed and documented among its adherents. If there is no more serious regard for truth and biblical accuracy among the leaders of the UPCI, then I don’t think I can take their torch without being burned.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Power
Before the Throne, by
Ruth Rieder-Harvey
A
Book Review by Todd K. Weber
I
appreciate and respect Ruth Rieder-Harvey’s love for God and zeal
for holiness. There is no doubt that living in holiness is an
essential element of a right relationship with God. We live in
a fallen world that is horribly corrupted by sin. Jesus Christ
has provided humanity a way of escape from sin, and when a
person is saved by the new birth experience, their life should be
transformed into a holy instrument of godliness, free from the
controlling power of sin, for this is the will of God and the work of
His grace.
The main focus of this review is to address
subject matter in the book which is both unbiblical and potentially
harmful. I am surprised and disappointed that such a spurious
and harmful doctrine is earnestly propagated in books, articles and
conferences. I have waited patiently for some respected
voice to speak up on this, but to my knowledge none
have.
Guardians
of the Glory?
The
real trouble begins on page 55, with the chapter heading: “Guardians
of the Glory.” I quote:
“The
cherubim, one of the angelic orders, seem to be particularly assigned
the responsibility of guarding the glory of God. The verses that
place them beside the throne of God and ever on guard are Psalm 80:1,
Psalm 99:1, and Isaiah 37:16. Thus, Lucifer, as the anointed cherub,
was set forth as the chief guardian of the glory of God.”
Since
when does God need anyone or anything to guard His glory? None
of the verses cited state, either explicitly or implicitly, that
cherubim – or anything else – guard the
glory of God. For one thing, who or what would they be guarding
against? And, is God not able to defend Himself? Consider
the following:
“The
glory of the LORD shall endure for ever: the LORD shall rejoice in
his works.” (Psalm
104:31)
“For
mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should
my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto
another.” (Isaiah
48:11)
When
Lucifer rebelled, was it the angels who cast him out of heaven?
Of course not. While the angels have served to guard various
things, God’s glory is not, nor ever has been, their charge. By
itself, this point may not be worth debating. However, it is
used here as a basis for further distortions and misrepresentations;
therefore, it is central to the issue and must be discussed.
The idea that God’s glory is so fragile and assailable as to
require both angelic and human (namely, female) protection is
ridiculous. Even a cursory review of scriptures relating to the
glory of God reveals that it is entirely God’s domain, and that He
alone is the protector and preserver of it. In fact, since
God’s glory is intrinsic to His very nature; that is, you cannot
separate God from His glory, nor His glory from Himself; it is
impossible to tamper with the glory of God in any way, shape or
form. To corrupt God’s glory would be to corrupt God Himself,
and since this can never be done, the point is erroneous. This
seemingly innocuous misrepresentation of scripture becomes the
foundation for the doctrinal house-of-cards erected throughout the
remainder of the book. From page 65 comes this disturbing
section, following a quotation of Ezekiel 28:14, 16:
“Lucifer’s
main responsibility was as the covering cherub that guarded the glory
of God. When he was cast out, he lost his covering. God in
His amazing and poetic nature delegated Lucifer’s lost estate
to the woman. “For
this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of
the angels. But if a woman have long hair, it is a GLORY to
her: for her
hair is given her for a COVERING” (1
Corinthians 11:10 and 15). This issue of the hair is of
major proportions. The enemy tempts women over and over to tamper
with the covering because it symbolizes to him everything that
he lost. When he sees a saint of God who is a guardian of the
glory, he gnashes his teeth in frustration and anger…Women are
now the “Guardians of the Glory.” As the aforementioned
Scripture declares, it is a glory to the woman. The glory is not
hers but is the glory of God residing upon her and in her life.”
(Emphasis is Rieder‘s.)
There
are several points in this paragraph which need to be addressed as
follows.
1) Ezekiel
28 is addressed to the king (“prince,“ KJV) of the ancient
Phoenician city of Tyre or Tyrus, on the Mediterranean coast.
This chapter is part of a series in which God declares His judgment
against several heathen kings. The King James syntax has led
some to conclude this is a reference to Lucifer’s fall, but this is
tenuous at best, and certainly not grounds upon which to build a
doctrine.
2) As
previously stated, Lucifer was not responsible for guarding the glory
of God.
3) If Ezekiel
28 were a reference to Lucifer, then, when cast out of heaven he
would not have lost his covering, but his position as
the “covering cherub.”
4)
The Bible never in any place states or implies that God has
“delegated Lucifer’s lost estate to the woman.” That is
utter nonsense. While the statement “because of the angels” is a
point on which there is disagreement among Biblical scholars, there
is certainly no basis for the author’s incredible assertions.
5)
The word “for” in 1 Corinthians 11:15 means “instead of,“ or
“in place of;” thus, the woman’s hair is given to her “instead
of a
covering.“ (Strong’s Concordance #473: “‘anti,’
Meaning: 1) over against, opposite to, before 2) for, instead
of, in place of (something) 2a) instead of 2b) for 2c) for that,
because 2d) wherefore, for this cause“.) This in itself turns
Rieder-Harvey’s ideas on their head, so to speak.
6)
Saints of God, male or female, are not “guardians of the glory.”
7) The
author’s interpretation of “glory” is likewise faulty.
Again, Strong’s Concordance, #1391: “‘doxa,’
Meaning: 1) opinion, judgment, view 2) opinion, estimate,
whether good or bad concerning someone 2a) in the NT always a good
opinion concerning one, resulting in praise, honour, and glory…”
(The full meaning and use of the word is much more broad than this,
but this definition is relevant to the context.) The phrase,
“It is a glory to her” means that it speaks well of her as a
woman who is devoted to God. Her hair is simply a symbol of
her faith relationship – nothing more.
The
author continues to draw out her erroneous points in later
paragraphs, and then makes this unfounded claim on page
67:
“The
woman’s hair is a type and shadow of the covering that Jesus
provided for his church.”
What
is the basis for such a preposterous claim, other than her own
imagination? There is no such thing stated or implied anywhere
in the Bible.
Superstition
and Magic
On
page 68, we find this statement:
“When
a woman cuts her hair, she actually severs the glory of God from her
life. The angels will lift and depart, for they are committed to
the glory.”
This
conclusion is based on her faulty interpretation of 1 Corinthians
11:10, 15, as previously addressed.
First, a woman’s hair is
not the “glory of God.” Second, her hair is given
her instead
of a
covering, which covering Rieder incorrectly associates with God’s
glory. Third, our faith and attention should be directed to Jesus
Christ, not angels. While the Bible certainly reveals that
angels are “ministering spirits,” our hope, confidence and
security should be wholly in Christ alone.
Also
on page 68, the author claims that since the “armor of God”
(presumably from Ephesians 6:11, although not stated) does not
include protection for the back, God has provided such protection in
a woman’s hair, based on Isaiah 58:8 (“…the
glory of the LORD will be your rear guard.”).
If this were true, then what about a man’s back? Did God
leave men vulnerable to attack from behind, but made women more
secure? Of course not. Then she ties this idea to Titus
2:5 (“To
be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own
husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”)
to make the point that women are “to be a guard that will beware of
any evil that would try to come into your homes” (p. 69), followed
by the statement, “Your uncut hair brings protection to your entire
family” (p. 69). In order to prove her point, the author
relates a story involving a young married couple who were Bible
school students. Apparently, the husband committed adultery,
and “their lives were shattered, and their ministry was completely
ruined.” This is alleged to have occurred as a result of the
wife’s prior indiscretion of cutting her hair: “the spirit of
vanity had caused her to become more concerned about the appearance
of her split ends than about her obedience to God” (p.
69).
This
is irresponsible, manipulative and misleading. It is one of
several anecdotes which the author uses to give credence to her
fallacious claims, which amount to nothing more than superstition,
making female hair a sort of magic talisman to keep at bay the
lurking evil spirits which would otherwise invade and take over the
home and family, and against which men are otherwise powerless.
But wait, there’s more:
“Can
our husband’s hearts safely trust in us to guard the glory and to
insure divine protection for our family so that no wicked spirit
can enter in to spoil us?” (p. 70)
“Can
the Lord depend on you to guard the glory faithfully and diligently?”
(p. 70)
“Husbands
are put there as a safeguard for the woman as she carries out this
wondrously important duty that God has entrusted to her
hands…guarding the glory and insuring divine protection for
your family.” (p. 72, 73)
This
appears to be a new brand of feminism. The author is promoting
a pseudo-spiritual role-reversal under the pretense of preserving
God-given roles outlined in the eleventh chapter of First
Corinthians.
The contradiction is obvious.
I
am very disturbed by the author’s views noted above, and by the
eager acceptance of them by many sincere believers. Such
doctrines turn our attention away from the efficacy and sufficiency
of the blood and the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and salvation by
grace through faith, and instead move us toward superstition and
cultic fanaticism.
I
wonder if such ideas stem from a sense of inferiority and/or
inadequacy. It seems to be an effort to elevate Christian women
to a higher station than some may presently realize for themselves.
If Christian women lack a sense of meaning, purpose or privilege, it
is not because the word of God denies it them. It may, however,
be the result of erroneous teaching and practice by spiritual
leaders who manipulate God’s word to suit their own
predisposition. Clearly, God has given women a high and
honorable role in the family, the church and the world, and equal
claim to the divine gifts and calling as their male counterparts.
It is therefore not necessary, nor beneficial, to concoct erroneous
theories and dogma in order to give Christian women a sense of
empowerment.
The
great salvation received by way of sound Biblical doctrine is a
wonderful thing which ought to be shouted from the rooftops all over
the world, regardless of what others may think or say. But,
such error as found in Power
Before The Throne hurts
the cause of the gospel, and casts a shadow of careless Biblical
exegesis and cultism upon many believers
and churches. Promoting such non-Biblical doctrines
and misinterpretations erodes peoples’ confidence in both the
truth and relevance of the Bible and in our ability to communicate it
with integrity. Any doctrine which cannot be solidly supported
by scripture must be laid aside, lest we be found to add to or take
away from God’s holy word.
I
do not doubt that Ruth Rieder-Harvey’s intentions are noble.
Nor do I question her sincere devotion to Jesus Christ.
However, it is disappointing and regretable that she
feels it necessary to create such elaborate and fantastic
interpretations of the scriptures in order to promote holiness and
consecration to God among women. I have not read the sequels
to Power
Before the Throne,
but if they build on the ideas presented in this book, they will
serve only to propagate the errors contained therein, and to turn the
hope and confidence of many Christians away from the Lord Jesus
Christ, and add to the ammunition of critics of the faith. God
forbid. [sic]
"Any doctrine which cannot be solidly supported by scripture must be laid aside, lest we be found to add to or take away from God’s holy word."?
The Bible’s Teaching about Hair Length:
Culture or Command?
Presented by David K. Bernard
The New Testament contains teaching about the respective hair lengths of men and women. Most denominational churches consider it to be merely a cultural teaching that does not apply today. Some interpret the passage in question to mean that women must pray with a type of cloth on their heads. Most conservative churches at one time taught women to have long hair, and some continue to do so today.
All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God** (II Timothy 3:16). We should not ignore any passage of Scripture, for each is precious and important. [Note: The only Scripture Paul is referring is the TaNaCH, (the Old Testament). There was not a NT written, these letters were compiled much later.]
Bear in mind, the Jewish Scriptures were written in Hebrew, not in seventeenth century King James English. What has made Christian believers so vulnerable to Bible tampering is that almost none of them can read or understand the Hebrew Bible in its original language.
Virtually no Christian child in the world is taught the Hebrew language as part of a formal Christian education. As he and countless other Christians earnestly study the Authorized Version of the Bible, there is a blinding yet prevailing assumption that what you are reading is Heaven-breathed. Tragically, virtually every Christian in the world reads the translation of men rather than the Word of God. On the other hand, every Jewish child in the world who is enrolled in a Jewish school is taught to read and write Hebrew long before he or she even heard the name of Luther.
Unbeknownst to Mr. Bernard and parishioners worldwide, the King James Version and numerous other Christian Bible translations were meticulously shaped and painstakingly retrofitted in order to produce a message that would sustain and advance Church theology and exegesis. This aggressive rewriting of biblical texts has had a devastating impact on Christians throughout the world who unhesitatingly embrace these corrupt translations. As a result, Christians earnestly wonder why the Jews, who are the bearers and protectors of the divine oracles of God, have not willingly accepted Jesus as their messiah. [1]
 |
| One of many examples of Scripture Tampering. |
Unbeknownst to Mr. Bernard and parishioners worldwide, the King James Version and numerous other Christian Bible translations were meticulously shaped and painstakingly retrofitted in order to produce a message that would sustain and advance Church theology and exegesis. This aggressive rewriting of biblical texts has had a devastating impact on Christians throughout the world who unhesitatingly embrace these corrupt translations. As a result, Christians earnestly wonder why the Jews, who are the bearers and protectors of the divine oracles of God, have not willingly accepted Jesus as their messiah. [1]
**Please Note:
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined "the Scriptures" every day to see if what Paul said was true.
2Pe 3:16 Indeed, he [Paul] speaks about these things in all his letters. They contain some things that are hard to understand, things which the uninstructed and unstable distort, to their own destruction, as they do the other "Scriptures".
Act 17:11 Now the people here were of nobler character than the ones in Thessalonica; they eagerly welcomed the message, checking the Tanakh every day to see if the things Sha'ul was saying were true. CJB
Paul preached for three Sabbaths in the synagogue in Thessalonica. He preached from Scriptures (Old Testament, including Torah). It’s important to understand synagogue worship a bit. The synagogue read from the Torah, and the Writings, and the Prophets on every Shabbat. Shaul was preaching from JEWISH scrolls kept only at the synagogue, as they were too expensive for most to have personal copies of them.
The synagogue was the place where the scriptures were kept and studied DAILY (Acts 17:11) , and especially on Shabbat. The message of Jacob in chapter 15, therefore, is that MOSES would continue to be declared on the Sabbath, and the new Gentile converts would have plenty of time to learn to live their new life.
Verse 11 shows Paul in another synagogue. Verse 17 shows him in yet another in Athens.
Acts 18:1
Next, he’s in Corinth, reasoning with Jews and gentiles in the synagogue on EVERY SHABBAT. Reasoning over what?
What scriptures did he expound? What was he teaching them? He was teaching from the OLD TESTAMENT. At this point, the gospels we know had not even been written! The gospel was preached from the Torah! [the Tanakh ]
The 15th chapter of the book of Acts, describes how the leadership of the Jerusalem Church disregarded Paul’s claim to prophecy.
History tells us that the Jewish church of James did not survive as a separate entity. By the time Christianity became the established religion of the Roman Empire, there were almost no Jewish Christians left. The few Jewish Christians which still existed, were persecuted as heretics by the gentile church. All of Christianity as it exists today, was transmitted through the body of the gentile church. The books of Christian scripture were products of the gentile church. They may have included in these books, material which came from the Jewish Christians. But the gentile church was the editor of this material. It was the gentile church who determined the contents of the Christian scriptures, and who transmitted these texts to the future generations.
In order to be convinced that the gentile church is truly transmitting the original message of Jesus, one must determine that Paul’s teachings conformed with the teachings of Jesus. The gentile church only learned of Jesus through the teachings of Paul. If Paul’s teachings were not synonymous with the teachings of Jesus, then the gentile church does not possess the original message of Jesus.
To determine Paul’s connection to Jesus, we will turn to the books of Christian scripture. It is clear that the editors of these books were strongly motivated to present Paul as one who is faithfully transmitting the original message of Jesus. Yet even these biased writers, were not able to do so.
The Christian scriptures describe the basis of Paul’s mission in the following manner. Paul never saw Jesus in real life. Neither did Paul learn of Jesus’s teachings through the disciples of Jesus. Paul emphatically states (in the 1st and 2nd chapters of Galatians) that no living person was involved in transmitting Jesus’s message to him. Paul only learned of the teachings of Jesus through a series of visions. In these visions, Jesus appeared to him and imparted his teachings. Paul’s entire message was the product of these visions.
The only way we can verify the truth of Paul’s claim, is by determining the reaction of Jesus’s disciples to Paul’s message. These men who lived with Jesus and heard him teach, could compare the teachings that they heard, to the prophecy of Paul. How did the Jewish following of James react to Paul’s claim to prophecy?
Paul makes the claim (Galatians 2:9) that the leaders of the Jerusalem Church acknowledged the fact that he was appointed (by the dead Jesus) as a messenger to the gentiles. But Paul was lying. James and the Jerusalem Church never acknowledged the validity of Paul’s visions. It is the Christian scriptures themselves who contradict Paul’s claim.
The 15th chapter of the book of Acts, describes how the leadership of the Jerusalem Church disregarded Paul’s claim to prophecy. Paul had come to Jerusalem. He had been preaching to the gentiles that they are not required to practice the law of Moses. Some members of the Jerusalem Church disagreed with Paul. They felt that in order for a gentile to join their following, he should be required to observe the law of Moses. This question was brought before the leadership of the Jerusalem Church. The elders of the church discussed the question, and James handed down his decision. His judgment was that the gentiles were not obligated to observe the entirety of the law of Moses as a prerequisite to joining the Christian community. But he stipulated that the gentiles were obligated to observe certain dietary laws, and to avoid immorality.
If Paul was telling us the truth when he claimed that the leadership of the Jerusalem Church acknowledged him as a true prophet, then this story makes no sense. Here we have Paul, who was personally appointed by the dead Jesus as his emissary to the gentile world. Whatever Paul taught was personally revealed to him in these prophetic visions. One of the central teachings of Paul was that the gentile world is not bound by the law of Moses. Yet when the leaders of the Jerusalem Church are in doubt as to what Jesus would have said concerning the gentiles, they discuss the question, and look to James for guidance. If there was any truth to Paul’s claim, that these leaders acknowledged the truth of his prophecy, then they should have simply asked him “what did Jesus tell you?” The fact that they considered the question, and the method that they used to resolve the question, clearly tells us that these men did not believe that Jesus had ever spoken to Paul. The author of the book of Acts, his bias notwithstanding, could not hide this simple fact.
The difference between the gentile church founded by Paul, and the Jerusalem Church founded by Jesus, was not limited to the question of the authenticity of Paul’s prophecy. These two institutions espoused two totally different philosophies. The central teaching of Pauline Christianity is, that faith in the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus, is the only valid method through which atonement for sin can be achieved. The entire philosophy of Paul, revolves around this one teaching. Evangelical Christianity is founded upon this basic teaching of Paul. If you were to ask an Evangelical Christian to sum up his belief system in one sentence, he would respond with this point. That faith in Jesus is the only redemption from sin. In fact the entire concept of the messiah-ship of Jesus is basically limited to this one point. Jesus is the messiah of Evangelical Christians, only because they believe that his death provided atonement for sin.
But the Jerusalem Church which was established by Jesus, and which was guided by his disciples, did not believe in this teaching of Paul. They did not believe that faith in Jesus could effectively atone for their sins. This is demonstrated by the testimony of the Christian scriptures. The 21st chapter in the book of Acts reports that the normal activities of the members of the Jerusalem Church included the offering of animals for the explicit purpose of the expiation of sin. The book of Acts describes how four members of the Jerusalem Church had taken a Nazirite vow. This means that they had voluntarily brought themselves into a situation where they would be required (by the law of Moses) to bring an animal as a sin offering. It is clear that these people saw in the temple offerings a valid method for the expiation of sin. If they believed as Paul did, that Jesus died for their sins once and for all, then there would be no point in bringing a sin offering in the temple. The fact that the Jerusalem Church still participated in the temple offerings after Jesus had died, tells us that they did not see in Jesus’s death an all atoning sacrifice. These people were not Evangelical Christians.
The Christian scriptures provides both the theological and the historical justification to the accusation that Christianity has failed in the transmission of its own message. The Christian scriptures tell us that the disciples of Jesus never believed the fundamental teaching of Evangelical Christianity.
These people who lived with Jesus and heard him preach did not believe, that with the death of Jesus, the world is redeemed of its sins. The Christian scriptures also tell us, at which historical point the break in the transmission occurred. These books tell us that Paul, the father of modern Christianity, had no connection to Jesus. Christianity is an edifice erected upon the testimony of one man. All of Christianity stands upon Paul’s word that Jesus appeared to him. The only people that were qualified to verify Paul’s claim, contradicted him to his face. This emerges from the pages of the very books which Christianity regards as true witnesses to its claims.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
"Although
the belief in the unity of God is taught and declared on virtually
every page of the Jewish Scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity is
never mentioned anywhere throughout the entire corpus of the Hebrew
Bible. Moreover, this doctrine is not to be found anywhere in the New
Testament either because primitive Christianity, in its earliest
stages, was still monotheistic. The authors of the New Testament were
completely unaware that the Church they had fashioned would
eventually embrace a pagan deification of a triune deity. Although
the worship of a three-part godhead was well known and fervently
venerated throughout the Roman Empire and beyond in religious systems
such as Hinduism and Mithraism, it was quite distant from the Judaism
from which Christianity emerged. However, when the Greek and Roman
mind began to dominate the Church, it created a theological disaster
from which Christendom has never recovered. By the end of the fourth
century, the doctrine of the Trinity was firmly in place as a central
tenet of the Church, and strict monotheism was formally rejected by
Vatican councils in Nicea and Constantinople.2
When
Christendom adopted a triune godhead from neighboring triune
religious systems, it spawned a serious conundrum for post-Nicene
Christian apologists. How would they harmonize this new veneration of
Jesus as a being who is of the same substance as the Father with a
New Testament that portrays Jesus as a separate entity, subordinate
to the Father, and created by God? How would they now integrate the
teaching of the Trinity with a New Testament that recognized the
Father alone as God? In essence, how would Christian apologists merge
a first century Christian Bible, which was monotheistic, with a
fourth century Church which was not?" -Rabbi
Tovia Singer
Chaya, a kabbalistic feminist, explains why married Jewish women cover their hair! Don’t miss this explanation about what it really means to be a feminist – all put to rhyme and rhythm. Just keep in mind that “female power is found within.” So – watch out Miley Cyrus!
http://truetwistianity.blogspot.com/2012/11/magic-holy-hair-i-corinthians-111-16.html
No comments:
Post a Comment