What is Sin?

[deputydog530]

Thanks PastorHarrison for the claification.

Good Post John.

A believer can get caught up in sin weather known or secret, and still hate it. That is why we are told to flee fornication 1 Cor 6:18. A person flee's what will overtake them regardless of their status. We are told to draw near to God and resist the devil james 4:7-8. Why? because we more often than not give into the flesh.

If we draw near to God, he will draw near to us. To defeat a sin we just flee it. To many Christians live in the "temptation seat". ( I just preached this the other night so its fresh in my mind :smile )

One night on patrol, we encountered some anti-government folks. While talking to them, I was looking for thier leader, whom I had a good raport with. He was not there. Me and the other Deputy heard the distinct sound of a bolt action rifle being worked. Guess what we did. After politly exusing ourselves, we got into the patrol car and made the decision to FLEE.

That is what old Jimmy S needed to do.

I often think of how Elijah defeated the prophets of Baal, but fled from a mouthy woman named Jezzabel.

To bad the old man isnt completly destroyed at salvation.

God Bless

[IM4given]

What about these verses of scripture?

Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

[rancher824]

I will try to lok deeper into the verses later Seth, I must head out for church now. I do want to give a link to what the jews think the priest wore, and the breeches are not showing. They are making a set of garments for the third temple. The end is nigh!!!

[deputydog530]

Imforgiven wrote:

What about these verses of scripture?

Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Im just heading out for Church, but off the cuff without looking at the context, I would say these verses are talking about unsaved folks, in which case take no advice from.

Have a good evening. :smile

[rancher824]

woops, forgot the link http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/95175 I will try to post some in the morning.

[IM4given]

Hmmm... that is a very interesting article!

The blue background behind these white letters is taken from a photograph of the actual me'il techelet - blue robe - of the High Priest, (cohein gadol), which is now nearing completion. Employing the Navajo "two-sided" weaving technique, master weaver Yehudit Avraham has been steadily working on the me'il for over a year. Both the front and the back panels of the me'il are ready, as are the golden bells. Yehudit is presently connecting the two panels and embellishing them with deep blue, (techelet), embroidery.

The 72 golden bells that line the hem of the garment have been prepared and will soon be stitched onto the me'il, alternately with the 72 pomegranates, these being woven from techelet, (blue), argaman, (purple), and tola'at shani, (scarlet), threads.

The High Priest was robed in eight separate garments: the ephod, breastplate (choshen), robe (me'il), tunic (ketonet), crown (tzitz), pants (michnasayim), turban (mitznefet), and belt (avnate). The Temple Institute has completed work on the ephod and the choshen. The tzitz of the High Priest is currently being reworked by the artisans of The Temple Institute.

In the near future, the Institute plans to embark on a major project: the production and supplying of the white garments of the ordinary priests, for every male Jewish descendant of Aaron. Every cohein, from all over the world, will be given the opportunity to register and order his own uniform, so that he can be ready to serve in the rebuilt Holy Temple. This is as great an expression of faith as can be expressed, and is a positive step towards the rebuilding of the Holy Temple in our time.

The fashioning of the High Priest's vestments, as described in the book of Exodus, and in strict accordance with the tradition of the Jewish sages, for the first time in nearly 2000 years, marks a significant step forward toward the renewal of the Divine service in the Holy Temple that will be rebuilt on the very spot where it stood for 1000 years. This work that The Temple Institute has been entrusted to pursue, is made possible by the dedication and generosity of the many people who share its vision. The Institute is grateful for your trust and support.

I liked this page too http://www.templeinstitute.org/priestly_garments.htm

[Guest Guest]

So funny, Janet!!! :lol:

[Guest Guest]

A believer can get caught up in sin weather known or secret, and still hate it. That is why we are told to flee fornication 1 Cor 6:18. A person flee's what will overtake them regardless of their status. We are told to draw near to God and resist the devil james 4:7-8. Why? because we more often than not give into the flesh.

Excellent, dog!!

If we draw near to God, he will draw near to us. To defeat a sin we just flee it. To many Christians live in the "temptation seat". ( I just preached this the other night so its fresh in my mind :smile )

I love that scripture! I am sure that your sermon on the "temptation seat" was wonderful. :thumb

One night on patrol, we encountered some anti-government folks. While talking to them, I was looking for thier leader, whom I had a good raport with. He was not there. Me and the other Deputy heard the distinct sound of a bolt action rifle being worked. Guess what we did. After politly exusing ourselves, we got into the patrol car and made the decision to FLEE.

A GOOD idea.

That is what old Jimmy S needed to do.

yep. :sad

I often think of how Elijah defeated the prophets of Baal, but fled from a mouthy woman named Jezzabel.

To bad the old man isnt completly destroyed at salvation.

Well said! My husband loved your post, too. :goodpost:

[Guest Guest]

woops' date=' forgot the link http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/95175 I will try to post some in the morning.[/quote']

That is so :cool rancher. My hubby studied this in Tabernacle at our IFB Bible Institute.

Yes. I would love to see more. Thanks, in advance. :smile

[Guest Guest]

Symbolism in the Tabernacle--The Tabernacle (Book)...and other materials

* The Furnishings
* The Pattern of Worship
* The Ark of the Covenant
* Symbolism that Points to Jesus
* The Sacrifices in the Tabernacle
* The Garments of the High Priest

ROSE PUBLISHING
4733 Torrance Blvd., #259
Torrance, CA 90503 U.S.A.

email: info@rose-publishing.com
www.rose-publishing.com

[JerryNumbers]

I assume this was refering to me, since I am the one who mentioned panties. I did not say it is wrong for women to wear underwear. I said that if the linen breeches only being wore by men, proved that women should not wear them, we must first decide what breeches are. I believe very firmly they were underwear. I have no question in my mind. If that be true, and they were only mentioned on men, so that logik would mean that it is wrong for women to wear underpants. But that is pulling out a word and building a doctrine around it. That passage never says that breeches were only for the priests, or for men. It simply says for them to make these specific ones for the priests.

Your not the 1st one to mention that, seems there be many who use that to defend women wearing pants.

I my self am trying to stop assumings things, I know I have in the past, and I know how it feels when some one assumes something that I've not stated.

[rancher824]

[quote="Jerry80871852"][quote="rancher824"][quote="HappyChristian"]
The current argument in favor of pants on women is that some pants are made for women, so they are okay. And that men and women both wore robes in Bible times, just looking a little different...so as long as the pants are different, it's okay. And if we want to say women shouldn't wear pants, they shouldn't wear "panties" because breeches were underwear and only the priests wore them... :loco [/quote]

I assume this was refering to me, since I am the one who mentioned panties. I did not say it is wrong for women to wear underwear. I said that if the linen breeches only being wore by men, proved that women should not wear them, we must first decide what breeches are. I believe very firmly they were underwear. I have no question in my mind. If that be true, and they were only mentioned on men, so that logik would mean that it is wrong for women to wear underpants. But that is pulling out a word and building a doctrine around it. That passage never says that breeches were only for the priests, or for men. It simply says for them to make these specific ones for the priests.[/quote]

Your not the 1st one to mention that, seems there be many who use that to defend women wearing pants.

I my self am trying to stop assumings things, I know I have in the past, and I know how it feels when some one assumes something that I've not stated.[/quote]

Bro Jerry, My reson for bringing it up is not so much to defend women wearing pants, but to show that the scripture was taken out of context. My dad (pastor) has said all my life "It is dishonest to teach a truth using a scripture taken out of context." There are many who will use any verse that sounds like it is on a subject, when it is not. I was stateing that this verse is not about men wearing pants, so women cannot. It is not even talking about pants. It is showing what the priest were to wear.

[rancher824]

Seth, I have looked briefly at the verses you gave, and I agree that with most of them it is speaking of the outer garments. I do not disagree that the jews wore many layers. When a man is working, and wearing layers, he will shed the outer layers because he gets to hot. At the end of the day picking them up. If you will look at the picture that I gave a like to of the muslim from Damascus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant He has on the layers you are talking about, but with the long robe that I am talking about. In the heat he might shed the coat. Would he be naked, no. But I do not believe most of the verses you gave said anything about being naked. Only the one about Peter. On it I have to question whether Peter found himself in a position he did not want to be in. I am not so sure he did not decide it was only the guys on the boat, no one could see, and took of more clothes than he should have. Enough to be considered naked. In a position that when the Lord appoached, was embarresed, and redressed. I could be wrong on all of this. All we have is a few verses. But we know that the apostles were men like we are. The did not have sinless perfection. We find Peter in another instance in the wrong, because he was a man.

I have been looking at different sites about the breeches. The more I read, the more I am sure they were an under garment.I know that the links I am about to give are wikipedia, thus not definetly accurate. I will point out though that first your only showing of the jews wearing pants outwardly was from wikipedia. I will also note that no other source is perfect, beside the Bible. Anyway, I found this interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeches It tells how that the word breeches has been used for inner and outer wear, such as other words like pants and shorts. I will note here that the link I posted of the picture of the garments they are making for the priests of the third temple refers to the breeches as pants. diferent words can be used in ways we do not think of as being correct. You must look at the context to see. Here we have the picture of what they believe the priest wore, and the breeches are not showing. It says that at first breeches were worn as underwear for both men and women. I believe this to be true.It says that in the late 1600s breeches began to replace hose as the term for mens lower outer garments. If that be true, it would put the change shortly after the KJV was translated, and before Webster wrote his dictionary. I believe that would make the meaning be an undergarment when the scriptures were translated.

As to the modesty and the steps. I believe that the breeches were for modesty. An underclothing to cover in uncontrolable circumstances. Have you ever wore a hat on a windy day. You have to fight with it to keep it from blowing up off of your head. My wife has commented on fighting with her dress, to keep it from flying upwards. The priest was wearing a long robe. It, like a dress, would have a great tendancy to want to fly up in the wind. If it did, the breaches were to cover the nakedness. Does that mean that he would not have been considered naked running around in his breeches?? No, or else the Lord would not have worried about the steps. I am still reading Josephus on the priestly garments. But he does say that the breeches come to the thigh, and is there tied fast. So your definition of baggy loose fitting shorts would not work. Josephus lived at the time of Christ, for those who might not know.

[PastorHarrison]

Danger of hijacking the thread (which I do not intend) but noticed we're back to haggling pants on women.... Offer my own :2cents If black gloves were mentioned by God 5 times in the O.T. and all 5 times these "gloves" were addressed to, created for, put on and in all instances recorded in Scripture "pertained to" women -- how hard would it be for Christians (devoid of pride, self and 'my rights') to determine that gloves do indeed pertain to women?

If thereafter the men folk decicided that they liked those gloves and gloves would come in right handy for work, dress, appearance, warmth and just plain good looks.... and they then made "mens gloves", which zip on from the side :Green or have 'baggier' fingers :cool We conclude that renders that whole "Abomination" specification N/A and hence gloves are now safe for men too?!

Ya know brethren..... whether we call them head-wear, undies, or orange carrying cases, breeches were made for, put on and in all instances pertained to MEN. How hard is it?

[IM4given]

Just as an FYI - I did not start this thread to get into one of those whose right/whose wrong debates. The ones who are debating are showing their foolishness regarding one small issue. This thread is talking about the "Big Picture" so to speak, and you are focusing on one little narrow part of the Big Picture. This is the Thousand Piece jigsaw puzzle, and you are spending your time arguing over one little puzzle piece and trying to "make it fit" instead of looking at the overall picture and seeing exactly where and how it all fits together.

1 Thessalonians 4
10 And indeed ye do it toward all the brethren which are in all Macedonia: but we beseech you, brethren, that ye increase more and more;
11 And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;
12 That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing.
13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

The Bible says we are not to engage in sin, and the only way we are going to "go and sin no more" - is to first look at what the scriptures say is sin. The Pharissees were famous for "spiltting hairs" concerning the Laws of Moses. I am not here trying to split hairs regarding what is sin and what is not. The Bible teaches that anything considered an abomination is a Sin. It also teaches that those who continue willfully in committing these abominations are not going to see heaven.

The Bible also teaches that in the last days there will be those "who have a form of godliness" - but they don't know really know God.

The only way to know who really is Godly and who only has a form of Godliness, is not by how they dress, or who they hang out with (although that helps!) but to find out what they think and believe about certain issues, and how does that line up with what the Holy Scriptures say? The Bible teaches us to beware of false prophets because they are wolves in sheeps clothing. How can we tell when someone is a wolf in sheep's clothing in this online format if we do not ask the hard questions? We cannot rely on our moderators to ban all of the wolves and just assume that we are all of us sheep - they ban the most ravenous of the wolves but they let the ones who disguise themselves as sheep slip on into the fold.

Proverbs 28:4 They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them.

I am not trying to stir up any trouble with this thread. I am just determining who are the wolves in sheeps clothing? Is this board so full of them that it is not really a sheep-board at all? Maybe it is a wolf board trying to pretend to be sheep?

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.