What's Funny About Fads in the Church?

Well, not much. And while unscrupulous folks making money in the temple is a crime, here is a funny about that subject I found at the Sacred Sandwich:

http://sacredsandwich.com/headline20.htm

Propositional Truth and Jesus.

The best argument against those that say "truth is a Person, not a proposition" is given by Greg Koukl here: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6869 Specifically, go to the third and fourth paragraphs.

Read it and laugh. Read it and learn. Remember it. I will.

Hilariously in Christ,
Phil Perkins.

AN EXPOSE` OF THE ZONDERVAN HANDBOOK TO THE BIBLE, Part II (of VII)

Zondervan Lies About The Creation Order To Further a Feminist Agenda.

On page 89-91 the Zondervan Handbook to the Bible has an article by the feminist Claire Powell. In it we read, "Woman is created out of man, not to show subordination, but to show that she is like him rather than like the other created beings and to show the interdependence..."

Oh, really, now. If Powell is right, Paul is wrong. Hmmm...Paul, the apostle or Powell, the feminist...hmmm...what to do, what to do...

Paul said twice in his letters that the order of creation shows man is the head of woman. This passage does show likeness of woman to man. She was his flesh and bone, showing fundamental equality. However, Powell omits the second half of the implications. This is a Hebrew story. Semitic peoples put great importance on the primacy of that which comes before another and that from which the other has its origin. For instance, when the Jews mocked Jesus and asked if He was greater than their patriarchs, He answered, "Before Abraham was, I am." They recognized this was a claim of authority over Abraham, Moses, the Law, and them. In fact, they tried to kill Him.

Powell's dishonesty seems clear to me for two reasons. First, the Handbook is sold as a source of accurate background information. Primacy being a foundational principle of Scripture, how did such experts miss something so simple? Second, witness how dishonestly she handles other passages as we continue.

In order to prove her point of equality without headship, she uses a passage that begins and ends with the authority of the man over the woman. Then, with surgical precision, she lifts the only two verses in the passage that speak of equality without speaking of headship. Here is her quote from I Corinthians 11:11-12:

In our life in the Lord, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman was made from man, in the same way man is born of woman.

This quote speaks of interdependence and essential equality. However, the rest of the passage speaks of the headship of the man in this life (not the next) and ends with a declaration of the universality of this ethic. Here is I Corinthians 11:3-16 in the NASB:

3But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

4Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.

5But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

6For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.

7For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

8For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;

9for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.

10Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

11However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.

12For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

14Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,

15but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

16But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. (emphasis added)

Please note in this passage of 14 verses, Powell’s two verses are the only ones not to mention man’s headship and that verses 7-9 use the order of creation as the reason for the headship of man and the subordination of woman in this life.

So, did Powell’s eyes land only on these two verses in the middle of a headship passage by chance?

Or did she lie?

More on this article next time.

AN EXPOSE` OF THE ZONDERVAN HANDBOOK TO THE BIBLE, Part I (of VII)

Zondervan Claims Bible is "Misleading."

Zondervan Publishing has taken yet another step toward a fully feminized, apostasy. On page 603 of the Zondervan Handbook to the Bible (third edition, 1999, by David and Pat Alexander) is an article by Richard Bauckman. He writes this in the first paragraph:

In the social world of the New Testament period it was mostly men who had official authority in the public sphere, whereas women often had real power and influence, alongside men, in the domestic sphere of the household. The latter was far from unimportant, but literature of the period written from the male perspective, as most is, can easily give a misleading impression by focussing on those aspects of life in which men were dominant.

Did you catch that? The literature of the NT era was "misleading" by "focussing on" the "men." Don’t worry, though. The good Professor Bauckman didn’t give poor old God a flat out F. The next paragraph tells us that the gospels were nice to the ladies. So God, I guess, gets a C or so, because, while the accusation evidently stands against the rest of the New Testament, God did okay when He wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The strong implication is that we have to read between the lines of the New Testament to find the truth because its type of literature can mislead us. Makes you wish God was just half as smart as Mr. Bauckman, huh.

But wait. There’s more. In the end of the article Bauckman informs us that Mary was being groomed for a teaching role and we know that because she received instruction at Jesus’ feet in Luke 10:38-42. Well, so did others. Sitting at a rabbi’s feet showed submission. And it showed that Jesus was willing to teach a woman. It is not an indication that she will be a teacher in God’s assembly. A disciple of a rabbi training to teach would be sitting at his feet for years, not an afternoon. And he would be male. These points are obvious. Lots of people sat at Jesus’ feet. In chapter seven we read of the demoniac who sat at His feet. Was the demoniac a rabbi in training? Why only Mary, Mr. Bauckman?

Richard Bauckman has shaded the truth about these passages to fit a feminist agenda.

If you are of a mind to give our prostituted friends in Grand Rapids the benefit of the doubt, please wait for next six segments of this expose` to come out this coming week and next. You will see the Zondervan Handbook to the Bible pushes feminism, evolution, eco-paganism, feminist interpretations of the Bible, and more. And you will see that they are more than willing to lie in order to do so.