- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
In light of the above, why anyone would place faith in anything else that Paul of Tarsus wrote is mind-boggling.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul was a tremendous pioneer in the experience of Christ. We thank God for such a pattern. it you that I shiver to think I would put any trust in.
1 Corinthians 11
3But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man and the head of Christ is God.
If you appalled at this it is because you completely underestimate the significance of the Apostle saying " the head of every man is Christ ".
While you yawn in ignorance men like me take this as significant indicator of how we ought to revere the other sex, in fear of offending Christ. Many things I dare not do and dare not say to women precisely because the Christ who lives in me is the Head unto whom I am accountable.
Ephesians 5
22Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Verse 22 admonishes wives to submit to their own husbands. But the immediately previous verse 21 says ALL the saints should be submissive towards one another.
"Giving thanks at all times for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to our God and Father, (v.20)
Being subject to one another in the fear of Christ. (v.21)
Wives be subject to your own husbands as to the Lord." (v.22)
Verse 22 to the wives concerning their OWN husbands does not negate that ALL the churching believers should submissive to one another.
Paul is saying in essence "You all should have submissive attitude towards one another. And wives, your OWN husbands, are the foremost and first you should be submissive towards.
Besides this, all the exhortations of submission are preceded with the command to be filled in spirit in verse 18.
"And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissoluteness, but be filled in spirit, (v.18)
Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and psalming with your heart to the Lord, (v.19)
Giving thanks at all times for all things in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to our God and Father. "(v.20)
This submission all the believer should have one towards another is not in our own fleshly self effort. It is in being filled in our innermost spiritual being with the Submissive One - the Son of God. In the enjoyment of His presence, somewhat compared to the enjoyment of wine, the saints are to in ongoing worship, thanksgiving, and faith inducing speaking.
Being filled in spirit is being in touch and in enjoyment of the Spirit of Jesus Christ deep within our hearts. Only Jesus was absolute to the Father in all submission. And as we allow Him to saturate us we spontaneously are liberated from prideful rebellion and insubordination.
We have an ever presence realization that "Christ is the head of EVERY man."
I'll look at your other verses below.
1 Timothy 2
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
1 Corinthians 14
34Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIn light of the above, why anyone would place faith in anything else that Paul of Tarsus wrote is mind-boggling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the same way you tried to twist the slavery verses you wish to twist these verses also.
What is mind-boggling is thinking you could possibly represent Paul's thought in his epistles.
Ephesians 5
22Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.
And I showed in the previous verse 21 he commands ALL the Christians to be submissive towards one another. Verse 22 does not mean everyone else can be in anarchy or tyrannical towards the sister disciples.
Christ being being the head of every man and all the saints being submissive towards one another negates any slanderous charging of the Apostle Paul with establishing a male dominated utopia. The Christian faith spread rapidly through the ancient world partially because women realized that they had it better off in the Christian church life.
23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
Shrinking at this exhortation should how seriously you under appreciate what it means for a man to be the savior of his wife. Christ gave up His life for the church. The exhortation towards the husbands is to recall how Christ's self denying death for the church is a model of how the husbands should love their wives.
24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
1 Timothy 2
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
I am sure Paul knew the story in Judges about Deborah. In other words there were and will be times when conditions call for God to bring forth His purpose by using a woman.
Judges 2:6 - 5:31 was as familiar to Paul as was Genesis. The condition of Israel's male leaders was so spiritual poverty stricken that God raised up Deborah to lead the nation to victory. Read about it.
We notice that Paul spoke of his spiritual mother Romans 16:13. Its hard to believe that he didn't therefore listen to her advice or fellowship at times. He recognized the Lord's authority in her motherly care.
I have known a man of God who never traveled to work unless he let a elderly spiritual mother know all the places he would be. He depending on her effective prayers.
Real authority is in offering petitions to God which touch His throne and effect His administration. It is not in being called "Reverend Sally So-and-So" .. as if the modern clergy / laity system could bestow any spiritual authority on anyone.
If you want to be taught by a Christian woman, I would recommend you something by Mrs. Jessie Penn Lewis or Mary McDonough.
Mary McDonough's book -
"God's Plan of Redemption" I would recommend it.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
1 Corinthians 14
34Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
Its no horror. Paul also says that we should greet one another with a holy kiss (Rom. 16:16; 2 Cor. 13:12). I rarely see that done. In fact I never see it done. Yet in the Middle East it might be more customary.
Speaking in some context of the social norms is understandable.
All the sisters speak forth God and speak for God in all the meetings I attend. I think he meant that his custom was not to allow the women to authoritatively define doctrines. Paul recommended a Junia who had some reputation with her co-worker (possibly a husband wife team) in Romans 16:7.
"Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." (Rom. 16:7)
He's saying both the man and the woman were his spiritual seniors. He is also saying that their consecration to God's work caused them to suffer imprisonment just as it did himself. They had a reputation among his fellow apostles.
My opinion is that when Junia did have something to say, Paul listened to her.
Paul also places the woman's name Prisca before that of her husband Aquila in verse 3.
"Greet Prisca and Acquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus." (v.3)
I think he must have regarded the woman as key to the usefulness of the spiritual team in some way. And I think when she spoke Paul did not dismiss her fellowship. The team was instrumental in helping the Apostle Apollos in becoming more clear about God's new testament economy.
Wikepedia
Priscilla and Aquila[My emphasis]
Priscilla (/prɨˈsɪlə/) and Aquila (/ˈækwɨlə/) were a first century Christian missionary married couple described in the New Testament and traditionally listed among the Seventy Disciples. They lived, worked, and traveled with the Apostle Paul, who described them as his "fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (Romans 16:3 NASB).[1]
Priscilla and Aquila are described in the New Testament as providing a presence that strengthened the early Christian churches. Paul was generous in his recognition and acknowledgment of his indebtedness to them (Rom. 16:3-4). Together, they are credited with instructing Apollos, a major evangelist of the first century, and "[explaining] to him the way of God more accurately" (Acts 18:26).
All things considered, the exhortations of Paul about the women is not that bad. And history certainly suggests God used female disciples to further his interests on earth. We could hardly exist in spiritual health without a good number of sister disciples, women, who know their God.
Originally posted by sonshipLike usual you entirely missed the point of my post. If you haven't watched the video in its entirety you should. Most if not all of the points that preacher was trying to make were basically echoing Paul of Tarsus from the passages I quoted.
[b] In light of the above, why anyone would place faith in anything else that Paul of Tarsus wrote is mind-boggling.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul was a tremendous pioneer in the experience of Christ. We thank God for such a pattern. it you that I shiver to t ...[text shortened]... inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a[/b]
Both the preacher and Paul are not only wrong, but profoundly so.
.
Originally posted by sonshipIn the same way you tried to twist the slavery verses you wish to twist these verses also.
[b] In light of the above, why anyone would place faith in anything else that Paul of Tarsus wrote is mind-boggling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the same way you tried to twist the slavery verses you wish to twist these verses also.
What is mind-boggling is thinking yo ...[text shortened]... nough.
Mary McDonough's book -
"God's Plan of Redemption" I would recommend it.[/b]
I didn't "twist" anything. I pointed out a couple of passages and allowed "God's" words to speak for themselves. It was you who once again took several verses out of context from disparate sources in an attempt to "twist" things. It's what you do.
Originally posted by sonshipAll the sisters speak forth God and speak for God in all the meetings I attend.
1 Corinthians 14
34Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
Its no horror. Paul also says that we shoul ...[text shortened]... exist in spiritual health without a good number of sister disciples, women, who know their God.
Good for them that they should ignore what Paul wrote even though he clearly and unambiguously called it "disgraceful".
1 Corinthians 14
34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
They'd do well to ignore the rest of what Paul wrote as well and instead embrace the words Jesus spoke while He walked the Earth as Jesus clearly and repeatedly instructed.
Speaking in some context of the social norms is understandable.
Interesting that you use that to dismiss what Paul wrote about women speaking in church, but are unwilling to extend it to homosexuality for instance.
I think he meant that his custom was not to allow the women to authoritatively define doctrines.
What nonsense. Yet another example of how you "twist" what is clearly and unambiguously stated when you have a mind to.
01 Jan 16
2 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneJack Schaap
Who the **** is this ignoramus??
Now in jail for sexual abuse
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3218144/Pastor-Christian-rehab-program-treating-Josh-Duggar-jailed-sex-underage-girl-cabin-church-conference-telling-God-approves.html
I think he got 12 years.
I guess he is on the soap box in general population now.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
01 Jan 16
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Like usual you entirely missed the point of my post. If you haven't watched the video in its entirety you should. Most if not all of the points that preacher was trying to make were basically echoing Paul of Tarsus from the passages I quoted.
No, I didn't miss your particular point that I chose to respond to. I did not need any additional "guilt-by-association" video for added sensationalism.
The only point, yours, that I chose to address was:
In light of the above, why anyone would place faith in anything else that Paul of Tarsus wrote is mind-boggling.
"The above" being the few passages you quoted from Pauline epistles.
Both the preacher and Paul are not only wrong, but profoundly so.
There is no need for me to watch your video. You quoted a few passages from the epistles of Paul and made your accusation. That is sufficient for a response.
ToO: In light of the above, why anyone would place faith in anything else that Paul of Tarsus wrote is mind-boggling.
No it is not "mind-boggling" that we regard highly the author of 13 some books of the New Testament's 27. He pioneered into all crucial aspects of the Christian and church life.
And I fear that " as usual " your quest to demonstrate Paul as "profoundly wrong" is just more of your self righteous, self justifying rationale that characterizes all your disdain for the New Testament.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]In the same way you tried to twist the slavery verses you wish to twist these verses also.
I didn't "twist" anything. I pointed out a couple of passages and allowed "God's" words to speak for themselves. It was you who once again took several verses out of context from disparate sources in an attempt to "twist" things. It's what you do.
Examination of the original Hebrews proved false your claim that "slave'' only referred to foreigners. Perhaps the word "twist" is not appropriate. I said "perhaps".
But I read your examples carefully and checked. Slave or bondservant was a word used for both an Israelite and a foreigner.
I didn't "twist" anything. I pointed out a couple of passages and allowed "God's" words to speak for themselves. It was you who once again took several verses out of context from disparate sources in an attempt to "twist" things. It's what you do.
And allowing them to speak for themselves, you were proved incorrect in your thoughts about the word slave being reserved for the foreigner. And without rechecking that discussion I won't say more about it now.
But mistaken is not a deliberate twisting. Maybe, I will give you that. Basically, the slavery card and the suppression of women card seem to be your latest staples to show that you're better than God.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneme: All the sisters speak forth God and speak for God in all the meetings I attend.
ToO: Good for them that they should ignore what Paul wrote even though he clearly and unambiguously called it "disgraceful".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He said it was a shame. I think the word "disgraceful" is too strong. It is the same word in Greek as is used in Ephesians 5:12 .
English Standard Version
For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.
Berean Study Bible
For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.
Berean Literal Bible
For it is shameful even to mention the things being done by them in secret.
To be fair, a coupe of "disgraceful" renderings do exist there.
New American Standard 1977
for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret.
New American Standard Bible
for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret.
Most English versions I checked use shame of shameful. The same word is used for 1 Cor. 14:35. I see few "disgraceful" renderings there. I do see dishonorable, inappropriate, improper, shameful .
As I said, all things taken into consideration, I can see why you would attempt some guilt-by-association sensational video to bolster up your slander against the Apostle Paul.
The fact that we do not limit the speaking to males is based upon the other word of Paul that we may all prophesy one by one.
"For you can all prophesy one by one that all may learn and all may be encouraged." (1 Cor. 14:31)
Luke a traveling companion with Paul spoke of the four unmarried daughters of a certain disciple who prophesied (Acts 21:9) . If it was so disgraceful that they did, it is peculiar that Luke would mention it. So I think some context of social norms of the times tempers my understanding of Paul's words there.
And this I said is also the case in his exhortation for the saints to greet one another with a holy kiss.
1 Corinthians 14
34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
I think the word disgraceful is probably overkill in modern English. And if Prisca's speaking was disgraceful I don't know why Paul would recommend the apostolic couple putting her name before her husbands.
Asking their husbands at home must refer to defining crucial doctrines of the church.
But if I am wrong, the entire tenor of the 14th chapter is still not as belligerently chauvinistic as you would like to make it.
Paul does not say that if you disagree you will be excommunicated from the church. The tone is that let him who ignores his instruction, just ignore it. Says me ? No. says Paul -
"Or was it from you that the word of God went forth? Or did it reach only to you?
If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him fully know the things which I write to you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.
But if anyone ignores this, let him ignore it." ( vs. 36-38)
Be honest. Does this concluding word from Paul give the impression that a woman speaking in the church meeting was an absolute show stopper. Do you get the impression that the same level of priority is placed on the practice of women speaking in the meeting is the same as more serious errors?
"But if anyone ignores this, let him ignore it."
Do you get the impression that in all ages the church's structure is totally threatened by destruction because a sister spoke in the church meeting ? I don't get the impression that Paul placed that much importance to the matter.
In fact his over all concern is that whatever builds up the church, edifies the believers, strengthens and confirms their faith, is his concern. It is not his chief concern that woman remain silent in the church meeting.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
01 Jan 16
"Brothers, do not be children in your understanding, but in malice be babes and in your understanding be full grown." (v. 20)
The word is to eliminate spiritual immaturity and malice among all the believers. He has no concept of suppressing anyone for the increase of malice, resentment, and bitterness in the congregation.
Although verse 20 relates to tongue speaking, the overall advice should carry to all other areas of the church meetings and church life. He is for edification and building up. He is not for fermenting malice. He is not for cultivating class conflict between men and women. This is precisely why he writes in Galatians that in Christ there is neither male or female:
"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave or free man, there cannot be male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:27,28)
This is not a liberal "There SHOULD NOT BE ...." This is "there CANNOT BE ..."
He is not saying that the Christians should not have social class stratification among them. He is saying they CANNOT have it. It is an impossibility if they want the normal Christian church life.
The two are mutually exclusive. If you want class stratification between Jew and Greek, between slave and free-man, and between males and females then they CANNOT have a normal joyful Christian church life. They have to choose between one or the other.
There CANNOT be male suppression of females. There cannot be free-men's suppression of slaves. There cannot be envy and class warfare between Greek and Jews.
I don't think you get the big picture. You choke on a couple of passages in an isolated way to further your idea that you know better how the church should be built.
They'd do well to ignore the rest of what Paul wrote as well and instead embrace the words Jesus spoke while He walked the Earth as Jesus clearly and repeatedly instructed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vintage idiocy. You probably don't even believe in the resurrection of Jesus.
Speaking in some context of the social norms is understandable.
Interesting that you use that to dismiss what Paul wrote about women speaking in church, but are unwilling to extend it to homosexuality for instance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One subject at a time. And I don't dismiss Paul's word there. I just carefully consider a fuller context.
You're eager to portray yourself in no need of a Savior and basically better than God. Sure you do. That's why you have an all pervading self righteous humanism to replace the major revelation of the Gospel.
I think he meant that his custom was not to allow the women to authoritatively define doctrines.
What nonsense. Yet another example of how you "twist" what is clearly and unambiguously stated when you have a mind to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I'll let the Apostle Paul speak for his own doctrine.
"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus ... There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave or free man, there cannot be male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
And if you are of Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise." (Gal. 3:26,28,29)