Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,873 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 124,199
Pageviews Today: 168,878Threads Today: 18Posts Today: 581
01:23 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

What the Bible Really Says about Women

 
Keep2theCode (OP)

User ID: 20545539
United States
02/13/2013 04:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
Wow... what a peaceful day it was here. If it's due to a kindly mod having pity on us, they have my most sincere gratitude.

hf
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Gal. 4:16)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 32310892
United States
02/13/2013 06:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
Helle OP,

You said in your link, "Sarah rendering hupakouo to Abraham, which means “to attend to” (same word as when a servant “answered” the door for Peter after his miraculous escape from prison in Acts 12:13)"

To argue for a secondary definition, like listen, you have to show from the context, which you have not done by the only using Acts 12:13 where servant Rodah answered or "hupakouo" the door. The primary usage begs to differ with your interpretation.

It is interesting to see that God told Abraham to hupakouo to Sarah in "Casting out this slave woman with her son," Gen 21:10. This can be a great example of Eph 5:21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

What resource are you using where Hupakouo means only "to attend to"? You seem to be selective, neglecting it's primary usage as "hearing and obeying".

Strong's
From G5259 and G191; to hear under (as a subordinate), that is, to listen attentively; by implication to heed or conform to a command or authority: - hearken, be obedient to, obey.

The word is used 21 times in the NT. The dominant translation is obey in context.

Mat 8:27 "is this, that even winds and sea obey him?"
Mk 1:27 "the unclean spirits, and they do obey him."
Mk 4:41 "the wind and the sea obey him?"
Lk 8:25 "even the winds and water, and they obey him."
Lk 17:6 "planted in the sea; and it should obey you."
Acts 6:7 "the priests became obedient to the faith"
Acts 12:13 "a servant girl named Rhoda came to answer."
Rom 6:12 "to make you obey its passions."
Rom 6:16 "you are slaves of the one whom you obey,"
Rom 6:17 "of sin have become obedient from the heart"
Rom 10:16 "But they have not all obeyed the gospel."
Eph 6:1 "Children, obey your parents in the Lord,"
Eph 6:5 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear"
Php 2:12 "my beloved, as you have always obeyed,"
Col 3:20 "Children, obey your parents in everything,"
Col 3:22 "Slaves, obey in everything those"
2 Th 1:8 " on those who do not obey the gospel"
2 Th 3:14 "If anyone does not obey what we say"
Heb 5:9 "of eternal salvation to all who obey him,"
Heb 11:8 "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called"
1 Pe 3:6 "as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord."


Also, you never discussed why Sarah would even use the term lord. From an unused root (meaning to rule); sovereign, that is, controller (human or divine): - lord, master, owner. Compare also names beginning with “Adoni-”.

The mentioning of Sarah obeying Abraham and "calling him lord" is not to be dismissed by simply saying that the message was limited to teaching women "but if they do not fear and are not dismayed."

It seems to me that in offering a solution here one has to actually neglect the clear for a more hidden insight or suppressed meaning. The solution becomes a problem when it cannot provide an adequate solution.

I still appreciate your effort. By nature, I, like you, don't like hierarchy because men, churches, governments and even women can be corrupt. They do not like to serve anybody but themselves. but it seems inescapable from scripture. So your argument that for Sarah to submit to Abraham would be "idolatry" is erroneous. Since we are told to submit to authorities outside of just God and not revile against them.

Rom_13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

1 Peter 2:13-14 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, (14) or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.

We are not to be despisers of authority but submit both male and female. Unlike those who resist.

2Pe_2:10 and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones,

Luk 19:27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.'"

What I discovered is that even with God, His authority is not corrupt but is used for service and the love of others. Who has a problem with that kind of authority and rule? The only problem with authority is when it is corrupted.

Within the church and family the authorities are given but flipped. There is a headship and submission but it is a loving headship and submission. God does not get rid of authority but reforms it for good.

1Pe_5:3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.

Col_4:1 Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.

Eph_5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

Matthew 20:25-28 But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. (26) It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, (27) and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, (28) even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."


There is coming a day when there will be no need for any other authority.

1Co_15:24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
Keep2theCode (OP)

User ID: 20545539
United States
02/13/2013 07:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
Helle OP,

You said in your link, "Sarah rendering hupakouo to Abraham, which means “to attend to” (same word as when a servant “answered” the door for Peter after his miraculous escape from prison in Acts 12:13)"

To argue for a secondary definition, like listen, you have to show from the context, which you have not done by the only using Acts 12:13 where servant Rodah answered or "hupakouo" the door. The primary usage begs to differ with your interpretation.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32310892

Every word has a semantic range, and that range is determined by context. Many make the mistake of engaging in circular reasoning to decide a meaning: picking the meaning they like for a context, then reading that meaning into other contexts indiscriminately or arbitrarily

No one in their right mind would think that Rhoda "obeyed" the door. Therefore, hupakuo can, even must, include the meaning "answer" or "respond". This is not "secondary" at all, especially in this context. The LSJ lexicon has "listen" and "answer" as the first two meanings.

So since "obey" cannot be read into this context, then we cannot presume it as "primary" in another context without some clear indicator that requires this meaning.

It is interesting to see that God told Abraham to hupakouo to Sarah in "Casting out this slave woman with her son," Gen 21:10. This can be a great example of Eph 5:21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32310892

Yes, mutual submission is exactly what Paul taught.

What resource are you using where Hupakouo means only "to attend to"? You seem to be selective, neglecting it's primary usage as "hearing and obeying".

Strong's
From G5259 and G191; to hear under (as a subordinate), that is, to listen attentively; by implication to heed or conform to a command or authority: - hearken, be obedient to, obey.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32310892

As explained above, I'm using the LSJ, which seems to be held in higher regard than Strong's among any scholarly writings I've seen over the years. Strong's is tied exclusively to the KJV and how it rendered words, not how they were used commonly in the 1st century. But even in what you pasted here, "listen" is primary, while "obey" is at the end.

Now who is being selective?

Also, you never discussed why Sarah would even use the term lord. From an unused root (meaning to rule); sovereign, that is, controller (human or divine): - lord, master, owner. Compare also names beginning with “Adoni-”.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32310892

I did in fact discuss it, explaining the ONLY instance of when she used it. And if anyone wishes to equate this "lord" with "the Lord", they are teaching idolatry.

And you might want to take a look at a true case of "selectivity" on the part of Strong's: [link to www.fether.net]

The mentioning of Sarah obeying Abraham and "calling him lord" is not to be dismissed by simply saying that the message was limited to teaching women "but if they do not fear and are not dismayed."

It seems to me that in offering a solution here one has to actually neglect the clear for a more hidden insight or suppressed meaning. The solution becomes a problem when it cannot provide an adequate solution.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32310892

Sarah often defied Abraham, and sometimes God backed her up, as I mentioned. I gave a detailed explanation in the link to "Grammar and Context: A Study in 1 Peter". I neglected nothing, yet many who try to hide such details seem afraid of what they might see. What you call "clear" or many call "the plain reading" is, IMHO, "the lazy reading". And I think what I offered is in fact an adequate solution.

I still appreciate your effort. By nature, I, like you, don't like hierarchy because men, churches, governments and even women can be corrupt. They do not like to serve anybody but themselves. but it seems inescapable from scripture. So your argument that for Sarah to submit to Abraham would be "idolatry" is erroneous. Since we are told to submit to authorities outside of just God and not revile against them.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32310892

Thank you. But of course I disagree that hierarchy is "inescapable from scripture". I never claimed to be infallible or a scholar, but only offered to share what I see. Yet I have seen, from many instances over the years, evidence of deliberate tampering with scripture in order to make it much more masculine and male-favoring than it is.

As for idolatry, anyone who treats another human being as God is committing it; that's the definition of the word. Submission to authorities does not mean calling them your Lord or never being allowed to disobey them, or no Christian would ever be allowed to criticize their government-- and I have yet to find a conservative Christian who is willing to "obey" government to the same degree they obey God. Clearly there is a sharp line between the two, which is crossed when a woman must, for life, obey a man as God.

Re. the Romans proof-text for obeying government, I highly recommend reading the FAQ at this link:
[link to libertarianchristians.com]

We are not to be despisers of authority but submit both male and female. Unlike those who resist.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32310892

Christians are called to be good citizens to the best of their ability. But when we talk about authority between Christians, we're discussing parts of the Body of Christ "lording over" each other. Mutual submission among all parts is the command; "not so among you" is the order. There is no fine print or loophole out of it.

What I discovered is that even with God, His authority is not corrupt but is used for service and the love of others. Who has a problem with that kind of authority and rule? The only problem with authority is when it is corrupted.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32310892

God's authority is his own, because he is God and we're not. But all of us are human beings, all one substance, all brothers and sisters. I have no problem at all with mutual submission, but plenty with "lording over". And "lording over" cannot be magically transformed into mutuality by making it benevolent; that is, the degree of hierarchy is irrelevant. Saying only "corrupt" authority in the Body of Christ is wrong is like trying to polish the bars on a jail cell to make it less intimidating.

Within the church and family the authorities are given but flipped. There is a headship and submission but it is a loving headship and submission. God does not get rid of authority but reforms it for good.
...

Matthew 20:25-28 But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. (26) It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, (27) and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, (28) even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32310892

Exactly! Upside down to the world's chain of command. There is nothing here about whether the world's ways are corrupt or harsh, but their very structure. There is no way to turn that hierarchy into what Jesus is commanding here. There is no way to whitewash it and make it not violate this principle Jesus is commanding.

And even if none of that were true, what did Jesus model for everyone, including men? To lay privilege down. This is not about who has the most responsibility or burden, but who is willing to humble themselves as Jesus did, washing his disciples' feet. Not even he pulled rank, however benevolently, when modeling Christian leadership.
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Gal. 4:16)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 25326483
United States
02/13/2013 07:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
Amen, Sister!

I'd just like to mention that not all churches exclude women from leadership. Several denominations now ordain women to be ministers.
Keep2theCode (OP)

User ID: 20545539
United States
02/13/2013 07:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
Amen, Sister!

I'd just like to mention that not all churches exclude women from leadership. Several denominations now ordain women to be ministers.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25326483


Thanks! hf

True. But my goal is not so much to see women ordained as pastors, as it is to see an end to "the pastorate" as a CEO position in a business. Whoever has the gift of "pastor" will exercise it regardless of titles or offices or compensation. In fact, Paul said he'd rather die than accept regular support for his ministry (means 'service'). He taught that it is not the place of children to support their parents, but this is precisely what churches do when "tithes" are demanded to pay a salary to a professional orator. Of course "he does so much more than speak", but so do all the people who pay his salary. They have to exercise their spiritual gifts (including visiting the sick and spreading the gospel and teaching) for free while also paying him to exercise his! A double burden, heavy and heartless, while Jesus' burden is light.

Last Edited by Keep2theCode on 02/13/2013 07:59 PM
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Gal. 4:16)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 25326483
United States
02/13/2013 08:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
Amen, Sister!

I'd just like to mention that not all churches exclude women from leadership. Several denominations now ordain women to be ministers.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25326483


Thanks! hf

True. But my goal is not so much to see women ordained as pastors, as it is to see an end to "the pastorate" as a CEO position in a business. Whoever has the gift of "pastor" will exercise it regardless of titles or offices or compensation. In fact, Paul said he'd rather die than accept regular support for his ministry (means 'service'). He taught that it is not the place of children to support their parents, but this is precisely what churches do when "tithes" are demanded to pay a salary to a professional orator. Of course "he does so much more than speak", but so do all the people who pay his salary. They have to exercise their spiritual gifts (including visiting the sick and spreading the gospel and teaching) for free while also paying him to exercise his! A double burden, heavy and heartless, while Jesus' burden is light.
 Quoting: Keep2theCode


Well, for a variety of reasons, I don't share your perspective regarding the role of a pastor in a congregation. But that's ok. :)

I still applaud your efforts to explain how, according to the Bible, men and women are equal in the eyes of God.
Keep2theCode (OP)

User ID: 20545539
United States
02/13/2013 08:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
Amen, Sister!

I'd just like to mention that not all churches exclude women from leadership. Several denominations now ordain women to be ministers.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25326483


Thanks! hf

True. But my goal is not so much to see women ordained as pastors, as it is to see an end to "the pastorate" as a CEO position in a business. Whoever has the gift of "pastor" will exercise it regardless of titles or offices or compensation. In fact, Paul said he'd rather die than accept regular support for his ministry (means 'service'). He taught that it is not the place of children to support their parents, but this is precisely what churches do when "tithes" are demanded to pay a salary to a professional orator. Of course "he does so much more than speak", but so do all the people who pay his salary. They have to exercise their spiritual gifts (including visiting the sick and spreading the gospel and teaching) for free while also paying him to exercise his! A double burden, heavy and heartless, while Jesus' burden is light.
 Quoting: Keep2theCode


Well, for a variety of reasons, I don't share your perspective regarding the role of a pastor in a congregation. But that's ok. :)

I still applaud your efforts to explain how, according to the Bible, men and women are equal in the eyes of God.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25326483


Thanks!

As a wise person said, "Start with Jesus". Everything that lines up with him is the right way to go.
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Gal. 4:16)
Life and Love

User ID: 26735250
United States
02/13/2013 08:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
Amen, Sister!

I'd just like to mention that not all churches exclude women from leadership. Several denominations now ordain women to be ministers.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25326483


Thanks! hf

True. But my goal is not so much to see women ordained as pastors, as it is to see an end to "the pastorate" as a CEO position in a business. Whoever has the gift of "pastor" will exercise it regardless of titles or offices or compensation. In fact, Paul said he'd rather die than accept regular support for his ministry (means 'service'). He taught that it is not the place of children to support their parents, but this is precisely what churches do when "tithes" are demanded to pay a salary to a professional orator. Of course "he does so much more than speak", but so do all the people who pay his salary. They have to exercise their spiritual gifts (including visiting the sick and spreading the gospel and teaching) for free while also paying him to exercise his! A double burden, heavy and heartless, while Jesus' burden is light.
 Quoting: Keep2theCode


Well, for a variety of reasons, I don't share your perspective regarding the role of a pastor in a congregation. But that's ok. :)

I still applaud your efforts to explain how, according to the Bible, men and women are equal in the eyes of God.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25326483


I think many ministers would like this to happen as well, but a lot of times congregations think that they have "hired" someone to be exactly that: their "CEO."
We become like that to which we are devoted. Choose wisely.
Keep2theCode (OP)

User ID: 20545539
United States
02/13/2013 08:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
I think many ministers would like this to happen as well, but a lot of times congregations think that they have "hired" someone to be exactly that: their "CEO."
 Quoting: Life and Love


Good point; the "pastorate" couldn't exist without willing supporters in large numbers.
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Gal. 4:16)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 32310892
United States
02/13/2013 11:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
"Every word has a semantic range, and that range is determined by context. Many make the mistake of engaging in circular reasoning to decide a meaning: picking the meaning they like for a context, then reading that meaning into other contexts indiscriminately or arbitrarily

No one in their right mind would think that Rhoda "obeyed" the door. Therefore, hupakuo can, even must, include the meaning "answer" or "respond". This is not "secondary" at all, especially in this context. The LSJ lexicon has "listen" and "answer" as the first two meanings.

So since "obey" cannot be read into this context, then we cannot presume it as "primary" in another context without some clear indicator that requires this meaning."

---

If someone knocks at the door they are requesting that I open it. It's implied. The servant girl Rhoda obeyed the request to open the door.

Act_12:13 And when he knocked at the door of the gateway, a servant girl named Rhoda came to answer.

Thayer's and Strongs I'll grant you are dated. However, I used the online LSJ lexicon and it has within the semantic range "obey, submit to". I wonder why you excluded that? Based on your premise then all the passages should exclude obey.


-----


"Yes, mutual submission is exactly what Paul taught."

I don't get it, if the Bible says Sarah obeyed Abraham and it also says Abraham obeyed Sarah why the textual issue here? My position is that role hierarchy can be harmonized with mutual submission, e.g.,,my boss and I can be friends submitting one to another.


------


"I did in fact discuss it, explaining the ONLY instance of when she used it. And if anyone wishes to equate this "lord" with "the Lord", they are teaching idolatry."

Doesn't using the term lord denote hierarchy? I never mentioned deification. Even the definition said said human or divine. I see it as a special honor that does not mean a change of nature. Red herring.



-----


"Sarah often defied Abraham, and sometimes God backed her up, as I mentioned. I gave a detailed explanation in the link to "Grammar and Context: A Study in 1 Peter". I neglected nothing, yet many who try to hide such details seem afraid of what they might see. What you call "clear" or many call "the plain reading" is, IMHO, "the lazy reading". And I think what I offered is in fact an adequate solution."

So because Sarah challenged Abraham that proves that hierarchy does not exist? Your argument actually reverses what Peter is saying. You would have it saying "Sarah defied Abraham calling him lord irreverently."

It seems to me that the only mention of Abraham telling Sarah to do something is when she obeyed Abraham by saying she was his sister to the Egyptians despite failing to be honest. It doesn't say she approved only that she did what he asked. She wanted to protect him from death. She was honored for doing what he told her to do.



------


"As for idolatry, anyone who treats another human being as God is committing it; that's the definition of the word. Submission to authorities does not mean calling them your Lord or never being allowed to disobey them, or no Christian would ever be allowed to criticize their government-- and I have yet to find a conservative Christian who is willing to "obey" government to the same degree they obey God. Clearly there is a sharp line between the two, which is crossed when a woman must, for life, obey a man as God."


Your view of lord is not according to scripture here and inconsistent methodologically. The BDB lexicon has applications other than idolatry. Again you limit it's usage selectively. Positions of authority had the name lord without inferring deification. Nowhere does hierarchy demand total control. You are importing that notion as well.

Thanks for the link btw.



-----



"God's authority is his own, because he is God and we're not. But all of us are human beings, all one substance, all brothers and sisters. I have no problem at all with mutual submission, but plenty with "lording over". And "lording over" cannot be magically transformed into mutuality by making it benevolent; that is, the degree of hierarchy is irrelevant. Saying only "corrupt" authority in the Body of Christ is wrong is like trying to polish the bars on a jail cell to make it less intimidating."

So all Christian authority is wrong? Everybody has an issue with "lording" over. What about parents and children in the church? Authority can't be good if used for good? How is that polishing prison cells? Our domain is not absolutely free. We are limited by the natural and moral laws God has ordained even among Christians. We have to obey secular government but not our marriage partners, parents or elders? I believe scripture supports authority as long as it's right and good. Sometimes, like the exception of Sarah, you do things you shouldn't for the greater good, like Rahab, saving a donkey on the Sabbath, being circumcised to preach to the Jews, etc...



------



"Exactly! Upside down to the world's chain of command. There is nothing here about whether the world's ways are corrupt or harsh, but their very structure. There is no way to turn that hierarchy into what Jesus is commanding here. There is no way to whitewash it and make it not violate this principle Jesus is commanding.

And even if none of that were true, what did Jesus model for everyone, including men? To lay privilege down. This is not about who has the most responsibility or burden, but who is willing to humble themselves as Jesus did, washing his disciples' feet. Not even he pulled rank, however benevolently, when modeling Christian leadership."


Yes, I agree with you that hierarchy can be evil BUT hierarchy is also a force for good. God intended it that way for this fallen grasping world. I want what you describe but it will have to wait until all our hearts are purged from rebellion. What has been revealed is for this evil time where restraint and force are part of God's earthly management. Even Jesus submitted to the Father,

Luk_22:42 saying, "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done."
Keep2theCode (OP)

User ID: 20545539
United States
02/14/2013 06:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
If someone knocks at the door they are requesting that I open it. It's implied. The servant girl Rhoda obeyed the request to open the door.

Act_12:13 And when he knocked at the door of the gateway, a servant girl named Rhoda came to answer.

Thayer's and Strongs I'll grant you are dated. However, I used the online LSJ lexicon and it has within the semantic range "obey, submit to". I wonder why you excluded that? Based on your premise then all the passages should exclude obey.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32310892

It is the door Rhoda "answered", not Peter; there is no escaping this when examining the sentence in Greek. She did not "obey" the door. You are reaching and stretching to make this into Rhoda obeying Peter, and even this is ridiculous, since Peter was not her boss or authority over the house.

"Yes, mutual submission is exactly what Paul taught."

I don't get it, if the Bible says Sarah obeyed Abraham and it also says Abraham obeyed Sarah why the textual issue here? My position is that role hierarchy can be harmonized with mutual submission, e.g.,,my boss and I can be friends submitting one to another.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32310892

What "role hierarchy"? It certainly isn't gender- or flesh-based in this incident, which has been my whole point. The fact that they switched places being the one giving orders is key: it was not anything based upon intrinsic qualities of the people, but the situation changing. What I'm arguing against is flesh-based, lifelong, permanent roles.

Doesn't using the term lord denote hierarchy? I never mentioned deification. Even the definition said said human or divine. I see it as a special honor that does not mean a change of nature. Red herring.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32310892

You're switching sides again; just before this you argued that the roles changed without regard to the flesh of the person and their temporary, situation-based situation. Now you want Sarah's SINGLE use of 'lord' to mean 'authority' or boss for life. Which is it? If it's a "special honor", what practical difference did it make in how they lived? What good is an honorary title that means nothing in practice? It's rather like one of those cardboard crowns they give to children at Burger King.

I'll take your red herring and raise you one equivocation.


So because Sarah challenged Abraham that proves that hierarchy does not exist? Your argument actually reverses what Peter is saying. You would have it saying "Sarah defied Abraham calling him lord irreverently."

It seems to me that the only mention of Abraham telling Sarah to do something is when she obeyed Abraham by saying she was his sister to the Egyptians despite failing to be honest. It doesn't say she approved only that she did what he asked. She wanted to protect him from death. She was honored for doing what he told her to do.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32310892

It proves that no flesh-based, lifelong, intrinsic authority existed between Abraham and Sarah, which completely negates the claim that Peter referred to them to illustrate husbandly rule over wife (benevolent or not). Try to remember the context!

Your view of lord is not according to scripture here and inconsistent methodologically. The BDB lexicon has applications other than idolatry. Again you limit it's usage selectively. Positions of authority had the name lord without inferring deification. Nowhere does hierarchy demand total control. You are importing that notion as well.

Thanks for the link btw.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32310892

No, I'm not limiting anything but exposing the Strong's bias against any woman holding the title 'lord'. I used scripture and the dictionary YOU appeal to in order to arrive at the full semantic range. Now you want to apply what I argued about 'lord' to what I said about idolatry: IF one uses the "boss for life based on my flesh" meaning that misogynists are trying to put into Peter's mouth, THEN that usage is idolatry.

You keep trying to twist my arguments and are being inconsistent with your own.

So all Christian authority is wrong? Everybody has an issue with "lording" over. What about parents and children in the church? Authority can't be good if used for good? How is that polishing prison cells? Our domain is not absolutely free. We are limited by the natural and moral laws God has ordained even among Christians. We have to obey secular government but not our marriage partners, parents or elders? I believe scripture supports authority as long as it's right and good. Sometimes, like the exception of Sarah, you do things you shouldn't for the greater good, like Rahab, saving a donkey on the Sabbath, being circumcised to preach to the Jews, etc...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32310892

What do you think Jesus meant by "Not so among you"? Not so among some of you? Not so except when it involves wives and husbands? Not so unless we want church hierarchy as a sanctified worldly model?

Parents have TEMPORARY authority; bosses have TEMPORARY AND LIMITED authority; even government has TEMPORARY AND LIMITED authority, as any citizen can leave the country. But if you don't allow a Christian to leave the allege authority of a preacher (even if they change preachers), or a wife to ever not be under the authority of her husband, you are indeed speaking of IDOLATRY and BLASPHEMY; whoever is your master for life is your god.

What kind of Christian even WANTS to be obeyed by other adult believers? There is something evil and twisted about even the desire to rule over them, even benevolently, because it dissects the Body of Christ into many pieces. Which eye lords over the hand? Which toe lords over the leg? I don't care how nice they are, it is only The Head, Christ, who is Lord of all. Are we one Body or many? Which is the Biblical model, the body or a nicely polished chain?

Yes, I agree with you that hierarchy can be evil BUT hierarchy is also a force for good. God intended it that way for this fallen grasping world. I want what you describe but it will have to wait until all our hearts are purged from rebellion. What has been revealed is for this evil time where restraint and force are part of God's earthly management. Even Jesus submitted to the Father,

Luk_22:42 saying, "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done."
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32310892

Hierarchy is absent from within the Body of Christ; this is the clear and indisputable teaching of Jesus and the NT writers. We are one body of many parts, and one Head.

Was Jesus obeying a human in the Garden? Or was he modeling all humans' obedience to God? Bad analogy to prove your point, because it proves mine.

ADDED: Do you think the Holy Spirit cannot manage the Body of Christ? That even Christ cannot rule his own Body without help from sub-heads? Why are you still trying to nullify "not so among you" and apply the worldly model to the church?

Last Edited by Keep2theCode on 02/14/2013 06:55 AM
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Gal. 4:16)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21195758
United States
02/14/2013 07:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
The problem is not male or female. Right and wrong rather.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26268975


LOVE IS BLIND, BUT MARRIAGE IS AN EYE OPENER!
Keep2theCode (OP)

User ID: 20545539
United States
02/14/2013 07:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
The problem is not male or female. Right and wrong rather.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26268975


LOVE IS BLIND, BUT MARRIAGE IS AN EYE OPENER!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21195758


luv
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Gal. 4:16)
glpdude

User ID: 32310892
United States
02/14/2013 05:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
@ Keeptothecode

Before I continue, I just want to say thank you for the intelligent debate. It's gives me the opportunity to test my arguments to see if they hold. The best way to see if you have truth is to try and negate it. If it can withstand the cross arguments then you can be more confident that it is the truth.

Anyways, back to the debate...


"It is the door Rhoda "answered", not Peter; there is no escaping this when examining the sentence in Greek. She did not "obey" the door. You are reaching and stretching to make this into Rhoda obeying Peter, and even this is ridiculous, since Peter was not her boss or authority over the house."

>
It's a figure of speech. Of course it is the door Rhoda obeyed. Inserting the idea that Peter was her boss or authority is just silly. Nice way to misrepresent my argument though. Shows paranoia of males. The door knocker could have been a woman and the servant would've been responsible to obey the knocking request coming from the door. It's just that in English we don't use that figure of speech. We have our figures of speech, we say things such as, "get the door" or "answer the door". The translators often use our equivalent phrases to correspond meaning and intent.

-----


"What "role hierarchy"? It certainly isn't gender- or flesh-based in this incident, which has been my whole point. The fact that they switched places being the one giving orders is key: it was not anything based upon intrinsic qualities of the people, but the situation changing. What I'm arguing against is flesh-based, lifelong, permanent roles."

>
The role hierarchy or authority I'm arguing for, that I see in scripture, is not flesh based but Spiritually based within families. God assigned men headship regardless if they keep it. Men fail at it. So mentioning Abraham and Sarah challenging each other is not your best argument here. We see Abraham failing to lead by lying, sleeping with Hagar and not sending her out with her son. God had mercy on him and Sarah knew what was best. This is why roles can be switched.

-----

"You're switching sides again; just before this you argued that the roles changed without regard to the flesh of the person and their temporary, situation-based situation. Now you want Sarah's SINGLE use of 'lord' to mean 'authority' or boss for life. Which is it? If it's a "special honor", what practical difference did it make in how they lived? What good is an honorary title that means nothing in practice? It's rather like one of those cardboard crowns they give to children at Burger King.

I'll take your red herring and raise you one equivocation."

>
I like you here.:D lol ...Good argument, except this as I mentioned above is an out-of-sync example of headship because Abraham was crazy for even allowing the Hagar scheme in the first place. God had mercy, correcting him by using Sarah. Mutual submission happens when the head needs help. Generally when the head leads correctly, the obedience is no problem. Since men fail the women do help men. The burger king crown is on only when the king is acting like a child you might say.


------


"It proves that no flesh-based, lifelong, intrinsic authority existed between Abraham and Sarah, which completely negates the claim that Peter referred to them to illustrate husbandly rule over wife (benevolent or not). Try to remember the context"

>
Saying it proves it doesn't help me see how.


-----


"No, I'm not limiting anything but exposing the Strong's bias against any woman holding the title 'lord'. I used scripture and the dictionary YOU appeal to in order to arrive at the full semantic range. Now you want to apply what I argued about 'lord' to what I said about idolatry: IF one uses the "boss for life based on my flesh" meaning that misogynists are trying to put into Peter's mouth, THEN that usage is idolatry.

You keep trying to twist my arguments and are being inconsistent with your own."

>
What are talking about? Even the Septuagint uses the word kurios. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument here. You throwing out misogyny never proves anything. I can easily refute you then by calling everything against my view as Misandry.


-----


"What do you think Jesus meant by "Not so among you"? Not so among some of you? Not so except when it involves wives and husbands? Not so unless we want church hierarchy as a sanctified worldly model?

Parents have TEMPORARY authority; bosses have TEMPORARY AND LIMITED authority; even government has TEMPORARY AND LIMITED authority, as any citizen can leave the country. But if you don't allow a Christian to leave the allege authority of a preacher (even if they change preachers), or a wife to ever not be under the authority of her husband, you are indeed speaking of IDOLATRY and BLASPHEMY; whoever is your master for life is your god.

What kind of Christian even WANTS to be obeyed by other adult believers? There is something evil and twisted about even the desire to rule over them, even benevolently, because it dissects the Body of Christ into many pieces. Which eye lords over the hand? Which toe lords over the leg? I don't care how nice they are, it is only The Head, Christ, who is Lord of all. Are we one Body or many? Which is the Biblical model, the body or a nicely polished chain?"

>
1. I do know that "Not so among you" must be harmonized with parental, elder, marital hierarchical relationships. This was to correct "lording over" or abusing authority. Authority was given for good not for evil. To benefit the ones under their care. Sometimes the one in spiritual charge must be obeyed even if the person doesn't want to. You even see this with Moses and the Israelites, when God protecting Moses and his authority from the people who wanted to "equalize" his authority given to him uniquely.

Numbers 16
Num 16:3 They assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron and said to them, "You have gone too far! For all in the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?" ....

And Moses said to Korah, "Hear now, you sons of Levi: is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself, to do service in the tabernacle of the LORD and to stand before the congregation to minister to them, and that he has brought you near him, and all your brothers the sons of Levi with you? And would you seek the priesthood also? Therefore it is against the LORD that you and all your company have gathered together. What is Aaron that you grumble against him?" And Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and they said, "We will not come up. Is it a small thing that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, that you must also make yourself a prince over us? Moreover, you have not brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey, nor given us inheritance of fields and vineyards. Will you put out the eyes of these men? We will not come up." And Moses was very angry and said to the LORD, "Do not respect their offering. I have not taken one donkey from them, and I have not harmed one of them." ....Then Korah assembled all the congregation against them at the entrance of the tent of meeting. And the glory of the LORD appeared to all the congregation. And the LORD spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, "Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment." .... And Moses said, "Hereby you shall know that the LORD has sent me to do all these works, and that it has not been of my own accord. If these men die as all men die, or if they are visited by the fate of all mankind, then the LORD has not sent me. But if the LORD creates something new, and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol, then you shall know that these men have despised the LORD." And as soon as he had finished speaking all these words, the ground under them split apart.

My only point in bringing these verses up is show that God gives authority to those within His command. Husbands have special roles. Women have special roles. Elders have special roles. Children have a special roles. They are not equal but should be respected.

2. Temporal authority is still authority. I would argue that authority must be Biblical. In other words, elders, parents, husbands are to manage only according to scripture. The authority given is limited to righteousness. Never for evil. Even government. Limitations are what Jesus and His apostles clarified.

3. Your statement, "...There is something evil and twisted about even the desire to rule over them, even benevolently,.." So, is The Father twisted for desiring to rule over Jesus in the garden? The desire comes from your wanting what is best for them. People are not evil for wanting to help others for God. Parents leading children, Elders leading young believers and Husbands leading wives. Each out of love serving the Lord. You make authority and obedience = evil and sin. Teachers, police, military, etc.. do their job because they want to do something noble with their lives. Most men don't lead but if they wanted to the task is in loving, protecting, cleansing with the Word, providing, preaching, being a strong example, rebuking and praying. If God gives us this headship what is wrong? The abuses happen in any construct even in a egalitarian view. My view is that authority is revealed and scriptural. It's also voluntary.

"whoever is your master for life is your god." This statement is an absurd either/or fallacy since there were slaves who were never freed but their masters were not considered their god. Having authority over someone does not always constitute idolatry or god. Caretakers can be distinguished from gods. smh



------



"Hierarchy is absent from within the Body of Christ; this is the clear and indisputable teaching of Jesus and the NT writers. We are one body of many parts, and one Head.

Was Jesus obeying a human in the Garden? Or was he modeling all humans' obedience to God? Bad analogy to prove your point, because it proves mine.

ADDED: Do you think the Holy Spirit cannot manage the Body of Christ? That even Christ cannot rule his own Body without help from sub-heads? Why are you still trying to nullify "not so among you" and apply the worldly model to the church? "

>
It doesn't prove your point because the body part analogy was emphasizing the differences that must be respected and considered. It proves my point.

Jesus in the garden submitted even when He challenged the Father. This proves my point that Godly role authority is Biblical and Godly. Your view has authority being twisted even if benevolent. I don't see that at all.

The Holy Spirit does what the Father wants Him to do.

Joh_14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

God uses authority among Christians, the world and even among the Godhead. I'm sorry you don't like it. I understand , like I said, I've been there. So, unless you have a knock down argument I haven't considered, I think this has run its course. Whether you can see my point or not I am not seeing yours as clearly as you do. I wish I could because I like the idea. I do see this authority statute unnecessary for our eternal state. As marriage won't be necessary either. The accepted roles will not need to be sanctioned but fully innate.
cmoG530

User ID: 34131531
United States
02/14/2013 05:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
God's Instruction For Women

Titus 2:3-5
3) The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

4) That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

5) To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.


1 Timothy 2:9-15
9) In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10) But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11) Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13) For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15) Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.


1 Thessalonians 5:22
22) Abstain from all appearance of evil.


Proverbs 31:30
30) Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain:

but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.


Proverbs 31:10-12
10) Who can find a virtuous woman?

for her price is far above rubies.

11) The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her,

so that he shall have no need of spoil.

12) She will do him good and not evil

all the days of her life.


Proverbs 31:19-20
19) She layeth her hands to the spindle,

and her hands hold the distaff.

20) She stretcheth out her hand to the poor;

yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.


Proverbs 31:25-28
25) Strength and honour are her clothing;

and she shall rejoice in time to come.

26) She openeth her mouth with wisdom;

and in her tongue is the law of kindness.

27) She looketh well to the ways of her household,

and eateth not the bread of idleness.

28) Her children arise up, and call her blessed;

her husband also, and he praiseth her.


1 Corinthians 11:1-15
1) Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

2) Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

3) But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

4) Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5) But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6) For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7) For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8) For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

9) Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

10) For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

11) Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12) For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

13) Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

14) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.


1 Timothy 5:6
6) But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
(This is to say, that a woman who lives according to the flesh, is dead. Emotionally, mentally and spiritually)


1 Peter 3:1-7
1) Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2) While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3) Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4) But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

5) For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

6) Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

7) Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.


Ephesians 5:21-33
21) Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

22) Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23) For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24) Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25) Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26) That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27) That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28) So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29) For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30) For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32) This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33) Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Isaiah 9:6 KJV
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Mark 16:16 KJV
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Acts 2:38 KJV
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Romans 8:6-9 KJV
6) For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7) Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8) So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Matthew 15:8-9 KJV
8) This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9) But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Acts 5:29 KJV
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

"The biggest sign from God, to let us all know that man can never be God? Death." - Anonymous
glpdude

User ID: 32310892
United States
02/14/2013 05:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
@ keep2thecode

I discovered I don't like the term hierarchy. I much more prefer the term "role authority" in interpreting the authorities given to the church and family structures. The term allows and clarifies that roles exist but can change, such as with age and marriage. It's functional and can be organic. Hierarchy sounds too cold and business like. That's not the type of authority I see there.
Keep2theCode (OP)

User ID: 20545539
United States
02/14/2013 07:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
@ Keeptothecode

Before I continue, I just want to say thank you for the intelligent debate. It's gives me the opportunity to test my arguments to see if they hold. The best way to see if you have truth is to try and negate it. If it can withstand the cross arguments then you can be more confident that it is the truth.
 Quoting: glpdude

You're quite welcome, and the same to you.

It's a figure of speech. Of course it is the door Rhoda obeyed. Inserting the idea that Peter was her boss or authority is just silly. Nice way to misrepresent my argument though. Shows paranoia of males. The door knocker could have been a woman and the servant would've been responsible to obey the knocking request coming from the door. It's just that in English we don't use that figure of speech. We have our figures of speech, we say things such as, "get the door" or "answer the door". The translators often use our equivalent phrases to correspond meaning and intent.
 Quoting: glpdude

Doors cannot be obeyed; they have no authority. And what I was pointing out about Peter is that he was the only person anyone could possibly say Rhoda "obeyed". Look again at why I mentioned him. So no, I did NOT misrepresent your argument (it was a hypothetical addition), and I am not suffering from paranoia of males. Nice ad hominem. It's one thing to say someone is stretching a point but quite another to cast aspersions on their motives for making it. After that nice intro, it's quite a cheap shot.

You have to already know that I understand figures of speech, but the point again is this: the door has no authority; it cannot be obeyed, listened to, or answered. Remember why you used this as an example? To argue in favor of the Greek word meaning "obey". In spite of both of us knowing "answer the door" means "go see who's there", you have argued that it means the door can be obeyed; I find this laughable.


The role hierarchy or authority I'm arguing for, that I see in scripture, is not flesh based but Spiritually based within families. God assigned men headship regardless if they keep it. Men fail at it. So mentioning Abraham and Sarah challenging each other is not your best argument here. We see Abraham failing to lead by lying, sleeping with Hagar and not sending her out with her son. God had mercy on him and Sarah knew what was best. This is why roles can be switched.
 Quoting: glpdude

Maleness is a flesh-based quality, for life. This is mutually exclusive to gift/spirit-based qualities. To be assigned anything at all due solely to one's flesh is what flesh-based means.

And what is "headship" but a made-up word? It is not in scripture in any form, and the Greek word for "head", kephale, never meant boss or authority. It was either the literal head or the figurative "source" as in the "head of a river". Paul used the head/body analogy and twice called the head the source from which the whole body grows. I examine this issue of husband as "head" thoroughly in my other articles, esp. the Commentary on 1 Corinthians.

And as with "lording over", it matters not one bit how well or poorly men wield this imaginary "headship". Abraham and Sarah challenging each other is exactly what proves by example that what Peter said about her use of the word 'lord' is that it was not a title of authority he always held over her, however he might have handled the job. How that isn't my "best argument", I'll never know. You even seem to switch back again to agreeing that this 'lord' was nothing but an honorary title at best, so this undermines your whole argument for what Peter was telling Christian wives.

I like you here.:D lol ...Good argument, except this as I mentioned above is an out-of-sync example of headship because Abraham was crazy for even allowing the Hagar scheme in the first place. God had mercy, correcting him by using Sarah. Mutual submission happens when the head needs help. Generally when the head leads correctly, the obedience is no problem. Since men fail the women do help men. The burger king crown is on only when the king is acting like a child you might say.
 Quoting: glpdude

This is a good example of equivocation: "mutual means one-way 'headship'". No, mutuality, by definition, cannot have "headship"; it's either mutual or it isn't. Boss/helper is NOT mutuality as in equal. If he's always in charge, and she's always the helper, what kind of equality or mutuality is that? If I get to post here but you only get to proofread and email me with typo corrections, is that "mutual" or equal? Not in the slightest. I may benefit, but what do you get except the sheer joy of correcting me?

True equality and mutuality is like the left and right hands; they are mirror images of each other with neither bossing the other. They are more alike than different. They benefit each other and both get their orders from the head, not each other. I don't know how else to explain this. Bottom line is that it is the fallacy of equivocation to turn equality into one-way "headship".

"It proves that no flesh-based, lifelong, intrinsic authority existed between Abraham and Sarah, which completely negates the claim that Peter referred to them to illustrate husbandly rule over wife (benevolent or not). Try to remember the context"

>
Saying it proves it doesn't help me see how.
 Quoting: glpdude

I've run out of ways to say it, sorry.

What are talking about? Even the Septuagint uses the word kurios. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument here. You throwing out misogyny never proves anything. I can easily refute you then by calling everything against my view as Misandry.
 Quoting: glpdude

All I can do at this point is ask you to read it again.


1. I do know that "Not so among you" must be harmonized with parental, elder, marital hierarchical relationships. This was to correct "lording over" or abusing authority. Authority was given for good not for evil. To benefit the ones under their care. Sometimes the one in spiritual charge must be obeyed even if the person doesn't want to. You even see this with Moses and the Israelites, when God protecting Moses and his authority from the people who wanted to "equalize" his authority given to him uniquely.
 Quoting: glpdude

Harmonized with the world, no. It's impossible to do that without directly defying Jesus' clear words against the world's ways. He never said that the world's chain of command was only bad because it was handled harshly or imperfectly; he just said the whole structure was bad, and that his kingdom was the exact opposite in structure.

Let me emphasize that I've been talking this whole time about the church, the Body of Christ, not the surrounding culture or society. We are not the world, we are a "new creation" wherein there is no "male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Jesus wiped the slate clean and turned "roles" on their heads (there's that word again). This is beginning to remind me of Orwell's Animal Farm, where "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". Equal means equal, not sanctified inequality, and certainly not silly role playing. Unlike that song, we are NOT the world.

There's care, there's leading by example, there's protection.. but NONE of those require authority. The guards on the city walls are not the kings and magistrates; doctors are not governors; shepherds are not necessarily owners. Moses had authority as a prophet of God, and the apostles had authority as Jesus' inner circle charged with establishing the church. But who after that has the same authority? Who else can add to scripture? I cringe at the thought of anyone today blindly obeying the average pastor as they would Moses or Peter!

The point once again being this: It is fallacious to try to compare the authority of God, Jesus, Moses, or Peter with that of a pastor or husband. Apples and oranges.

Another point is that I'm talking about the church, the Body of Christ-- NOT Israel. You cannot get doctrine for the NT from the OT. The purpose of the NT is to give us "the teachings of the apostles", and it is their authority we obey. The Holy Spirit is given to ALL believers, who will recognize a truly gifted teacher and learn from them. Then, when they do, they too can become teachers. See? Temporary, nurturing, and serving without permanent authority.


My only point in bringing these verses up is show that God gives authority to those within His command. Husbands have special roles. Women have special roles. Elders have special roles. Children have a special roles. They are not equal but should be respected.
 Quoting: glpdude

Husbands do NOT have "special roles", especially ones that just happen to always look like authority over wives. She is not a child or slave but a grown human being! And I find it disgusting for any sexual relationship to involve one-way authority. Paul actually only spoke of spousal authority as completely mutual and equal: each one has rights to the other's body. That's it. Again, read my commentary for details. Any "role" based solely upon the flesh and for life (unlike the others you tried to equate: elders and parents) is a matter of being, not role playing. "Woman" is not a game I play, it's who I am. And again, no Christian should even want to rule over another adult; didn't we learn anything from the sin of racism? Why is sexism somehow different? See [link to www.fether.net]


2. Temporal authority is still authority. I would argue that authority must be Biblical. In other words, elders, parents, husbands are to manage only according to scripture. The authority given is limited to righteousness. Never for evil. Even government. Limitations are what Jesus and His apostles clarified.
 Quoting: glpdude

Again, focus on the scope here: the church, the Body of Christ. Tell me again which arm rules over the eye? Our authority is the Holy Spirit and the scriptures; if you're neither of those, you don't have it. Period.


3. Your statement, "...There is something evil and twisted about even the desire to rule over them, even benevolently,.." So, is The Father twisted for desiring to rule over Jesus
 Quoting: glpdude

Stop right there! If you want to dissect the Trinity and push "eternal sonship", I've got plenty of material to refute that, even against the popular author John MacArthur. This is the old Arian heresy in sheep's clothing. Jesus is the God/Man, the incarnate God, in whom "the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily". Are you familiar with the term "hypostatic union"? See [link to www.fether.net] . Either there is one God or there are three; either Jesus is equal in being to the Father or he is not; either we remember that Jesus BECAME the son at a point in time ("you are my son, today I have become your father") or we ignore it just to prop up the phrase "separate but equal" (the slaves saw through that easily enough, and it isn't any less transparent to women). Look at Phil. 2:5-11 and tell me what it is that Jesus BECAME or TOOK UPON HIMSELF at a point in time, which means it could not have been an eternal lower rank. And what about the Holy Spirit? Third God in line?


People are not evil for wanting to help others for God. Parents leading children, Elders leading young believers and Husbands leading wives. Each out of love serving the Lord. You make authority and obedience = evil and sin. Teachers, police, military, etc.. do their job because they want to do something noble with their lives. Most men don't lead but if they wanted to the task is in loving, protecting, cleansing with the Word, providing, preaching, being a strong example, rebuking and praying. If God gives us this headship what is wrong? The abuses happen in any construct even in a egalitarian view. My view is that authority is revealed and scriptural. It's also voluntary.
 Quoting: glpdude

Who is objecting to helping others? Straw man. Are children under parental authority for life, as adults? Are elders bosses over young believers, or are they mentors and teachers who we'd be wise to emulate and learn from? And PLEASE try to remember that we're talking about the Body of Christ, not the world.

Mutual, equal, gift-based service!


"whoever is your master for life is your god." This statement is an absurd either/or fallacy since there were slaves who were never freed but their masters were not considered their god. Having authority over someone does not always constitute idolatry or god. Caretakers can be distinguished from gods. smh
 Quoting: glpdude

::eyes rolling::
Well, at least you're admitting the parallel between slavery and "headship". Once again: this all goes back to YOUR using Peter's statement about Sarah calling Abraham 'lord', which IF we use your "obey as God" definition, WOULD BE idolatry. You seem to keep forgetting who it is that drew the connection in the first place.

It doesn't prove your point because the body part analogy was emphasizing the differences that must be respected and considered. It proves my point.

Jesus in the garden submitted even when He challenged the Father. This proves my point that Godly role authority is Biblical and Godly. Your view has authority being twisted even if benevolent. I don't see that at all.

The Holy Spirit does what the Father wants Him to do.
 Quoting: glpdude

::face palm::

Really, this is ridiculous. One body proves MY point that the parts do not boss each other, even nicely! And if you want to make the Holy Spirit a third-ranking God, see [link to books.fether.net]

God uses authority among Christians, the world and even among the Godhead. I'm sorry you don't like it. I understand , like I said, I've been there. So, unless you have a knock down argument I haven't considered, I think this has run its course. Whether you can see my point or not I am not seeing yours as clearly as you do. I wish I could because I like the idea. I do see this authority statute unnecessary for our eternal state. As marriage won't be necessary either. The accepted roles will not need to be sanctioned but fully innate.
 Quoting: glpdude

No. If you truly believe that there is rank or hierarchy in the Trinity, you are arguing for Tritheism or "three gods". That is heresy.

Agree, it has run its course; we're going in circles now. But thanks for at least not calling me Jezebel.

Last Edited by Keep2theCode on 02/14/2013 07:33 PM
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Gal. 4:16)
Life and Love

User ID: 26735250
United States
02/14/2013 07:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
And what is "headship" but a made-up word? It is not in scripture in any form, and the Greek word for "head", kephale, never meant boss or authority. It was either the literal head or the figurative "source" as in the "head of a river". Paul used the head/body analogy and twice called the head the source from which the whole body grows. I examine this issue of husband as "head" thoroughly in my other articles, esp. the Commentary on 1 Corinthians.
 Quoting: Keep2theCode


Exactly. I think of the term "fountainhead," which given the culture in Jesus' day is very, very true. A woman had little access to society except through a man (Husband, brother, father). They were her "source" or "fountainhead," just as Jesus should be to us.
We become like that to which we are devoted. Choose wisely.
Keep2theCode (OP)

User ID: 20545539
United States
02/14/2013 07:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
And what is "headship" but a made-up word? It is not in scripture in any form, and the Greek word for "head", kephale, never meant boss or authority. It was either the literal head or the figurative "source" as in the "head of a river". Paul used the head/body analogy and twice called the head the source from which the whole body grows. I examine this issue of husband as "head" thoroughly in my other articles, esp. the Commentary on 1 Corinthians.
 Quoting: Keep2theCode


Exactly. I think of the term "fountainhead," which given the culture in Jesus' day is very, very true. A woman had little access to society except through a man (Husband, brother, father). They were her "source" or "fountainhead," just as Jesus should be to us.
 Quoting: Life and Love


Exactly. Women of the time hardly needed to be told to obey their husbands, as any woman who didn't quickly died or was beaten. So either Paul had to be overstating the obvious over and over, or he is badly misunderstood, just as Peter said was the case even in that day.
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Gal. 4:16)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2183540
United States
02/14/2013 07:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
Its pretty simple- honor your mother and father, and cleave to your wife after leaving your parents.
Keep2theCode (OP)

User ID: 20545539
United States
02/14/2013 07:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
Its pretty simple- honor your mother and father, and cleave to your wife after leaving your parents.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2183540


It really is. But people go to great lengths to complicate things, so sometimes it requires great lengths to untie the knots.
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Gal. 4:16)
Life and Love

User ID: 26735250
United States
02/14/2013 07:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
And what is "headship" but a made-up word? It is not in scripture in any form, and the Greek word for "head", kephale, never meant boss or authority. It was either the literal head or the figurative "source" as in the "head of a river". Paul used the head/body analogy and twice called the head the source from which the whole body grows. I examine this issue of husband as "head" thoroughly in my other articles, esp. the Commentary on 1 Corinthians.
 Quoting: Keep2theCode


Exactly. I think of the term "fountainhead," which given the culture in Jesus' day is very, very true. A woman had little access to society except through a man (Husband, brother, father). They were her "source" or "fountainhead," just as Jesus should be to us.
 Quoting: Life and Love


Exactly. Women of the time hardly needed to be told to obey their husbands, as any woman who didn't quickly died or was beaten. So either Paul had to be overstating the obvious over and over, or he is badly misunderstood, just as Peter said was the case even in that day.
 Quoting: Keep2theCode


So the real issue for us to examine is this: "Is Jesus really our 'source,' or is someone/something else?"

And since we continually changing the way we think about things (metanoia), perhaps a better phrasing would be, "To what extent have we submitted to Jesus being our 'Source?'"
We become like that to which we are devoted. Choose wisely.
Keep2theCode (OP)

User ID: 20545539
United States
02/14/2013 07:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
So the real issue for us to examine is this: "Is Jesus really our 'source,' or is someone/something else?"

And since we continually changing the way we think about things (metanoia), perhaps a better phrasing would be, "To what extent have we submitted to Jesus being our 'Source?'"
 Quoting: Life and Love


True dat. Too many Christians have been conditioned to be co-dependents, relying on a church/pastor/spouse or whatever rather than the Holy Spirit and the Word. If our faith can't stand alone, it isn't ours.
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Gal. 4:16)
Life and Love

User ID: 26735250
United States
02/14/2013 07:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
So the real issue for us to examine is this: "Is Jesus really our 'source,' or is someone/something else?"

And since we continually changing the way we think about things (metanoia), perhaps a better phrasing would be, "To what extent have we submitted to Jesus being our 'Source?'"
 Quoting: Life and Love


True dat. Too many Christians have been conditioned to be co-dependents, relying on a church/pastor/spouse or whatever rather than the Holy Spirit and the Word. If our faith can't stand alone, it isn't ours.
 Quoting: Keep2theCode


For the past few months, I've phrased it, "To whom are you 'responsive?'" Or "becoming more fully responsive to God."

To paraphrase the familiar scripture: Faith without works, that is, without expressing our responsiveness to God, is dead, that is, dead to God.

Of course works without faith is just as "dead," just as unresponsive to God.
We become like that to which we are devoted. Choose wisely.
Keep2theCode (OP)

User ID: 20545539
United States
02/14/2013 07:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
For the past few months, I've phrased it, "To whom are you 'responsive?'" Or "becoming more fully responsive to God."

To paraphrase the familiar scripture: Faith without works, that is, without expressing our responsiveness to God, is dead, that is, dead to God.

Of course works without faith is just as "dead," just as unresponsive to God.
 Quoting: Life and Love


Good phrase.

People often confuse what it means to be "born" and what it means to "grow". Birth happens at a moment in time, and spiritual birth does as well, though by choice through accepting a gift. But growth is not guaranteed, because that too is by choice. Failure to grow does not mean we were never born, but it does mean something is terribly wrong. Such people need help, not condemnation as is all too common. But if we are "responsive" as you put it, we will grow.
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Gal. 4:16)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 10858311
United States
02/15/2013 03:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
About Sarah - She was Abraham's half sister so he didn't ask her to lie, and she didn't lie that he was her brother. I think it's supposed to be a case of not trusting God enough to protect Abraham from Pharoah because didn't he already have God's promise? [it's easier to look it up than write all this , but I don't want to right now.] God did intervene, however to show king they were married.

It was Sarah that suggested the Hagar solution, since she didn't see how it could be her that the promised seed would come through, after such a long wait.

Ishmael was taunting Isaac , and for fear he would harm him psychologically or even physically she wanted to send them away. Also Hagar had contempt for Sarah because of her new status as mother of A.'s firstborn, which might lead to similar problems. God said to obey [or 'hear her and act'?] Sarah because she was right about a the seriousness of a situation that she was more aware of than Abraham. Sending them away was a solution to a problem they wouldn't have had if they'd fully trusted God to fulfill his promise, but he still helped them. [And Hagar when she called out to him for help.]

Genesis 18:12
12 Hence Sarah began to laugh inside herself,+ saying: “After I am worn out, shall I really have pleasure, my lord* being old besides?”+
So she even really thought of him as her master and "called him lord in her heart", voluntarily. She followed him when they left Ur, to become strangers in a strange land, living in tents. They weren't under the Mosaic law then , but the "Law of the Patriarchs". [thus not yet incestuous, at least at that degree of relatedness, -and thus some other evidence of mindsets we find strange today.] Even with Mosaic law a husband was the owner of his wife, but I don't think we ever see Abraham "lording it over" Sarah.

I was told by another woman in my congregation that man and woman being "complementary", meant that they don't compete, especially husband and wife. They're on the same team, against the whole world if necessary, except where that would conflict with God's law, if they follow his law.-- I don't know the specific scripture, if there is one.
Similarly, don't know scripture in support of this other thing from a similar source: That Eve was deceived and Adam not, because he had been around ,even 30-some years or so, talking directly to -and learning from- God and Adam was supposed to ,in turn, teach Eve. Humans have few natural instincts compared to animals, and must learn "good and evil" or beneficial and not beneficial- from God, as he says, "I am THE ONE teaching you to benefit yourselves."

I think you are very right when you say that God didn't curse them,but only predicted the woes that would ensue for them. Including wives being "dominated" [excessively controlling] by husbands , but still craving [excessively needy] them.

About answering a door-
King James Version (KJV)
Rev. 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, [or answer the door] I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."
And-
Luke 13:25 when once the householder has got up and locked the door, and YOU start to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Sir, open to us.’+ But in answer he will say to YOU, ‘I do not know where YOU are from.’+ 26 Then YOU will start saying, ‘We ate and drank in front of you, and you taught in our broad ways.’+ 27 But he will speak and say to YOU, ‘I do not know where YOU are from. Get away from me, all YOU workers of unrighteousness!’+
--The householder doesn't open to a stranger.
So in the example about Peter, did the servant "obey the door" in that 1.she heard Peter, 2.recognized his voice, and therefore 3.answered the door.

Some rough quotes: "My sheep know my [the shepherds] voice". "The sheep know the shepherd. By no means will they follow [or submit themselves to] a stranger." "All those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out" When Jesus resurrected Lazarus he ordered him "Lazarus, come on out!" And said another time Talitha Cumi! [Young girl get up!] And these already dead persons obeyed his commands.

I don't know much about Greek but I know from Latin submit is from 2 roots meaning send under. If you submit yourself to someone you 'send yourself under' them. And if you're voluntarily part of a a united body, you are under a head, -unless you are the head- so you have submitted yourself to the head. If a wife and husband are one flesh, but he is the head, she is under him.

Ephesians 5:33
33 Nevertheless, also, let each one of YOU individually so love his wife+ as he does himself; on the other hand, the wife should have deep respect+ for her husband.
"Weaker vessel" could be like fine porcelain, relatively fragile [in general,more emotional.] but even more valued for that. Not to be treated roughly, but kept safe and out of the fray. " Less earning power", as you say, seems like it fits into that too.
Going by that Ephesians 5:33 above and other scriptures, I think, [too tired to look up rt. now] women need to know they are loved . The following are just my thoughts so please don't blame anybody else: Love is a miraculous gift of god and men's capacity to love and pity and be self-sacrificing for those that depend on them, even when they aren't appreciated for it, is worthy of deep respect. They know their wives better than wives know themselves sometimes because -in the case of my household, my husband is aware he has to take up the slack for things I "can't" do [according to a tacit "understanding" we seem to have], whereas I'm mostly blithely "unaware", as it suits me to be, on a day to day basis. He's like God in this respect- God knows our limitations, our imaginary "entitlement", and imaginary competence and independence from him, and loves and pities us anyway.
Oh and do you think I show him any respect? Please! [But I do respect him, just "too good" to show it all the time.]
I was as hardboiled , paranoid, and "tough"as I thought it was my duty as a woman to be for many years before I learned the Bible perspective and decided to experimentally suspend disbelief and see if there was any truth in it.
I now believe men need to be respected as Ephesians suggests, and respecting them might come naturally if you really look at the situation. [Of course I know it's not true in every case, and I realize in the end times now there is relatively speaking, "no natural affection" and plenty of horrible situations.] If they aren't respected, they will be passive-aggressive or worse.

I do know what you're talking about on thread is mainly '"women not supposed to teach in the congregation", but GLP isn't "the congregation".
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 34370993
United States
02/15/2013 03:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
Many criticisms of the Bible, especially Christianity, are based upon what I believe are gross misunderstandings. The worst part is that many of these are perpetuated by Christian teachers. But truth to tell, there has been bias and tampering since the apostles died, which should come as no surprise to anyone who has read their words.(1)

Many squabble over which version of ancient texts are best, or which translations. But anyone familiar with linguistics, translation, and textual transmission will tell you how ridiculous such squabbles are, and how inherently imprecise the whole exercise of understanding ancient writings truly is. There is always "something lost in translation", even when you have the originals in front of you, and even if no one disputed the content. And if this is true of the fairly technical side of things, it is much more true of the interpretation side.

With that background I'd like to focus on this one very controversial topic. Given that misogyny and patriarchy have been the overwhelming norm throughout history, bias in that direction is to be expected; it is female equality (let alone the much-rarer superiority) that is "counter-cultural" and in need of a fair trial. The Bible was not written in a vacuum, and just as teachings today may have many good points in them, the bias of the writers can still taint the teachings to some extent. We should be sure to note that God worked through and around people throughout history, rather than yanking people into line or micromanaging them. Thus some things were permitted that were never God's intent.(2)

I'm going to approach this post by listing common misconceptions and giving a concise response to each.(3)

---Adam ruled Eve because he was made first. If being first means having authority, then the animals all had authority over Adam. If being last means having authority, then Eve had authority over Adam. It is the fallacy of "special pleading" to make creation order a basis for authority only in one case.

---Adam ruled Eve because she was made from him. Adam was made from dust. Is dust therefore superior to Adam? Instead, being made of the very same "flesh and bone" as Adam made Eve his absolute equal. Adam focused on Eve's sameness, not her difference.

---Adam ruled Eve because she was his helper. The Hebrew word for "help" means "a strong ally" and is also used of God. There is no hint of inferiority on the part of the helper; in fact, it is the one being helped that lacks strength or ability. (Gen. 2:18)

---Adam ruled Eve because he called her "woman". The slave woman Hagar gave God a name. (Gen. 2:23, 16:13)

---Eve lusted after Adam's authority before she was tempted. There is not one hint in the entire Bible to back up this claim; it is a man-made myth. There is no scripture between the creation of Eve and her temptation, and neither she nor the serpent mentioned Adam during or after the temptation. No NT writer even hints at such a thing.

---Adam was unaware of the temptation or the source of the fruit. He was there with her and heard her voice as she was tempted. When she handed him the fruit he ate it even though he knew where it came from. If Eve had been tempting or tricking Adam, then it was she and not the serpent who was the real deceiver, making Adam the deceived. And there is not the slightest hint anywhere in the Bible of Eve using "feminine wiles" to seduce Adam. (Gen. 3:6, 17, 1 Tim. 2:13)

---Adam is shown to rule over Eve since God confronts him first. The confrontation is in the order of a typical philosophical argument, where statements are made leading to a central point and then traced back in reverse order. Scripture shows this to be man–woman–serpent–woman–man. So the order has nothing to do with rule but only with making a point. And the point was the serpent's curse and the accompanying prophecy of a Savior through the woman's seed alone. Eve is thus honored with truly being the "help" that Adam needed.

---Adam is charged with bringing sin into the world because he was the "federal head" of the human race. Scripture never gives Adam this title or anything like it, and does not say why sin is attributed to him alone. Yet consider these facts: both he and Eve ate the fruit and thus became mortal, but only Adam blamed the woman and God for his sin. While Eve is only said to have been deceived, Adam is said to have rebelled against God and dealt treacherously with Him. And if they base this "federal head" belief on the statement in Hebrews about Levi being credited with giving a tithe since he was "still in the body of his ancestor" Abraham when Abraham tithed to Melchizedek, they need to answer the question of why any of Abraham's descendants needed to tithe, or how Levi could literally have existed in Abraham when a person is not created till sperm meets egg. Also, if Adam was Eve's "federal head" before sin, then God would not have confronted her at all but only Adam. (Hosea 6:7, Job 31:33, Heb. 7:10)

---Adam's rule over Eve was made harsh after sin. There is no hint of Adam having authority over Eve before sin, and God never told Adam he must now rule better or more strongly. In addition, the statement was made to Eve, and it was not a command but a prediction of the consequences of her choice to follow Adam out of the garden. Only Adam was ordered out, and only Adam was told he would return to the dust from which he alone was taken, which God cursed on his account alone. Neither he nor Eve were ever cursed. (Gen. 3:19-24)

---Eve was cursed with labor pain and subservience to Adam. The verse about pain in childbirth is more accurately rendered "a snare has increased your sorrow and sighing; in sorrow you will bear children, and your turning will be to your husband, who will rule over you." Note that she was indeed snared or tricked, and also that it would be her husband, not anything he allegedly possessed, that she would desire or turn toward. And because of this she would be ruled over by him. This was in the future tense for both her desire and his rule, proving that neither previously existed. Even in the traditional rendering, the word "curse" is not used with Eve as it was with Adam and the serpent; God never told Eve "Because you have done this…". And how could God increase her labor pains if she had not yet given birth? Even if she had, was birth supposed to have pain before sin? (Gen. 3:16)

---Adam was given rule over Eve because she was deceived. This makes no sense whatsoever. Adam sinned deliberately and without excuse, and showed no concern or responsibility for Eve while she was being tempted. If Eve had been made by God with a deceivable nature, how could she have been "a suitable helper" for Adam? And if all women are to be labeled as deceivable, then all men are to be labeled as poor leaders and rebels against God who always pass blame. To think God rewarded Adam for his rebellion and inaction, and cursed Eve for being tricked, is to turn God into Satan. And again, God never granted this rule to Adam; it was a prediction to Eve concerning the choice she would make. We must also not forget that the Savior was promised through her seed alone. Would God send His Son through the inherently deceivable? Why did He have to be born of a virgin?

---God never used women as leaders unless there were no men available. None of the references to women in leadership are ever said to be God's last resort or evidence of a divine curse or punishment. The lone verse that allegedly says so is very badly translated; even if it weren't, one verse is hardly enough to overturn the unchanging basics of the faith such as the Golden Rule and "not so among you". (Ex. 15:20, Judges 4:4-5:12, 2 Kings 22:14, 2 Chronicles 34:22, Isaiah 3:12)

---God never condemned patriarchy. He also never condemned polygamy, slavery, rape, pedophilia, and a lot of other things. He never intended for Israel to have a human king but gave them one because they nagged him. We see throughout scripture God's pattern of making concessions, of working through and around humanity instead of immediately condemning every sin or weakness. Whenever God did intervene, we observe that He chose the young over the old, the weak over the strong, and the small and insignificant over the great and powerful. We also see His compassion and mercy, His offer to "come and reason". So His silence is not an indicator of approval but of patience and mercy. (1 Sam. 6:6-9)

---Jesus was male, and all his inner group of disciples were male. Jesus, as well as the disciples, were also all Jews, all speaking Aramaic. Why aren't these other qualities cited as proof that Christian leaders must be Jewish and speak Aramaic? And why was only Judas ever replaced among the Twelve? Why isn't a group of twelve required in every church? There is also proof that the Twelve were to be mapped to the twelve tribes of Israel, not to any sort of church structure. (Rev. 21:12-14)

---Jesus never condemned male supremacy. As with the claim about patriarchy, there were many other things Jesus never spoke out against, not even the Roman government. He also did not rebuke Mary for sitting at His feet to learn, and if male supremacists are consistent, they have to take that to mean Jesus approves of female theology students. And to be under a rabbi like that meant the student was expected to eventually take the place of a rabbi as well, so that means Jesus approves of women as pastors. Either arguments from silence are legitimate across the board, or they are not. (Luke 10:39)

---None of the Bible was written by a woman. Who is the author of Hebrews? Some historians believe there is evidence of "a conspiracy of silence" because the author was a woman, most likely Priscilla. Who wrote Esther? Ruth? We should also note that none of the Bible was written by a Gentile or a sea captain or a court jester. How many women were taught to write? How many should we expect from a patriarchal society? Does God ever say why He does things like commending the bravery of a prostitute (or possibly, an inn keeper, which in patriarchal thinking is a greater sin than prostitution since she ran a business without male oversight!) and allowing the Savior to be born of her line? So again we must ask why something like this is taken as tacit approval of male supremacy by God. (Joshua 6:25, Mt. 1:5)

---The "plain reading" of scripture says women can't teach men. That same "plain reading" also says that we should pluck out our eye if it causes us to sin, that we should take wine for our stomach problems, that we should wash each other's feet, that we should greet each other with a holy kiss, that our only debt should be love, and that "the first will be last and the last will be first". And if anyone tries to cry "context" in defense of their "plain reading" they have defeated their own argument. More questions for "plain reading" and consistency: Why does a woman need a head covering to signify male rule if she can only pray and prophecy in private or among other women? Where does God ever tell godly women they are in sin if they teach truth?

---Males must guard females from error and deception. The Holy Spirit cannot do the job? Who is guarding all those men teaching error? How many women compared to men have started false religions? How many women have been popes or imams? How many men have fallen for tricksters and embezzlers? And where is the scripture that states men must guard women from deception? Why are women allowed to teach children, who are the most easily deceived?

---Men and women are equal in being but have complementary "roles" where the man leads and the woman follows. If two people are equal in being or essence, there cannot be permanent hierarchy between them on the basis of essential qualities of being. That is, if someone is held to a permanent subservient role, based upon their flesh in some way, then that person is inferior by definition. Temporary hierarchies, such as employer/employee or parent/child, do not violate this rule because the employee can change jobs and the child can grow up. But slavery is defined as "submission to a dominating influence; the state of a person who is a chattel of another" (Webster's). A slave can be freed but is at the mercy of the owner. Though the slave is acknowledged to be as fully human as the owner, the slave is nonetheless held to be inferior in being. A "role" is, by definition, a part to play or a function to perform. The latter is held by male supremacism as meaning a woman's role is to submit permanently to a man for no other reason than the flesh (the physical). Yet because it is based upon a permanent and intrinsic quality, it defines the woman as inferior to the man. It is held that this leader/follower relationship is "complementary" between equals, but this amounts to defining equal as unequal, since the woman can never outrank the man in return. Truly equal complementation would be between friends or co-workers who each have different skills or jobs, or like the cooperation between the left and right hands.

---The man is the head of the family. Scripture never says this; it only says the husband is the head of his wife. But "head" in Greek never meant ruler or boss; the head/body metaphor was an expression of unity. If it meant boss, then the Bible would be ordering wives to "serve two masters", especially since male supremacism insists that a wife is to obey her husband "as to the Lord".

---No woman is ever addressed in scripture as a pastor. No man is ever addressed in scripture as a pastor. No NT letter is ever addressed to an individual having a title— except 2 John, which is addressed to a woman he calls "the chosen master" (lit. Greek). Many are called "apostles" (lit. "sent out"), including Junia, and many are called "servants" or "ministers" (all from the Greek word diaconos), including Phoebe. And "pastor", mentioned only once in the entire NT, is a spiritual gift, not an office or title. (Rom. 16:1, 7, Eph. 4:11)

---An elder must be a man. By the method used to determine this, then an elder must also be married, have well-behaved children, and do a good job of protecting the home. This would disqualify Paul, Timothy, and many others. Paul's list of qualities are exactly that: qualities of character, not matters of the flesh. And that same word for provide and protect in 1 Tim. 3:4, proistemi, is used of Phoebe. By this same method, the Great Commission would only be for men since it involves preaching the gospel, teaching, and baptizing. (Mt. 28:19-20, Rom. 16:2, 1 Tim. 3)

---A husband plays the role of Father to his wife's role of Son.That is blasphemy and idolatry, not to mention symbolic pedophilia. No believer is ever told to play God to another believer. The ONE passage used to teach this blasphemy (on the man's part) and idolatry (on the woman's part) is Eph. 5:22, but there is no verb there, because it goes with verse 21, not verse 23. In Greek it reads like a list starting in vs. 19, describing the "filled with the Spirit" in vs. 18: speaking, singing, thanking, and supporting. All believers are to defer (Paul always uses other words when discussing submission to authority) to one another; there are no exceptions. The man as "head" to the wife is her source, and she is his support, just as the head feeds the body and the body supports the head. In spite of the Roman law that made her attached to her father for life (instead of her husband)*, Paul tells Christian wives to be loyal to their "own" husbands. To say this as a matter of obedience would make no sense in a society where this was already presumed and encoded in law, and to treat any human as The Lord would be idolatrous. So Paul is not making "lording over" a new definition of submission.
(* The law was "marriage without hand", designed to give abused wives a way out of a bad marriage. She remained the property of her father, who at any time could give her to another man. So Paul is saying something quite radically opposed to Roman law.)

---Christian Equality is a slippery slope to homosexuality. Then male supremacism is a slippery slope to wife abuse, and clergy supremacy is a slippery slope to the cults. The "slippery slope" argument was raised to justify slavery in the pre-Civil War south, fearing the breakdown of society should slaves be freed and treated as equals. And historically (even today), homosexuality has been rampant in very patriarchal societies.

---Christian Equality bows to culture. The overwhelming cultural and religious paradigm has been that of male supremacism, so it is patriarchy which bows to culture. That modern Western society has been a rare exception to the cultural tradition does not make Christianity's acceptance of equality a case of bowing to culture, any more than the abolition of slavery was also bowing to culture.

---Men cannot give birth but they don't complain about it, so women should not complain about what they cannot do either. This is the "equivocation" fallacy, since it confuses ability with permission. Neither side believes women lack the ability to preach, teach, or lead. The absurdity of this argument is clear when we substitute the proper meanings for ‘can': "Men lack the ability to give birth, so women should not complain about lack of permission to hold authority."

---Not all men can have ecclesiastical authority, so they too must submit gladly to it. But men are not barred from such positions because they are men, but because they lack gifting or credentials. Yet women are barred from those positions solely because they are women, an intrinsic quality and thus a matter of ‘being' or ‘essence' rather than an ability or a role to play; women's gifting or ability is not even considered. And of course it is not all men who are denied authoritative positions, while it is all women who are denied. And in the home, all men are designated leaders and authorities over their wives, while no women are ever designated leaders and authorities over their husbands.

-------------------------------------------------------------​----
(1) [link to bible.cc]
see also these articles about tampering with the text:
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to powerscourt.blogspot.com]
[link to www.touchstonemag.com]

(2) [link to bible.cc]

(3) [link to www.fether.net]

Articles about women:
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to www.fether.net]

The Bible, Inspiration, and Inerrancy series:
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to www.fether.net]

Translation and Interpretation series:
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to www.fether.net]

Context and Exegesis:
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to www.fether.net]
[link to www.fether.net]

The Bible Canon:
[link to www.fether.net]
 Quoting: Keep2theCode




What a bunch of PURE lies, distortions, and outright GARBAGE.

Based on what I've seen here, I wouldn't count on you to get ANYTHING right.
glpdude

User ID: 32310892
United States
02/15/2013 03:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
@keep2thecode

There is too much I find wrong with your views from scripture so we'll just kindly agree to disagree. Please forgive me for the ad hominem cheap shot. Thanks again for the post and interaction.

God bless.
Keep2theCode (OP)

User ID: 20545539
United States
02/15/2013 06:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
...
Genesis 18:12
12 Hence Sarah began to laugh inside herself,+ saying: “After I am worn out, shall I really have pleasure, my lord* being old besides?”...

... If a wife and husband are one flesh, but he is the head, she is under him.

... They know their wives better than wives know themselves sometimes because -in the case of my household, my husband is aware he has to take up the slack for things I "can't" do [according to a tacit "understanding" we seem to have], whereas I'm mostly blithely "unaware", as it suits me to be, on a day to day basis. He's like God in this respect- ...
I now believe men need to be respected... If they aren't respected, they will be passive-aggressive or worse.

I do know what you're talking about on thread is mainly '"women not supposed to teach in the congregation", but GLP isn't "the congregation".
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10858311

I agree with much of what you said about the context of Abraham and Sarah. Yet the fact remains that scripture only records her calling him 'lord' ONCE, and defying him several times even in that culture, which is quite remarkable as you showed. This is the bravery Peter referred to that Christian wives of non-Christian husbands are to emulate.

Being "under" someone is something that a "Cornerstone" even does, you know? Jesus is the Cornerstone of the church, holding us all up. This is what he meant by "not so among you... the greatest must become the least"; the true Christian leader "gets under" others and lifts them up. It is support, help, service. So even if someone insists on always taking the "men rule, women drool" approach, even that has its limits. When we read Paul's words about the head as source of the Body, this fits perfectly. The head does nourish the body, but the body holds up the head. It is a picture of unity and interdependence... "each part belongs to all the others". I've said this repeatedly.

As for husbands having some mystical superior knowledge of wives, most men would laugh. There are hundreds of jokes about men not knowing what their wives want or mean. Are women not human? Are women not grown adults? Are women all more stupid and gullible than men? What your personal experience is doesn't prove what's true for everyone, and anecdotal evidence is not proof of anything. Surely there are times when you know something better than he does, and know something about him he cannot see.

Men need love and women need respect. I know that's the opposite of the "Harlequin romance novel" theology going around today, but it's true, because men and women are both equally human. And in Christ, men and women are co-heirs, brothers and sisters, equal parts of one body. "The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you'".

But what is most disturbing about your statement is that it places all blame on the wife. She gets all the responsibility but none of the authority, which any competent counselor will tell you is unhealthy and a recipe for disaster. Men must learn to take responsibility for their own sin, and remember that Jesus said, "If YOUR EYE causes you to sin..."

Your last statment... wow. I can't pick a topic? I can't talk about the church? You are arguing that unless we're in a church building, we cannot talk about spiritual things!

gasp

Last Edited by Keep2theCode on 02/15/2013 06:43 AM
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Gal. 4:16)
Keep2theCode (OP)

User ID: 20545539
United States
02/15/2013 06:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: What the Bible Really Says about Women
What a bunch of PURE lies, distortions, and outright GARBAGE.

Based on what I've seen here, I wouldn't count on you to get ANYTHING right.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34370993


Based on your flippant dismissal of a large amount of research you didn't read or grasp, I wouldn't consider your rebuke to carry any more weight than an ant shaking its tiny fist at a human.

Ad hominem, the weapon of choice for the hateful.
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Gal. 4:16)

News








We're dropping truth bombs like it's the end of days!