Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,236 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 561,177
Pageviews Today: 937,899Threads Today: 316Posts Today: 5,638
10:58 AM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY
Message Subject What the Bible Really Says about Women
Poster Handle glpdude
Post Content
@ 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.
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for copyright violation:







GLP