I don't believe prophecy was Pauls' strong suit, he spoke more in times then and there than in 2018 a.d. While some truths are eternal, some are temporal thus we discernment.
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
This is one way of looking at certain scriptures...
I rather think that all scripture has, and has had, a temporal aspect for all men in all times, while also being spirit and eternal truth. It's the spirit of the words that avails us.
Calibob, I don't believe I've met you yet. You look like a sharp dresser.
It's very nice to meet you. 
Sure........I guess the bolded was a compliment.....
This is an unfortunately-excellent example of the genetic fallacy
That had nothing to do with a crude remark or was not suggestive in any way.....so...your view above is way off base....geesh
I don't often use wiki but this is a relatively good summation so I'll use it. Dino was referring to this. He was not insulting you with the term: the genetic fallacy.
Jump to search
The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue[1]) is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. In other words, a fact is ignored in favor of attacking its source.
The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.[2] Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are not conclusive in determining its merits.
The article goes into further detail if you care to read it.
Please then, accept my apology for misunderstanding. I went back and read the post again and I see I misunderstood.
Where the author says: This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation,
one difference in the present situation would be this: there is now no more male and female.
This is one way of looking at certain scriptures...
I rather think that all scripture has, and has had, a temporal aspect for all men in all times, while also being spirit and eternal truth. It's the spirit of the words that avails us.
Calibob, I don't believe I've met you yet. You look like a sharp dresser.
I used to be A wedding photographer and that photo was for a business card. Thank you, pleased to meet you also
One would expect that if Paul said we were not to think or treat one another any more after the categories of male and female, but as fellow believers and fellow members of the body of Christ, that he would not be intending to reverse this in another place where he speaks.
And in other places, angela has brought up the case of phoebe and has laid out the greek concerning the matter, to show that paul was not, in fact, ever reversing himself.
There most probably were some considerations back then over the severe persecution they faced, and the fact that men cannot bear to see women tortured. They do not like to see men tortured either, but battlefield studies have been conducted wherein soldiers can bear up under seeing their comrades tortured but do not tend to bear up under (as well) seeing female soldiers tortured and abused.
I thank God for this protective component in men, towards women, because it is a fact that we are physically weaker. And it is the same way with women to children. They would bear up under seeing another woman tortured much better than if they were to see a child tortured.
This doesn't really have so much to do with the discussion at hand I guess. Just some thoughts.
I thank God for this protective component in men, towards women, because it is a fact that we are physically weaker. And it is the same way with women to children. They would bear up under seeing another woman tortured much better than if they were to see a child tortured.
This doesn't really have so much to do with the discussion at hand I guess. Just some thoughts.
So it appears to be a human component more than a male/female component. Humans do not like to see someone weaker being abused...they have a harder time if the one being abused is weaker physically than the abuser.
It is neither a compliment nor an insult, because it was not directed at you, but at what you wrote. What you wrote employs a genetic fallacy - disregarding an argument because of the identity of its advocate, which is what I wrote previously.
You wrote in response to Angela, asserting that she takes the egalitarian position because she is a woman. That is the essence of a genetic fallacy - a flaw in your logic, not your intelligence.
1. Paul was a prophet as much as he was an apostle. And it is God who gave the gift of prophecy to His apostles. According to Scripture, all Scripture is prophetic in that every word is a word of God. And since Paul wrote OVER HALF OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, he was a prophet par excellence. He also gave us predictive prophecy frequently.
2. As to some truths being temporal, God's truth is God truth, and since He is eternal, and Christ is eternal as "the Truth", all truth must be eternal. Thus Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (Mt 24:35).
Back to the subject of women as preachers, teachers, or pastors, and elders, Scripture is very clear. THAT IS FORBIDDEN TERRITORY.
[QUOTE="Nehemiah6, post: 3629788, member: 258921"...
Back to the subject of women as preachers, teachers, or pastors, and elders, Scripture is very clear. THAT IS FORBIDDEN TERRITORY.[/QUOTE]
So you had better stay away.
Back to the subject of women as preachers, teachers, or pastors, and elders, Scripture is very clear. THAT IS FORBIDDEN TERRITORY.[/QUOTE]
So you had better stay away.
I was comparing Paul of the letters to John of revelations and the difference between their skills and talents. That is not to insinuate that either had more or less talent, nor Mark nor Jude for that matter. I brought up Judges to point out in the bible sometimes men have failed to lead and God allowed to more or less save the day. See Judges 5;26-31
So you had better stay away.[/QUOTE]
It's forbidden territory for women. So yes, it had better stay that way.
It's forbidden territory for women. So yes, it had better stay that way.[/QUOTE]
As you are so certain that women are "forbidden" from preaching, please provide Scriptural support.
It's helpful to use the "Reply" button so that we all know to whom you are responding.
