A Double Standard in Christianity?

[EmilyNats]

You made the claim; the obligation is on you to support your claim. I'm saying your claim is not supported, which would require me to post the entire New Testament to substantiate.

Translation: "I don't have a verse."

I know how that game goes, and I also know that you know very well the verses that refute your woke opinion.

 

[Dino246]

Translation: "I don't have a verse."

I know how that game goes, and I also know that you know very well the verses that refute your woke opinion.

Actually, it's not a game. You made a claim; it's on you to support that claim.

I am confident that you cannot support your claim as stated.

 

[EmilyNats]

Actually, it's not a game. You made a claim; it's on you to support that claim.

I am confident that you cannot support your claim as stated.

Oh, I'm sure you are. I'm sure you would like to think that at least. I'm sure you very well know the passages in Timothy and Titus that explicitly describe what is required to be a pastor. This means you either deep down you know you are wrong, but would rather embrace woke "christianty", or you are one of those men who would like to believe that speaking in tongues and prophesy are just silly little mistakes in the bible that only elite and very smart men understand, and that they aren't actually real anymore, and thus you say that the words "prophesy" in the new testament actually means preaching. Even though that would make Paul a deceiver. Do you happen to be a Calvinist?

 

[Nehemiah6]

I know the book says that but it is wrong!

God does not contradict Himself. And whatever is in Scripture cannot be wrong. So who is wrong in this matter? The one who tries to go against what is written.

 

[Dino246]

Oh, I'm sure you are. I'm sure you would like to think that at least. I'm sure you very well know the passages in Timothy and Titus that explicitly describe what is required to be a pastor. This means you either deep down you know you are wrong, but would rather embrace woke "christianty", or you are one of those men who would like to believe that speaking in tongues and prophesy are just silly little mistakes in the bible that only elite and very smart men understand, and that they aren't actually real anymore, and thus you say that the words "prophesy" in the new testament actually means preaching. Even though that would make Paul a deceiver. Do you happen to be a Calvinist?

I assure you, "wokeness" has absolutely nothing to do with my position. I came to believe as I do through examining Scripture carefully.

In your earlier claim, you stated (somewhat indirectly) that women cannot be pastors. Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus give the qualifications for elders, not pastors. They are not the same thing. Bear in mind that today's catch-all role of "pastor" is not spelled out in Scripture. In fact, "pastor" is only used in one place: Ephesians 4. It is placed alongside apostle, prophet, evangelist, and teacher.

Further, Paul commended Phoebe (Romans 16:1) as a deacon, then gave instructions to Timothy about deacons. Given that he commended a female deacon, his instruction to Timothy cannot mean that he forbade females from being deacons. Given that the same 'restriction' is put on elders as deacons, he can't mean that females are forbidden from being elders either.

As for speaking in tongues and prophesying, I believe that both are valid then as today, and that prophesying is not the same as preaching. And no, I'm not a Calvinist either, so you can dispense with your assumptions about me.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

Second class? No. But always with covering because of the angels.

isn’t thier long hair meant to be thoer covering ?

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

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

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭11:13-15‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

[justbyfaith]

It does, yet people change it every day to make it to say what they want. For example:
1 Timothy 2:9In 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; 10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
This is general teaching to the women at Ephesus. Yet V12 is continuously taken out of context to mean ministry while the context speaks only of their personal lifestyle & marriage. V12 speaks only to the marriage relationship, because it agrees with the man being the spiritual head of the household. Women aren't to try to be the spiritual heads, thus it is written.

Not if you compare it to what is written on the same subject in 1 Corinthians 14, combining the passages that speak on the same subject.

 

[justbyfaith]

Who suggested anything about changing Scripture? "Usurp authority" is a translational choice only. Many translators have chosen different terms to translate authentein. Are they "changing Scripture" in your opinion?

Yes.

For I am of the kjv-superior position when it comes to the kjv-only controversy.

 

[justbyfaith]

They were given to all Christians.

Sometimes, you're simply wrong. Telling you so is a far cry from 'persecution'.

They were given only to those Christians who have "an unction from the holy one (1 John 2:20).

Otherwise there would be no disagreement between Christians.

Therefore the verses only apply to true Christians.

 

[justbyfaith]

You made the claim; the obligation is on you to support your claim. I'm saying your claim is not supported, which would require me to post the entire New Testament to substantiate.

I have given the biblical support twice now in this thread.

But some people simply do not want to believe what the holy scriptures teach.

And then they want to claim that they are Christians, to whom such verses as John 15:20 and 1 John 4:6 apply.

 

[Dino246]

Yes.

For I am of the kjv-superior position when it comes to the kjv-only controversy.

So then, every single letter, word, phrase, sentence, or passage that is different in the KJV than in Wycliffe is the result of "changing the Scriptures".

As usual, your position is deeply flawed. One day, you might understand, but given your demonstrated inability to understand basic logical fallacies, I won't be waiting.

 

[Dino246]

I have given the biblical support twice now in this thread.

But some people simply do not want to believe what the holy scriptures teach.

And then they want to claim that they are Christians, to whom such verses as John 15:20 and 1 John 4:6 apply.

When another person makes a claim, any evidence you give is irrelevant to that person's claim until and unless they affirm it.

 

[justbyfaith]

So then, every single letter, word, phrase, sentence, or passage that is different in the KJV than in Wycliffe is the result of "changing the Scriptures".

Yes; because the kjv was translated accurately from the manuscripts and is the exact representation of the originals.

So, if anything is different from the kjv, it is different from the originals also.

 

[justbyfaith]

When another person makes a claim, any evidence you give is irrelevant to that person's claim until and unless they affirm it.

Not true.

A person may reject the truth of someone's claim even though it is absolute truth.

Otherwise, according to that argument, the fact that certain people reject Christianity would mean that Christianity is untrue.

 

[Dino246]

Yes; because the kjv was translated accurately from the manuscripts and is the exact representation of the originals.

So, if anything is different from the kjv, it is different from the originals also.

You need to do a lot more homework.

 

[Dino246]

Not true.

A person may reject the truth of someone's claim even though it is absolute truth.

Otherwise, according to that argument, the fact that certain people reject Christianity would mean that Christianity is untrue.

Clearly, you did not understand my post.

 

[justbyfaith]

Clearly, you did not understand my post.

So, rephrase your statement so that it is clearly understandable.

 

[justbyfaith]

You need to do a lot more homework.

I know that what I am saying is true...so, I don't need to do any more homework on the issue.

 

[justbyfaith]

I assure you, "wokeness" has absolutely nothing to do with my position. I came to believe as I do through examining Scripture carefully.

In your earlier claim, you stated (somewhat indirectly) that women cannot be pastors. Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus give the qualifications for elders, not pastors. They are not the same thing. Bear in mind that today's catch-all role of "pastor" is not spelled out in Scripture. In fact, "pastor" is only used in one place: Ephesians 4. It is placed alongside apostle, prophet, evangelist, and teacher.

Further, Paul commended Phoebe (Romans 16:1) as a deacon, then gave instructions to Timothy about deacons. Given that he commended a female deacon, his instruction to Timothy cannot mean that he forbade females from being deacons. Given that the same 'restriction' is put on elders as deacons, he can't mean that females are forbidden from being elders either.

As for speaking in tongues and prophesying, I believe that both are valid then as today, and that prophesying is not the same as preaching. And no, I'm not a Calvinist either, so you can dispense with your assumptions about me.

Of course the Bible tells us that if anyone is ignorant, to let him be ignorant.

But that if anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that what Paul wrote was the commandments of the Lord.

No need to reiterate what Paul wrote here.

Because if you are ignorant, then you are ignorant.

The information is there in the Bible for you to read; and if you want to ignore the information, the Bible says for me to let you remain ignorant of the truth of this matter.

 

[rayzor]

God does not contradict Himself. And whatever is in Scripture cannot be wrong. So who is wrong in this matter? The one who tries to go against what is written.

Israel means to contend with god,,,There's a famous bible in 1631 a copy of the bible was printed with a miss print passage that said thou shalt commit adultery,,,,now called the wicked bible,,,so there are times when going against the staff = [the staff of life the bible] is to honer the shepherd.,,,I'll give you another example in the bible one passage says moneys the answer to all things,, this is not a passage being taken out of context it meaning is the opposite of what it says, now the bible is like god in that sometimes one has to contend for understanding