A Double Standard in Christianity?

[SophieT]

I believe the label came from Rome according to Roman tradition, as one who is a follower of the message of a philosopher. The gospel of Christ is not a philosophical message. It is one of transformation, kingly culture, and grace.

And to your second sentence, I agree in so far as we can agree that it would have been foolish to act contrary to Paul’s example, or John’s, Peter’s, etc. It is easy to recognize that they wrote with authority today. How difficult it might have been to follow the directions of an old fisherman or even one who used to persecute your brothers. Discernment would have been needed to listen to these men.

All these men referred to those closest to them as their children. Paul went so far as to say he birthed some, as men “begot” their progeny. This is the grace I believe was restored with the appearing of John the Baptist, who was the Elijah to come. The grace of fathers and sons built into a real household that displays the royal priesthood and grace of Christ Jesus the Lord.

I will have more to say about this later but many here cannot bear it now.

Grace and Peace,
Aaron56

discernement is a funny thing. if you got it, you don't flaunt it. I know I certainly cannot bear anymore but thankfully, because I know my Savior personally, I don't have to

the times they are a changing

all the rivers run into the sea but the sea is not full

For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and they will mislead many

just like the book of Judges...y'all doin what is right in your own eyes

 

[Dino246]

did you pass your finals in English?

people must snicker in your church if you get up to speak and talk like this

I can't even

Now that you put it that way... what he wrote is hilariously inappropriate!

 

[SophieT]

Now that you put it that way... what he wrote is hilariously inappropriate!

uh huh

 

[justbyfaith]

Your response confirms to me that you don't understand the meaning of "usurp authority over". Please, for your own sake, go and look up the word "usurp" in a good dictionary.

I know what the word means; and my statement was in perfect conjunction with an accurate understanding of the word.

Where do you get such codswollop? That is called eisegesis, and it's not a sound interpretive practice.

The passage says (and implies) nothing whatsoever about any other woman. NOTHING!

It certainly does. In context, it is giving as a reason for not allowing women to teach, the fact that women are more susceptible to being deceived than men; giving Eve as the prototype for all women.

This is the truth; which no doubt you will also reject; because your track record shows that you have a tendency to reject the truth when you hear it.

And I have pulled this understanding from the text; and did not read my own understanding into the text.

 

[justbyfaith]

did you pass your finals in English?

people must snicker in your church if you get up to speak and talk like this

I can't even

I majored in English in High School; and graduated with honours.

Mat 9:23, And when Jesus came into the ruler's house, and saw the minstrels and the people making a noise,
Mat 9:24, He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn.
Mat 9:25, But when the people were put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose.
Mat 9:26, And the fame hereof went abroad into all that land.

You want to ridicule me for one instance in which my sentence in English is not understandable to you; not taking into account that my track record is that I normally communicate well in the English language.

Your purpose, I suppose, is to attempt to hurt my feelings?

I have a thicker skin than that; and also, I find myself in good company; as can be seen in the above scripture.

 

[justbyfaith]

Now that you put it that way... what he wrote is hilariously inappropriate!

I did not intend what I said to be inappropriate. If you consider it to be inappropriate, then maybe that is just the way your mind works.

 

[justbyfaith]

Where is that prohibition explained in Scripture?

1 Corinthians 11.

 

[Dino246]

I know what the word means; and my statement was in perfect conjunction with an accurate understanding of the word.

*sigh*...

You're being stubbornly ignorant.

It certainly does. In context, it is giving as a reason for not allowing women to teach, the fact that women are more susceptible to being deceived than men.

Not in the least. It is correcting a gnostic myth that Eve was formed first and didn't do anything wrong, which was prevalent in Ephesus at the time. Your misinterpretation is misogynistic and your conclusion does not follow from the text at all.

This is the truth; which no doubt you will also reject; because your track record shows that you have a tendency to reject the truth when you hear it.

That's yet another non sequitur. It's your interpretation, and your personal comments are unadulterated hogwash. I just reject your errors and fallacy-ridden misinterpretations of Scripture.

 

[Dino246]

I did not intend what I said to be inappropriate. If you consider it to be inappropriate, then maybe that is just the way your mind works.

Yada yada yada.

Did I mention that it was inappropriate when I responded to it earlier? No. Get your knickers untwisted.

 

[justbyfaith]

*sigh*...

You're being stubbornly ignorant.

If you are going to resort to insults, I think that it may be time to place you on Ignore.

 

[Dino246]

If you are going to resort to insults, I think that it may be time to place you on Ignore.

Well, there's little danger of you learning anything anyway, so go ahead. At least then I can correct your hogwash for everyone else without you interfering.

 

[justbyfaith]

Did I mention that it was inappropriate when I responded to it earlier? No. Get your knickers untwisted.

The fact of the matter is, you mentioned it.

Now that you put it that way... what he wrote is hilariously inappropriate!

 

[justbyfaith]

I will still be able to see your posts; and I reserve the right to answer any of them any time that I desire to do so.

 

[justbyfaith]

Not in the least. It is correcting a gnostic myth that Eve was formed first and didn't do anything wrong, which was prevalent in Ephesus at the time. Your misinterpretation is misogynistic and your conclusion does not follow from the text at all.

I think that it is your intention in coming to these boards to argue against sound doctrine any time that you see it; and to say that sound doctrine isn't really sound because it is based on logical fallacies.

You will stand before Jesus Christ one day and He is going to judge you for your sins; I think that you had better become aware of that and repent.

That's yet another non sequitur. It's your interpretation, and your personal comments are unadulterated hogwash. I just reject your errors and fallacy-ridden misinterpretations of Scripture.

You reject the truth.

 

[arpon]

The truth of the matter is that God has indeed given men and women distinct roles and positions in the home and in the church. It is you who have imposed the pejorative term "limited second-class ministry". But that is not the case. So this sounds like another feminist attempt to subvert Scripture.

Can you tell me the context(about the church and surrounding's) where scripture distinct roles and positions of man and woman?

 

[Nehemiah6]

Can you tell me the context(about the church and surrounding's) where scripture distinct roles and positions of man and woman?

I'm not sure what you mean by "the context". The context is the whole Bible, and within the Bible God has clearly laid out the distinct roles of men and women in the home and in the Church. They are detailed in the epistles. Paul refers to the creation account and the Fall to establish these teachings, while Peter refers to Abraham and Sarah.

 

[arpon]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the context". The context is the whole Bible, and within the Bible God has clearly laid out the distinct roles of men and women in the home and in the Church. They are detailed in the epistles. Paul refers to the creation account and the Fall to establish these teachings, while Peter refers to Abraham and Sarah.

Actually I think we are not in the same page. My apology for that. Actually in the whole Bible genesis 1 and 2 is the only chapter where Gods will was totally maintained, in the day of judgement it will be maintain again. There are no distinction between the role of man and woman at creation, they both are to told to rule over earth but not one another. after that culture made up with man, they made their rules and God allow them. Sometime God allows them to minimize the loss, that does not mean that God wish for it, he just allows it. If we want his kingdom in our family than we need to bring our family to genesis 1,2 again gradually, no distinction. The whole Bible has it context that I agree with you. and I also know that each Book has its own context too. Each story in each book sometimes has its own context too. So while describing verse I need to be careful. Thank you for understanding. Bless you.

 

[SophieT]

I majored in English in High School; and graduated with honours.

truthfully, I just do not see that in the manner in which you write

I really don't. and I can call myself Elizabeth Barret Browning and yet, I am not

you make grammatical errors and create posts that sometimes just do not read

smh

 

[SophieT]

You want to ridicule me for one instance in which my sentence in English is not understandable to you; not taking into account that my track record is that I normally communicate well in the English language.

Your purpose, I suppose, is to attempt to hurt my feelings?

I have a thicker skin than that; and also, I find myself in good company; as can be seen in the above scripture.

actually, none of that is true. you own your own feelings and I do not create them in anyone

 

[SophieT]

You reject the truth.

you say you do not judge

but then what the hee haw is this?

smh