Are women inferior to men?

[Achilles6129]

Absolutely. Lets question his every comment.

So when Paul says "be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ," doesn't that mean that we listen to him?

 

[SkyWriting]

So when Paul says "be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ," doesn't that mean that we listen to him?

As any good Berean would. If a teaching doesn't fit with scripture, it should be set aside.
Somebody asked if Paul knew his letter to a church was going to be added to scripture.
Internally, the letter doesn't indicate that Paul knew he was writing for the entire church.


Ask a pastor what "this group of books" are in the Bible and he'll tell you
"Oh, those are a series of letters written to a specific group of churches
that were having problems."

 

[Imagican]

Yet that is the direction you are taking.

Really? I have 'quoted' God's Word over and over again concerning the issue at hand.

The 'truth' is, it is 'you' that has chosen to ignore or even contradict Paul's words that he stated are the 'commandments of the Lord'.

I have attempted to offer very little of 'my own' words compared to attempting to defend the words of Paul.

So in 'truth', it is 'you' that have chosen a path of denial. Not me trying to offer my own interpretation.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Paul spoke in error. Those who chose to include some of his statements
about women also missed the error due to the culture they were raised in.
There are some passages that override Paul and they are ignored by men
and considered "not applicable" again, by men.

When I brought up a verse about how to "treat others, like you would want to be treated"
one person protested that I had cherry-picked my verses. I responded with 7 similar
versions of the golden rule in scripture. I wasn't the one picking on women who
are too mouthy in church after all.

Wish I had read this one 'first' and I wouldn't even have responded to the other.

All I can offer is that my hope is that one day you are able to come to a 'different conclusion'.

Not really sure how long you have been reading the Bible. Don't really care. But I will point out that you are in utter error. The entire Bible agrees with Paul's words. The entire 'culture' of the Hebrews/Jews followed the same pattern.

I guess next you'll be telling us that Moses was 'making it up' as he went along as well....................

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

As any good Berean would. If a teaching doesn't fit with scripture, it should be set aside.
Somebody asked if Paul knew his letter to a church was going to be added to scripture.
Internally, the letter doesn't indicate that Paul knew he was writing for the entire church.


Ask a pastor what "this group of books" are in the Bible and he'll tell you
"Oh, those are a series of letters written to a specific group of churches
that were having problems."

You have made it perfectly clear that you are a 'follower' of your own 'ideas' instead of what we are offered in the Bible. I guess you believe that God has allowed you the 'freedom' to follow Him in any way 'you' deem fit instead of 'following' as we have been instructed by His Word. Not personal accusation from me. Your own words perfectly define what it is that 'you believe'.

For it is clear that you don't 'like' or 'agree' with about 'half' of the NT. You 'say' that Paul's words do not fit with the rest of the Bible. Yet the 'truth is' that it is 'you' that disagrees with Paul's words. They 'fit' perfectly.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

So when Paul says "be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ," doesn't that mean that we listen to him?

Of course it does. We either 'listen and follow' the words of Paul or we reject over half of the New Testament. And anyone that insists that Paul's words do not 'fit' with the words of Christ are simply trying to deceive themselves or others.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Paul spoke in error. Those who chose to include some of his statements
about women also missed the error due to the culture they were raised in.
There are some passages that override Paul and they are ignored by men
and considered "not applicable" again, by men.

When I brought up a verse about how to "treat others, like you would want to be treated"
one person protested that I had cherry-picked my verses. I responded with 7 similar
versions of the golden rule in scripture. I wasn't the one picking on women who
are too mouthy in church after all.

Treating others as one wants to be treated presupposes that one is 'following' as 'directed' by God's Word. Otherwise it means 'nothing' that matters.

I have already pointed out that if I 'like' to be whipped or abused this perfectly illustrates that the 'do unto others' is only relevant when it comes to 'love'.

There is no 'lack of love' in following as we have been directed by God's Word. In fact, we show or demonstrate our love 'by' following as we have been instructed.

So to 'treat others we we like to be treated' means nothing if it is attempted through 'disobedience'.

Once again, it is perfectly clear that you have yet to come to proper understanding of what we have been offered through God's Word. Not from 'my' perspective, you own words perfectly illustrate that you don't either agree with or 'like' what we are offered in the Bible. You have indeed 'cherry picked' what it is that you want to believe and chosen to ignore what it even means to follow what you 'want' to believe.

You, among others, seem to rebel against authority or 'order'. Paul's words were not offered in an attempt to treat women unfairly. He offered 'order'. The entire Bible from the beginning to the end speaks of the exact same 'order'. Adam was created first. Do you really believe there is no significance? Eve was created 'from' Adam 'for' Adam. That is what the Bible says in both OT and NT. Eve was not only deceived but then took the fruit and convinced Adam to eat. Do you not understand the significance of the words we have been offered? And because it was 'clearly demonstrated by Eve herself', God commanded that in the future Eve be 'ruled' by her husband. In order to protect her from making the 'same' mistake over and over, God commanded that she 'listen' to her husband rather than taking it upon herself to follow her 'own' desires.

If you can't reason this from the words we are offered, then it is due to a desire to reject them. For the words are offered clearly throughout the entire Bible and the examples are myriad of women refusing to follow their husbands making similar mistakes over and over.

But you know, my children are no different. Instead of turning to myself or my wife for advice KNOWING that the answer is not going to be what they 'desire', they, like all children, end up making mistakes that could easily have been avoided if they had only sought proper 'guidance'. There are 'many' adults that choose the exact same method when making decisions. Like children, they 'want' what they 'want' are often don't or even 'can't' contemplate the possible negative consequences. Hard to understand things that one has yet to encounter.

And, my friend, that is 'why' we have the Bible as 'the' source of information when it comes to 'instruction' concerning God's will for mankind. So we 'don't' have the 'learn' the hard way as we see the path that Eve chose in the garden. How she deceived Adam is not offered in the Bible. But I can 'assure you', she didn't 'just' say to Adam 'eat'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Strong in Him]

Paul spoke in error.

Sorry but no he didn't.

Paul was writing a personal letter to Timothy, he was not writing to a church and addressing their problems. It's possible that Timothy had said/written something to Paul like, "what do I do about this situation?" and Paul gave him a final word of instruction. Whatever, the words that Paul wrote were inspired, were from God and were no doubt exactly what was needed at the time.

BUT - where does it say that we have to apply these words, written at that time in that culture, and apply them to all our churches today? Yes, at one point Paul says something like "as in all the churches"; he meant the churches he had founded, visited and knew about, not hundreds of different churches that would exist hundreds of years later and hundreds of miles away. How could he address people that didn't exist?! The apostles seemed to think that Jesus would return in their lifetime, so couldn't have dreamed of addressing churches 2000 years down the line.
So Paul was correct and his words correct and inspired - but they were for THAT situation at THAT time. We know this because he told the Romans how much he valued the ministry of women and told the Philippians, whose church may have been co founded by a woman, to support their deaconesses. He taught the Corinthians and Ephesians that the Spirit gives gifts to all - not all men; ALL, and that those gifts include teaching and the role of Pastor.

And in case anyone is thinking it; no, that does not mean that all Paul's words were addressing local problems and are not relevant to us. This is why exegesis is important; we need to know what kind of writing we are reading? Who is Paul addressing? What would they have understood by his words?
When Paul writes about the qualities and nature of love, or about life in the Spirit, or that we can never be separated from God's love, or that Christ died for sinners and that through his death we have been reconciled to God - this is Christian truth and the unchanging Gospel. God's love will never change or weaken, no matter what the culture, or traditions. The Gospel will always be the same; the wages of sin are always death, the gift of God always eternal life, the fruit, the gifts of the Spirit and the nature of God himself are unchanging.
But how we apply the Gospel and teachings of Jesus in our tradition, situation and culture will probably always change. We are told to offer hospitality and welcome others; Peter says greet one another with a holy kiss. But how do we do this? Literally? Some people would be offended if you kissed them, especially if you were a stranger. In some cultures, I understand, people don't kiss - like the eskimos, who rub noses. Does this mean that if we don't literally go around kissing people then we are disregarding the Bible? No, of course not.

So, back to the topic; what is the truth Paul is teaching? I'd say that, in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14, he's teaching about the need for order in worship; don't talk over the speakers, don't have 4 or 5 people all talking in tongues at once and don't let the women call out and ask questions of the men while in the service, let them wait til they get home. If someone is teaching/preaching and someone else is constantly calling out "don't understand", "you need to explain that", "why do you say ...?" then they are disrupting the address, questioning the integrity of the speaker and challenging their authority. That is not on and does not make for harmonious worship services. All of that is true today, but I don't think we have those problems in our churches. I think if Paul were here today and writing on the subject of order in worship, he'd say, "have the courtesy to turn your mobile phones off", or "check the microphones so that your preacher can be heard, and you don't get annoying feedback during a quiet time of prayer", or maybe "prophecy is good, but don't allow half the congregation to stand up and give untested words from the Lord".
And yet, even if he had, churches reading those words in a few thousand years time (if we're still here) might say "what on earth is a mobile phone?" "did those folk use microphones back then? How old fashioned". Other churches in other cultures might have their own difficulties about order in a service of worship; the practice might differ but the teaching is still true and the subject a valid one.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sorry but no he didn't.Paul was writing a personal letter to Timothy, he was not writing to a church and addressing their problems. It's possible that Timothy had said/written something to Paul like, "what do I do about this situation?" and Paul gave him a final word of instruction. Whatever, the words that Paul wrote were inspired, were from God and were no doubt exactly what was needed at the time.BUT - where does it say that we have to apply these words, written at that time in that culture, and apply them to all our churches today? Yes, at one point Paul says something like "as in all the churches"; he meant the churches he had founded, visited and knew about, not hundreds of different churches that would exist hundreds of years later and hundreds of miles away. How could he address people that didn't exist?! The apostles seemed to think that Jesus would return in their lifetime, so couldn't have dreamed of addressing churches 2000 years down the line.So Paul was correct and his words correct and inspired

Paul is not to make guidelines about another gender, unless he is interested in that
gender making guidelines for his gender.

Here you can see Paul's error. Guidelines about how other genders may act are ruled out.
This works for all Christians in all of time and in all situations.

 

[SkyWriting]

So, back to the topic; what is the truth Paul is teaching? I'd say that, in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14, he's teaching about the need for order in worship; don't talk over the speakers, don't have 4 or 5 people all talking in tongues at once and don't let the women call out and ask questions of the men while in the service, let them wait til they get home. If someone is teaching/preaching and someone else is constantly calling out "don't understand", "you need to explain that", "why do you say ...?" then they are disrupting the address, questioning the integrity of the speaker and challenging their authority. That is not on and does not make for harmonious worship services. All of that is true today,

A perfect point. "Leaders" may make rules for "the congregation"
as long as "the congregation" may also make rules for the leader.

So, there are classes of "others" willing to bow to authority, as long as
"they" may also make rules for the leader.

However, this is not the case with gender based guidelines.
Such guidelines are not allowed under the golden rule.

 

[SkyWriting]

Treating others as one wants to be treated presupposes that one is 'following' as 'directed' by God's Word. Otherwise it means 'nothing' that matters.I have already pointed out that if I 'like' to be whipped or abused this perfectly illustrates that the 'do unto others' is only relevant when it comes to 'love'.

The golden rule also works for sadomasochism situations, just as well.

 

[Strong in Him]

Paul is not to make guidelines about another gender, unless he is interested in that
gender making guidelines for his gender.

I don't understand.

Here you can see Paul's error. Guidelines about how other genders may act are ruled out.
This works for all Christians in all of time and in all situations.

So you're saying that the Holy Spirit allowed error to get into, and remain in, Scripture?

 

[SkyWriting]

You, among others, seem to rebel against authority or 'order'.

The golden rule is the only method of creating order.
While other religions have a sentence or two on the
subject, Christianity refers to it as the foundation.
The rule eliminates gender discrimination in thought
and deed. http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-12.htm

 

[SkyWriting]

So you're saying that the Holy Spirit allowed error to get into, and remain in, Scripture?

We can decide that later. First find my error in my comment
that women, as a group, should tell men what to do.
Guidelines about how other genders may act are over ruled.

 

[SkyWriting]

You have made it perfectly clear that you are a 'follower' of your own 'ideas' instead of what we are offered in the Bible.

I might not even own a Bible. That gives me no excuse.
King James 2000 Bible
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and deity; so that they are without excuse:

 

[SkyWriting]

SkyWriting said: ↑
Paul is not to make guidelines about another gender, unless he is interested in that
gender making guidelines for his gender.

I don't understand.

Paul may do unto "women" just exactly as he would have "women" do unto him.

 

[Strong in Him]

We can decide that later.
Guidelines about how other genders may act are over ruled.

Sorry but that doesn't make sense and doesn't answer the question.

Paul said that women should remain silent. You say that he was in error - he was wrong to say that and that those who kept his words in Scripture were also in error. That is a serious thing to say - the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write and the church to choose and compile Scripture - if they were both wrong, then ultimately it was the Spirit who made the mistake.
This isn't solved by just quoting the verse, "treat others as you would like them to treat you." The issue is, did the Spirit allow error and does the Bible contain mistakes and contradictions? A follow-up question is, "if so, how can we trust it, and the Spirit?"

 

[Strong in Him]

Paul may do unto "women" just exactly as he would have "women" do unto him.

O.k. I get what you're saying but I don't think that applies here.
Why have you put women in inverted commas?

 

[SkyWriting]

O.k. I get what you're saying but I don't think that applies here.
Why have you put women in inverted commas?

You may test any two groups or individuals you like.

"The president" vs "the people." Each group has volunteered to make rules for the other.
Men Vs Women - No
pastor vs congregation - yes
rich vs poor - no
black vs white - no
tall vs short - no
president vs interest group - yes
dictator vs people - no
board of directors vs company - yes
Jews vs Christian - no
Pope vs Church - yes

You may do unto others....as long as you let them do the same to you.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sorry but that doesn't make sense and doesn't answer the question.

Paul said that women should remain silent. You say that he was in error - he was wrong to say that and that those who kept his words in Scripture were also in error. That is a serious thing to say - the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write and the church to choose and compile Scripture - if they were both wrong, then ultimately it was the Spirit who made the mistake.
This isn't solved by just quoting the verse, "treat others as you would like them to treat you." The issue is, did the Spirit allow error and does the Bible contain mistakes and contradictions? A follow-up question is, "if so, how can we trust it, and the Spirit?"

God's Holy Spirit is not something we can apply to other people
or have specific expectations of how it should apply to them.
It is only an entity we can allow into our lives.

You cannot trust Gods Holy Spirit to follow your expectations
in anything. To say that our understanding of scripture is perfect
does not even take into account it's already been translated.
Scripture puts into words that which is perfect and the message
of God's love for us and will not be damaged by any writer or editor.
It that respect, the scriptures are without flaw no matter what
language they may get translated into.

"United Bible Societies reported that the Bible, in whole or part, has been translated in more than 2,530 languages, including complete Old or New Testaments..."