Women pastors, the spirit of whoredom

Status
Not open for further replies.

Floatingaxe

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2007
14,757
877
71
Ontario, Canada
✟22,726.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
The New Testament is scripture, but not the scripture Paul was referring to. Charles Dicken's A Tale of Two Cities is scripture also.

By what authority? Let me ask you, by what authority did John baptize? That ritual was created for and and only for the Levitical priests in the temple. It was not "scriptural" for him to do it to common folk.

Just because I don't believe God wrote the New Testament does not mean it does not have truth, value or authority. Answer me my question to you about John the baptizer, and I will tell you where the New Testament gets it authority and were I get my authority.


You are wrong about the New Testament. Every born again Christian knows that God Almighty inspired the authors of the New Testament by His Spirit.
 
Upvote 0

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,536
372
68
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If there is ignorance it is at your end of the table so to speak.

I would suggest a letter to the church in Smyrna written from Ignatius in 106 AD reprimanding them on the Eucharist.

It is not a tale of two cities and not scripture since no Apostle wrote it but it is an authoratative letter from to a church teaching falsely.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:
I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadephians, 4:1, 110 A.D.:
Be ye careful therefore to observe one eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto union in His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow-servants), that whatsoever ye do, ye may do it after God.

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.


So how come it is totally transparent that Ignatius is speaking symbolically or metaphorically, and you HAVE to take it literally?


And then for some inexplicable reason, all of a sudden this metaphor, this beautiful symbolic act of remembrance, solidarity and re-commitment literally becomes a pagan ritual of cannibalism:


Justin Martyr, Apology, I.66-67, 2nd century: Communion in the Body and Blood of Christ
It is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are true, who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness of sins and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us. For we do not take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink. Just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh. Indeed, the Apostles, in the records left by them which are called gospels, handed on that it was commanded to them in this manner: Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks said, ``Do this in memory of me, this is my body.'' Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, ``This is my blood'', and he gave it to them alone.
And the sad thing is because no one but the Church was allowed access to scripture, everyone fell lockstep into order and never questioned it publicly... after all, we all know what the Catholic Church does to those who question dogma..

 
Upvote 0

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,536
372
68
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ya gotta love Clement:
St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children [2,2,19,4] 202 A.D.:
The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His Immortality. the strength of the Word is the Spirit, just as the blood is the strength of the body. [20,1] Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, --of the drink and of the Word,--is called Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.
 
Upvote 0

JacktheCatholic

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.
Mar 9, 2007
24,545
2,797
56
Michigan, USA
Visit site
✟44,388.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Clement is awesome and a true Christian.

Ignatius was another who did great things serving the Church.

It is more than clear to me that these scholars and teachers taught by John and Peter were not speaking symbolically when referring the bread as the flesh of Christ.

It is only the one with little or no faith that tries to twist the obvious nature of the bread being Jesus flesh to be something symbolic.

To me any fool can read these things and KNOW it is the flesh of Christ as our sacrifice and indeed a hard truth as Peter said. But it is the Truth.
 
Upvote 0

JacktheCatholic

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.
Mar 9, 2007
24,545
2,797
56
Michigan, USA
Visit site
✟44,388.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And the sad thing is because no one but the Church was allowed access to scripture, everyone fell lockstep into order and never questioned it publicly


Your ignorance is showing or maybe it is the serpents tongue full of lies. Either way this remark I will take as ignorance.

Obviously in 106 AD when Ignatius wrote his letter for the Catholic Church the New Testament had not even been decided on by the Catholic Church yet. In 300 AD they had over 200 books and the Catholic Church finally decided on 27 books to be chosen as inspired by God. The same 27 that we have had and all accepted until Luther decided some were not divine.

Luther... funny how a man can take more than 1200 years of acceptance of scripture and as a still novice priest make such extravagane claims.

But I digress...

And even after the compilation of the whole Bible (OT and NT) from Latin to Greek started in 382 until early in the 5th century, the bible would take a monk three years to make one copy and cost quite a bit becasue they did not use paper and a bic. The cost of one bible would be only available to the very wealthy and would cost at least three years wages. Kind of extravagant huh?

But the Catholic Church did make copies availble to the public. They might have a copy available at the church. Of course they chained it to the mantel or wherever it resided. But then at three years wages wouldn't you?

And if that is still some kind of ignorant argument then consider that universities of study would have only one text book for a class and they locked them up to.

Kind of tough for people today to realize how things were hundreds of years ago. So much easier to be in bliss (ignorance) and they lived liked we do today.
 
Upvote 0

chris777

Senior Veteran
Aug 8, 2006
2,005
114
GA
✟17,817.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It's my strong belief that the Christian church today isn't properly taught about the Law - the details of what Christ FULFILLED (not removed or made void) and what still pertain to us to continue obeying.
IE. MORAL law from the OT continues, moral law didn't change, and was present before the OT law was written.

We keep saying we're under grace now as if the entire OT is invalid, useless and only good for kindling in a fireplace.
When we say we're under Grace, it's true, we are. BUT ALOT OF PEOPLE ARE WRONGLY ATTACHING THE IDEA THAT THE LAW IS COMPLETELY GONE now & we can toss out the OT that isn't important or valid anymore.

I PRAY our churches start teaching what changed and that the law isn't entirely GONE.
I think it would be more appropriate to say that the chirch is just flat out ignorant of scriptures as a whole, and the only verses that are recalled are those they enjoy, and those that make things easier on them personally
 
Upvote 0

chris777

Senior Veteran
Aug 8, 2006
2,005
114
GA
✟17,817.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
What kind of differences? Can you give some examples?
our natures are different, our brain chemistry, and the way our minds work, women are more emotional and driven by their emotions more often than men are. the way we socialize, hobbies, its a vast difference, not like I am saying that mens noses are bigger, and more square than womens, these are fundamental differences between men and women.
There's truth all around us. I see that there are women who are better leaders than men,
doesnt Change Gods word on the issue, if we start making exceptions to one rule then the rest of it is freee season as well.
just like I see that the sky is blue and the grass is green.
I was speaking of all other religions and philosophies specifically.
 
Upvote 0

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,536
372
68
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"I am the bread of life"... now is that a literal statement? Of course it is not. That is the statement that the "this is my body, eat" is based on according to ALL the early church fathers.
It is symbolic and it is obvious to everyone except those that have to twist the meaning around into nonsense to condone this pagan cannibalism.
 
Upvote 0

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,536
372
68
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Every born again Christian? You have lived a very sheltered life, my sister. You are not familiar with all the debate and compromise involved in the Canonization of the New and Old Testaments? There is much in The Bible that need not be there and much that is not that should be there.
I am not trying to anger or frustrate you, only lead you to the truth. The truth is that it is a record of man's experience with God, not God's record of God's experience with man. It not only doesn't have to be inerrant but can't and shouldn't be.

I also know that God inspired Dickens, Dostoevsky and CS Lewis... they aren't in your Bible, are they?
 
Upvote 0

JWNEWMAN

Senior Veteran
Oct 6, 2006
5,182
136
✟21,154.00
Faith
Christian
"I am the bread of life"... now is that a literal statement? Of course it is not. That is the statement that the "this is my body, eat" is based on according to ALL the early church fathers.
It is symbolic and it is obvious to everyone except those that have to twist the meaning around into nonsense to condone this pagan cannibalism.
OK, so some believe, it's the actual body, others believe it is a metaphor... never the twain shall meet. Should we defame and malign one another because we don't agree on specifics? I don't think that is why Jesus died for us do you?

In any event, I'm inclined to agree with Nadiine at this point. Let's stay on topic take this argument elsewhere. I suggest, take it to prayer.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,536
372
68
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Obviously in 106 AD when Ignatius wrote his letter for the Catholic Church the New Testament had not even been decided on by the Catholic Church yet. In 300 AD they had over 200 books and the Catholic Church finally decided on 27 books to be chosen as inspired by God. The same 27 that we have had and all accepted until Luther decided some were not divine.

Luther... funny how a man can take more than 1200 years of acceptance of scripture and as a still novice priest make such extravagane claims.

But I digress...

And even after the compilation of the whole Bible (OT and NT) from Latin to Greek started in 382 until early in the 5th century, the bible would take a monk three years to make one copy and cost quite a bit becasue they did not use paper and a bic. The cost of one bible would be only available to the very wealthy and would cost at least three years wages. Kind of extravagant huh?

But the Catholic Church did make copies availble to the public. They might have a copy available at the church. Of course they chained it to the mantel or wherever it resided. But then at three years wages wouldn't you?
Yeah.... who read Latin then? Who read at all then?

Note my highlights: this was decided by men. No finger of God, no lightning or angels... a group of men got together and argued over it until they decided on the 27 book compromise. Those that disagreed would labeled heretics.

And if that is still some kind of ignorant argument then consider that universities of study would have only one text book for a class and they locked them up to.

Kind of tough for people today to realize how things were hundreds of years ago. So much easier to be in bliss (ignorance) and they lived liked we do today.

What percentage of the population in Europe do think could read and or write? ONLY the very wealthy and powerful. Most never went to school and only learned the Bible from being read it in church.

Luther a novice.... I like that. I am beginning to understand the courage of those who led the Protestant reformation even more. The Catholic Church was corrupt and sold out to the ruling class. It hoarded knowledge and education, and oppressed the people with threats of excommunication, hell and the inquisition... "and they'll know we are Christians by our love"
 
Upvote 0

chris777

Senior Veteran
Aug 8, 2006
2,005
114
GA
✟17,817.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Every born again Christian? You have lived a very sheltered life, my sister. You are not familiar with all the debate and compromise involved in the Canonization of the New and Old Testaments? There is much in The Bible that need not be there and much that is not that should be there.
I am not trying to anger or frustrate you, only lead you to the truth. The truth is that it is a record of man's experience with God, not God's record of God's experience with man. It not only doesn't have to be inerrant but can't and shouldn't be.

The notion of having an open mind is unfortunately more frequently than not a bad thing.
Because once ones mind becomes open to possibility, it is like opening a floodgate, and then trying to shut it back.

not all views are true or valid, not all ideas are worth bothering with.

Ecc 12:
8] Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.
[9] And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs.
[10] The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.
[11] The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.
[12] And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
[13] Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
[14] For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil
 
Upvote 0

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,536
372
68
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
OK, so some believe, it's the actual body, others believe it is a metaphor... never the twain shall meet. Should we defame and malign one another because we don't agree on specifics? I don't think that is why Jesus died for us do you?

In any event, I'm inclined to agree with Nadiine at this point. Let's stay on topic take this argument elsewhere. I suggest, take it to prayer.
The argument has become a "Catholic Church says so, so it is so" argument. It has become a "the Bible says so" argument. Those dogmatic, inarguable positions need to be addressed.
Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Bible are God. Both are man made and both are fallible.Only an idol worshiper could believe they are otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

*Starlight*

Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time
Jan 19, 2005
75,337
1,471
37
Right in front of you *waves*
Visit site
✟133,073.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
our natures are different, our brain chemistry, and the way our minds work, women are more emotional and driven by their emotions more often than men are. the way we socialize, hobbies, its a vast difference, not like I am saying that mens noses are bigger, and more square than womens, these are fundamental differences between men and women.
ok, here's a quick quiz for you. There's a person A, and the only thing you know about that person is that he/she is generally driven by their emotions, and their personally is more like what people generally attribute to women than men. But you don't know that person's name, gender, and things like that. Would you be willing to bet a million dollars and your right hand that the person A is female? Why or why not? And yes, that's VERY relevant to our discussion. :)
doesnt Change Gods word on the issue, if we start making exceptions to one rule then the rest of it is freee season as well.

I was speaking of all other religions and philosophies specifically.
You misunderstood me..... Let's see, if:

"Sky is blue" = "God created the Earth sky blue"

and

"Grass is green" = "God created grass green"

then

"Some women are better leaders than men" = "God created some women to be better leaders then men". :)
 
Upvote 0

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
1 Tim 2:
11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.
12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
a. Let a woman learn in silence: This unfortunate translation has led some to believe that it is forbidden for women to even speak in church meetings. Paul uses the same word translated silence in 1 Timothy 2:2, and it is translated peaceable there. The idea is without contention instead of total silence.
i. In other places in the New Testament, even in the writings of Paul, women are specifically mentioned as praying and speaking in the church (1 Corinthians 11:5). To learn in silence has the idea of women receiving the teaching of the men God has chosen to lead in the church, with submission instead of contention.
ii. Submission is the principle; to learn in silence describes the application of the principle.
iii. Some have said the reason for this is because in these ancient cultures (as well as some present-day cultures), men and women sat in separate sections. The thought is that women interrupted the church service by shouting questions and comments to their husbands during the service. Clarke expresses this idea: “It was lawful for men in public assemblies to ask questions, or even interrupt the speaker when there was any matter in his speech which they did not understand; but this liberty was not granted to women.”
b. With all submission: The word for submission here literally means, “To be under in rank.” It has to do with respecting an acknowledged order of authority. It certainly does not mean that men are more spiritual than women or that women are inferior to men.
i. “Anyone who has served in the armed forces knows that ‘rank’ has to do with order and authority, not with value or ability. . . . Just as an army would be in confusion if there were no levels of authority, so society would be in chaos without submission.” (Wiersbe)
c. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man: Paul’s meaning seems clear. Women are not to have the role of teaching authority in the church. To be under authority is the principle; not teaching is the application.
i. Paul is saying that the church should not recognize women as those having authority in the church regarding matters of doctrine and Scriptural interpretation.
ii. Not all speaking or teaching by a woman is necessarily a violation of God’s order of authority in the church. Whatever speaking or teaching is done by a woman must be done in submission to the men God has appointed to lead the church.
iii. 1 Corinthians 11:1-12 emphasizes the same principle. Women are to always act under authority in the congregation, demonstrated in Corinthian culture by the wearing of a head covering. Therefore a woman in the Corinthian church could only pray or prophesy if she demonstrated that she was under the leadership of the church, and she demonstrated this by wearing a head covering and by acting consistently with that principle.
d. I do not permit: The strength of Paul’s wording here makes it challenging to obey this command in today’s society. Since the 1970’s, our culture has rejected the idea that there may be different roles for men and women in the home, in the professional world, or in the church. In this text (among others), the Holy Spirit clearly says there is a difference in roles.
i. But the cultural challenge must be seen in its true context - not just a struggle between men and women, but as a struggle with the issue of authority in general. Since the 1960’s, there has been a massive change in the way we see and accept authority.
  • Citizens do not have the same respect for government’s authority.
  • Students do not have the same respect for teacher’s authority.
  • Women do not have the same respect for men’s authority.
  • Children do not have the same respect for parental authority.
  • Employees do not have the same respect for their employer’s authority.
  • People do not have the same respect for the police’s authority.
  • Christians no longer have the same respect for church authority.
ii. There are not many who would say that these changes have been good. Generally, people do not feel safer and there is less confidence in the culture. Television and other entertainment get worse and worse. In fact, our society is presently in, and rushing towards, complete anarchy - the state where no authority is accepted, and the only thing that matters is what one wants to do.
iii. It is fair to describe our present moral state as one of anarchy. There is no moral authority in our culture. When it comes to morality, the only thing that matters is what one wants to do. And in a civil sense, many neighborhoods in our nation are given over to anarchy. The government’s authority is not accepted in gang-infested portions of our cities. The only thing that matters is what one wants to do.
iv. We must see the broader attack on authority as a direct Satanic strategy to destroy our society and millions of individual lives. He is accomplishing this with two main attacks. First, the corruption of authority; second, the rejection of authority.
v. This idea of authority and submission to authority are so important to God that they are part of His very being. The First Person of the Holy Trinity is called the Father; the Second Person of the Holy Trinity is called the Son. Inherent in those titles is a relationship of authority and submission to authority. The Father exercises authority over the Son, and the Son submits to the Father’s authority - and this is in the very nature and being of God. Our failure to exercise Biblical authority, and our failure to submit to Biblical authority, isn’t just wrong and sad - it sins against the very nature of God. 1 Samuel 15:23 speaks to this same principle: For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.

e. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man: Paul’s focus here is the public worship of the church. God has established a clear chain of authority in both the home and in the church, and in those spheres, God has ordained that men are the “head” - that is, that they have the place of authority and responsibility.
i. Our culture, having rejected the idea in a difference in role between men and women, now rejects the idea of anydifference between men and women. The driving trends in our culture point towards men who are more like women, and women who are more like men. Styles, clothes, perfumes, and all the rest promote this thought.
ii. The Bible is just as specific that there is no general submission of women unto men commanded in society; only in the spheres of the home and in the church. God has not commanded in His word that men have exclusive authority in the areas of politics, business, education, and so on.
iii. It also does not mean that every woman in the church is under the authority of every man in the church. Instead it means that those who lead the church - pastors and ruling elders - must be men, and the women (and others) must respect their authority.
iv. The failure of men to lead in the home and in the church, and to lead in the way Jesus would lead, has been a chief cause of the rejection of male authority - and is inexcusable.
v. Some feel this recognition and submission to authority is an unbearable burden. They feel that it means, “I have to say that I am inferior, that I am nothing, and I have to recognize this other person as being superior.” Yet inferiority or superiority has nothing to do with this. We remember the relationship between God the Father and God the Son - they are completely equal in their being, but have different roles when it comes to authority.
vi. Some may say that the church cannot work (or cannot work well) unless we go along with the times and put women into positions of spiritual and doctrinal authority in the church. From the standpoint of what works in our culture, they may be right. Yet from the standpoint of pleasing God by doing what He says in His word, they are wrong.

4. (13-14) Reasons for God’s recognition of male authority in the church.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
a. For Adam was formed first: The first reason for male authority in the church is order of creation. Adam (man) was created first, and given original authority on earth.
i. The first command God gave to the human race is found in Genesis 2:16-17: Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. This command was not given to woman at all. At the time that command was given, Eve was not yet created from Adam.
ii. Therefore, Adam received his command and his authority from God, and Eve received her command and authority from Adam.
b. The woman being deceived: The second reason is the difference in the sin of Adam and Eve, as connected to their difference in authority.
i. Both Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, and Eve clearly sinned first. Yet, the Bible never blames Eve for the fall of the human race, but always blames Adam (through one man sin entered the world, Romans 5:12). Adam is responsible because of there was a difference of authority.
Adam had an authority Eve did not have; therefore he also had a responsibility Eve did not have. Adam failed in his responsibility in a far more significant way than Eve did.
ii. As well, Eve was deceived, and Adam was not deceived. Eve was tricked; but Adam sinned knew exactly what he was doing when he rebelled. This means that though Adam’s sin was worse, Eve’s ability to be more readily deceived made her more dangerous in a place of authority. “Eve’s reasoning faculty was at once overcome by the allegation of jealousy felt by God, an allegation plausible to a nature swayed by emotion rather than by reflection.” (White)
iii. Generally speaking, it may be observed that women seem to be more spiritually sensitive than men - but this can be true for good or evil.

iv. Adam . . . the woman: “St. Paul says woman rather than Eve, emphasizing the sex rather than the individual, because he desires to give the incident its general application, especially in view of what follows.” (White)
v. Significantly, these reasons are not dependent upon culture. Those who say “Paul was a sexist man in a sexist culture,” and discount these words, are simply not reading what the Holy Spirit says in the sacred Scriptures here.

(my red & black emphasis added)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,536
372
68
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I would interpret Paul's words completely differently.... "I do not permit" sounds very specific and personal... not "You should not" or "no one should".

And what a blatant lie the reference to Adam and Eve is! Adam was not deceived but Eve was?! Paul didn't read the same story I did.
Paul didn't like women... especially single women.Married women were just ok, but that is because they "belonged" to someone. Single women may have been a threat to his faith, or whatever... but whenever Paul talks about sex or gender issues, you can pretty much just turn the page and move on.
 
Upvote 0

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I would interpret Paul's words completely differently.... "I do not permit" sounds very specific and personal... not "You should not" or "no one should".

And what a blatant lie the reference to Adam and Eve is! Adam was not deceived but Eve was?! Paul didn't read the same story I did.
Paul didn't like women... especially single women.Married women were just ok, but that is because they "belonged" to someone. Single women may have been a threat to his faith, or whatever... but whenever Paul talks about sex or gender issues, you can pretty much just turn the page and move on.
So YOU'RE INTERPRETATION IS RIGHT AND PAUL IS WRONG?
Paul was taught directly by Jesus Christ for 3 yrs. You seem to think you have more insight?

Yes, Eve was decieved, ADAM GAVE IN. And since Adam is the headship of Eve, he is also responsible for her. Instead of leading her away from the fruit, HE GAVE IN TO HER.

Men can and DO give in to women knowingly for whatever their reasons - women can be extremely persuasive & manipulative if they want to be (if they're any good at it - & many are).
OR, he didn't have the nerve to stand up & take charge as he should of.

I'd be REAL careful in saying "Paul's clearly wrong & clueless, I KNOW THE TRUTH, so I reject what he just taught".
:help: :swoon: :doh:
a PS to an ignorant statement: read Paul's opening's & closings of letters, you'll then be disproven that he hated women- you're PARROTING skeptics and it falls flat when you read how he loved the women in the church - INCLUDING THOSE WITH HIGH POSITIONS IN THE CHURCH!
 
Upvote 0

JacktheCatholic

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.
Mar 9, 2007
24,545
2,797
56
Michigan, USA
Visit site
✟44,388.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What percentage of the population in Europe do think could read and or write? ONLY the very wealthy and powerful. Most never went to school and only learned the Bible from being read it in church.

Luther a novice.... I like that. I am beginning to understand the courage of those who led the Protestant reformation even more. The Catholic Church was corrupt and sold out to the ruling class. It hoarded knowledge and education, and oppressed the people with threats of excommunication, hell and the inquisition... "and they'll know we are Christians by our love"

I can say now that your education has not been from a university. All this dribble that I have heard from you is the regurgitated filth from the many anti-catholic sites out on the web. So full of lies and half truths to sounds like teaching but actually the work of the devil since only the devil speak with a forked tongue of lies and half truths (and his children).
 
Upvote 0

JacktheCatholic

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.
Mar 9, 2007
24,545
2,797
56
Michigan, USA
Visit site
✟44,388.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The argument has become a "Catholic Church says so, so it is so" argument. It has become a "the Bible says so" argument. Those dogmatic, inarguable positions need to be addressed.
Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Bible are God. Both are man made and both are fallible.Only an idol worshiper could believe they are otherwise.

More filth...

To say the Bible has flaws is just stupid and not christian.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JacktheCatholic

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.
Mar 9, 2007
24,545
2,797
56
Michigan, USA
Visit site
✟44,388.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
"I am the bread of life"... now is that a literal statement? Of course it is not. That is the statement that the "this is my body, eat" is based on according to ALL the early church fathers.
It is symbolic and it is obvious to everyone except those that have to twist the meaning around into nonsense to condone this pagan cannibalism.

Now I know you...

Your posts are not worth any more of my responses.

I will pray for you. :crossrc:
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.