- Jul 23, 2020
- 2,357
- 237
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
Some countries use the death penalty for lesser crimes.
Do you want to abolish the death penalty in those cases?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Some countries use the death penalty for lesser crimes.Why? you are in favor of criminal behavior? What do you think is going to be the outcome? What do you hope it will achieve?
Any ole' port in a storm. . .that assumes the command was a "universal" rule and not a "local" issue.
but it seems you are breaking your own rule. If words are associated with the person and they are feminine or masculine, the holy spirit must be feminine because the word is feminine.Through a basic knowledge of gendered languages, mainly Latin and Greek. I really don't mean to be condescending, and I know it sounds like I do, but this whole controversy just smacks of ignorance of languages other than English, the same as the "petra/Petros" argument about Matthew 16:18. The word for "tablet" is feminine in Latin, but we don't refer to a tablet in English as "her."
Words that are closely related to people, e.g. occupations, do have correspondence between grammatical gender and personal gender: a servus is a slave, and can refer to either a slave in the general sense or to a male slave specifically; a serva is always a female slave. Words that are not closely related to people, like malleus, hammer, can be any grammatical gender, without affecting how we refer to them in English. The word for "spirit" falls into this latter category linguistically, even though in the unique case of God, the Holy Spirit is a person.
that text dose not say thatAny ole' port in a storm. . .
Paul grounds his teaching in the creation order, (2 Ti 2:13-14) which is the same for all Christianity.
You're right!
Pneuma (spirit) is neuter, with a masculine pronoun (he--Jn 16:13-14), against all the rules of grammar, denoting that he is a person.but it seems you are breaking your own rule. If words are associated with the person and they are feminine or masculine,
the holy spirit must be feminine because the word is feminine.
While I agree with you that paul ultimately has the creation order in mind, but women denial of authority is based on the Fall and the curse and it contradict the new covenat teaching, That Is Why it is LOCAL, based on him not want the church to be associated with temple prostitution. Any women in Ephesus in a religious context would have been seen as a prostitute. That would be enough for Paul to say shut up and sit down there is something bigger here. But it was not universal it is not the 11th commandment.Any ole' port in a storm. . .
Paul grounds his teaching in the creation order, (2 Ti 2:13-14) which is the same for all Christianity.
you will need to clarify, I am not familiar with the specific you are talking about.Some countries use the death penalty for lesser crimes.
Do you want to abolish the death penalty in those cases?
That's a "reach"! . . .for the sake of feminism?While I agree with you that paul ultimately has the creation order in mind, but women denial of authority is based on the Fall and the curse and it contradict the new covenat teaching, That Is Why it is LOCAL, based on him not want the church to be associated with temple prostitution.
Already addressed in my reply you quoted:but it seems you are breaking your own rule. If words are associated with the person and they are feminine or masculine, the holy spirit must be feminine because the word is feminine.
The word for "spirit" falls into this latter category linguistically, even though in the unique case of God, the Holy Spirit is a person.
That's a "reach"! . . .for the sake of feminism?
This is talking about speaking in tounges."In all the congregations of the saints (from Ephesus to Rome), women should remain silent in the churches." (1 Co 14:33)
No it's not, I've written three major papers on the subject one from the Jewish side one from the gentile side and one from the theological side. Feminism has its own issues. And it's on agenda that has nothing to do with Christianity.
What this is about is about representing God properly and what you're saying is that God wants to oppress women, and that he does not have their well-being in mind. You get to be nothing more than whatever we decide you are. According to that view, you can never have a woman be a business leader or a politician or a teacher or anything other than a stay-at-home wife. Which is exactly the role they had in the ancient Roman empire. That's all they could become. That has never been what God wanted for women.
Now the radical feminists have come along and said yeah we want to throw off the shackles of any kind of morality and say we want to go back to the model of the temple prostitutes. That's the basis of third wave feminism. Second place feminism was about everybody following the law and everybody being equal and becoming all they were meant to be. That car gets back to what God's original plan was.
Scripture tells us that men do not have absolute power. "If you do not obey my laws a woman will rule it over you". Notice the the role is we follow God first then we follow men. So it's always been about following God.
In the New covenant the laws placed upon the heart of the believer, and you will walk in his ways and you will do them. There was no need for male dominance in that situation all people must be subject to Christ in this matter and the laws of God. Gender is not even considered in this matter. So it is when God's holy spirit is placed inside of us that he decides by whatever act of his will to part out the gifts to whoever he decides. And that includes women. Sorry there's no other way around it.
That is the reason why it can only be circumstantial. Because to do otherwise is to misrepresent who God is and his character.
Take it up with God's apostle Paul regarding the assembly: which proscription he grounds in God's creation order.You are literally advocating for the robbing of an entire population group of the work of Christ
Your choice. . .and the benefits of salvation of the work of the Lord Jesus. Sorry I can't go along with that.
This is talking about speaking in tounges.
thank you for taking it out of context. Context is King in interpretation.Take it up with God's apostle Paul regarding the assembly: which proscription he grounds in God's creation order.
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be silent." (1 Tim 2:12-14).
Your choice. . .
God's apostle excludes all speaking in the assembly by women, basing it in God's creation order (1 Tim 2:13-14).
Assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without Biblical merit.thank you for taking it out of context. Context is King in interpretation.
Nice little quote, but I have already demonstrated an alternative interpretation, Paul was addressing the misrepresentation of God by women in Ephesus due to the association with Temple Prostitution.Assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without Biblical merit.
You have not provided a Biblical demonstration of your assertion, only your conjecture thereof.Nice little quote, but I have already demonstrated an alternative interpretation, Paul was addressing the misrepresentation of God by women in Ephesus due to the association with Temple Prostitution.
I provided a strong theological framework to show that Paul's statements are out of the norm for the New Covenant. Mainly they were born again, we are New creations, former things have passed away, and the curse has been removed. The Holy Spirit has been poured out in our hearts, we can walk in his ways, and he gives us gifts and blessings, by the Spirit, according to his will. He gives gifts to whomever HE decides.You have not provided a Biblical demonstration of your assertion, only your conjecture thereof.
Interpretation & application is subjective. That is what you have an interpretation and & application of the text. I disagree with you based on other passages in scripture.Framework is subjective.
Please present a Biblical demonstration of your assertion.
Review post #92.Interpretation & application is subjective. That is what you have an interpretation and & application of the text. I disagree with you based on other passages in scripture.
you need to clarify what you mean here. I have given you the biblical reference. so what do you want? more text? do want examples of this? I have shown you that there is
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?