Strong Women In Today's World

[pjharrison]

Angels (aggelos) have sinned:

2 Pet 2:
4) For if God spared not the angels (aggelos) that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

ok, so what is it talking about, in eph:6: 11 - 17

 

[pjharrison]

ok, so what is it talking about, in eph:6: 11 - 17

2
pet 2:4 is talking about false prophets. read from chapter 2:1-9 Why do some of you get mad a me for explaining my answers, but you all do the same.

 

[pjharrison]

I have not interacted with you previous to this week. I don't know what you believe. You've made some statements that seem to suggest certain beliefs, so I question you for clarification. Just answer the question.

I'm going to go and look at the rules to be on this site , because people are getting really offended by my answers, maybe i'm on the wrong site.

 

[shrume]

Nestlé Aland is not afraid to exclude traditional verses. So when they do not, there is no good chance the text is not authentic.

We disagree.

Some people can say so in blogs or something, but thats all. The text is in every manuscript, including the earliest ones.

Yes, it is. But it is inserted in different places in 1 Cor 14 in some manuscripts, which should be a red flag. Plus the strange content of those two verses, plus the way they break the flow of the text in 1 Cor 14 are further evidence that they are additions.

But I know not everyone agrees.

 

[shrume]

Do you remember about story about lazarus and the rich man in (luke 16:20 - 31

Yes. It is a parable. There are other ongoing discussions about the state of the dead.

 

[shrume]

2 pet 2:4 is talking about false prophets.

No it isn't. It's talking about angels that sinned. cp 1 Pet 3:18-20

read from chapter 2:1-9 Why do some of you get mad a me for explaining my answers, but you all do the same.

I'm not mad at you.

 

[pjharrison]

No it isn't. It's talking about angels that sinned. cp 1 Pet 3:18-20



I'm not mad at you.

I meant to put 2 pet: 3- 10, It's saying that If God didn't spare all these other things, but threw them into hell, neither shall he spare the false prophets and teachers who are leading people astray

 

[pjharrison]

Yes. It is a parable. There are other ongoing discussions about the state of the dead.[/QU
It tells us that the rich mn went to hell

 

[trofimus]

We disagree.


Yes, it is. But it is inserted in different places in 1 Cor 14 in some manuscripts, which should be a red flag. Plus the strange content of those two verses, plus the way they break the flow of the text in 1 Cor 14 are further evidence that they are additions.

But I know not everyone agrees.

Give us specific data. Which manuscripts, which places.

Also, why should it be a red flag? Its very easily explainable. A scribe skipped the text and when he realized it, he added it to the text later.

But there is no explanation of why it is in every manuscript, if it is not authentic.

 

[whatev]

.
My next comments do not apply to John Q and Jane Doe public; nor do they
apply to your average rank and file pew-warming Christians. No; my next
comments are restricted to people "in the Lord" and no others.

● Col 3:18 . .Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in The Lord.

● Eph 5:21-22 . . Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ; wives
to your husbands as to the Lord.

● Eph 5:24 . . Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should
submit to their husbands in everything.

The koiné word for "submit" in those verses is hupotasso (hoop-ot-as'-so)
which means to subordinate; but we're not talking about an imposed kind of
subordination like in the military; no, what we're talking about here is
"deference" which, in a nutshell, is respect for one's betters as opposed to
demanding equality with one's peers.

According to Eph 5:21 and Phil 2:3, deference is required of everybody in
the Lord regardless of gender and/or status; for sure in Christian marriages.

In other words: wives in the Lord are expected to take the initiative in this
issue and exercise the self control provided by the fruit of the Spirit as per
Gal 5:22-23; viz: the onus is upon them, and no one else, to stifle their
natural female impulses to be stubborn, disagreeable, hysterical,
demanding, and/or domineering.

A deferent wife is gracious, cordial, affable, approachable, temperate, genial,
sociable, ready to turn the other cheek, generous, charitable, altruistic,
tactful, sensitive, sympathetic; and above all she's coherent, reasonable,
and rational rather than incoherent, emotional, and reactive.

Deferent wives don't have to be right all the time. And most importantly,
deferent wives tread lightly on their husband's feelings. (It's amazing the
number of young girls brought up to believe that men are insensitive brutes
who have no more feelings than a tree stump)
.
A wife that's independent, quarrelsome, complaining, fault-finding, critical,
chafing, hostile, violent, carping, dominating, manipulating, thin-skinned,
defensive, assertive, aggressive, thoughtless, loud, stubborn, scolding,
lecturing, difficult, cruel, gender-biased, confrontational, constantly
clamoring about empowerment and harboring an "I am woman! Hear me
roar!" mentality is not the Lord's concept of deference. Those are hellish
behaviors; the kind of behaviors to be vigorously shunned and abhorred by
wives in the Lord.
_

When I was a child, I submitted to my father and my mother.

When I was a single woman, I submitted to my pastor and to the older women who were teaching me how to be a good Christian woman.

When I married, I still submitted to those older women and our pastor, but only if they were in line with what God says and what my husband agrees to.

And, I married a man I could submit to. It was one of the things that had to fit or there would be no marriage. And by fitting, I mean he had to be willing to be guided by the Lord, listen to other older men he was willing to submit to, and never laud it over me that he is the boss. He had to do the other side of this equation. The side you seem to ignore while power-tripping over women. He had to do the hard part. He had to love me.

And love me even when I have PMS, even when I'm flipping out, even when I'm rude, arrogant, and unbecoming.

He was worth submitting to because he loves me, takes into consideration what I say, doesn't worry about who is right and who is wrong, but what is the best answer for this immediate problem.

I submit to him, because he does that. I submit to him because I love him. I submit to him because we both love the Lord and are guided by what God wnats for us.

You, on the other hand, I would submit to right after I submit to the puddle outside my front door. You've proven nothing except that you think you are better, smarter, more knowledgeable than, not merely women, but everyone. And because of that, you babble on as if you have an audience. You are the hellish behavior!

Why do you think you have the power to demand women submit? Why do you think it is your responsibility to teach about submitting? If you had something to teach, how about teaching the harder part -- how to love like Christ loves the church?

Of course, first you'd have to learn about doing just that.

 

[whatev]

Webers.Home, you have not responded to my first post. You have not even made a credible attempt. Yet you keep posting verses out of context with your commentary. Let's have a response, please.

By the way, I'm neither John Q. Public nor a rank-and-file pew-warming churchgoer, much as you may want to characterize me as such.

I am glad I didn't marry a man with the last name Public. After reading this thread, I'd be the mom who would want to name my son John Quincy, just so people could meet the real John Q. Public.

 

[whatev]

Oh! Melita, I would like to answer that one. If a man truly love his wife, I mean lay my life down to protect love: It would be easier for the submission part.

It says:
Col. 3:18 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."
Then is says:
Col. 3:19 "Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them."

This type of love is rarer than we realize. If the love were real love, she would always have a say in their decisions. Also her wants, hopes and dreams would matter to her man. He would be constantly doing little things to please or surprise her.

If someone would oppose her for whatever reason, they would have to climb over her man's body to harm her. If a woman were loved like that, I don't think there would be a problem with submission.

Agree, however, there would be a battle for who was saving whom. My husband doesn't take it well if someone hurts me, but I don't take it well if someone hurts him. So, we'd be in that fight together.

And it's not as rare as you might think. 95% of the married people I know have the same kind of relationship with their spouses.

 

[whatev]

Ladies lets go hat buying...….Great Big Ones so it's easy to see the preacher every week and the men can talk about our BIG HATS instead of whether we talk or not....

Only after I learn if I want pertect.

 

[whatev]

It seems that some of you think this is a joke. This life determines where you live after you leave this earth. You don't just go to sleep. Your soul lives.

I take submission seriously. I think you're the one joking.

My life doesn't determine where I live after I leave earth. The Lord did that. Maybe if you'd stop thinking God is about angels which are demons which are hatless women speaking in church, you'd have time to learn the truth, instead of starting another urban myth.

 

[whatev]

This entire thread is a joke.

Have you noticed how many men have since shown up, and yet they can't stay on topic? Hard for me to imagine submitting to such men.

 

[Miri]

Have you noticed how many men have since shown up, and yet they can't stay on topic? Hard for me to imagine submitting to such men.

Truthfully I find the idea of submitting to a man hard.
Especially so as I was brought up without a father and my older brothers
(all at least 9 years older than me), just leave me to get on with things and
won’t help out with mum etc. One won’t even visit her in hosp unless I’m there
as he is scared of hospitals.

The one who is a fitness fanatic and goes to the gym at 6am every day and
is retired so has a lot of time on his hands, won’t help with gardening as
he says he doesn’t know how to use a lawn mower or the hedge trimmers.

Despite me earning less than my brothers I am the one who has
helped them out financially too, when they have made poor money decisions.

Thankfully the Lord has given me a brain and the ability to work, and deal
with whatever has been thrown my way, and He also doesn’t mind if I don’t
wear a hat! Besides hats don’t suit me. Lol 😉

 

[Tommy379]

Right about now, I wouldn't mind submitting to a woman a bit.

 

[shrume]

Give us specific data. Which manuscripts, which places.

No, I will not do that here and now. But you can check these if you like:

Alan Johnson ( The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: 1 Corinthians, p. 271)
Richard Hays (A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: 1 Corinthians, p. 247)

Also, why should it be a red flag? Its very easily explainable. A scribe skipped the text and when he realized it, he added it to the text later.

That is one possible explanation, but not the only one.

But there is no explanation of why it is in every manuscript, if it is not authentic.

We have no originals.

 

[trofimus]

No, I will not do that here and now. But you can check these if you like:

Alan Johnson ( The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: 1 Corinthians, p. 271)
Richard Hays (A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: 1 Corinthians, p. 247)


That is one possible explanation, but not the only one.


We have no originals.

You did not answer anything. Your hypothesis is baseless.

 

[shrume]

You did not answer anything. Your hypothesis is baseless.

Suite yourself, trofimus.