Which specific law is this referencing?

[JesusistheChrist]

Am I correct that you do not have very much experience in discussion forums?

No, you're not correct at all. I've been on different forums for about 10 years now. Anyhow, the issue here isn't one of my "experience", but rather one of your eisegesis...even as I've already stated.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

It sure seems you are disagreeing with me and I am saying that all women (single or married) are included in the prohibition for women to speak in the church.
So please explain under what circumstances a single sister is allowed to address the assembly in that time of coming together.
Are you saying she can join along with the men in addressing the assembly any time the saints assemble for a service?
What is your rationale for why she can but the married cannot? What exactly are you pushing for?

I actually don't believe that women, under normal circumstances, ought to "address the assembly", to use your words, but that's not the issue here. Rather, the issue is that you're taking verses which IN CONTEXT all have to do with the confines of a marriage or with the confines of A HUSBAND AND HIS OWN WIFE and trying to extend them to give them a broader meaning which obviously wasn't intended by the authors. As such, try dealing with what's actually being addressed, YOUR EISEGESIS, and stop trying to shift the focus towards me. At my end, I'm merely upholding the integrity of scripture. At you're end, you're butchering the same.

 

[Kerry]

Yahchanan (John) 5:14, Afterward, Yahshua found him in the sacred precincts and said to him: Behold, you are healed. Sin no more, or a worse thing will come upon you.

John (Yahchanan) 14:6, "Yahshua proclaimed to him: I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father, except through Me."

Luke 6:46, "And why call Me; Ruler! Ruler! and do not the things which I say?"

Romans 2:4-12, “Or do you despise the riches of His kindness, forbearance, and longsuffering; not realizing that Yahweh’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But according to your stubborn and impenitent mind you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of Yahweh’s wrath, when the righteous judgment of Yahweh will be revealed; when He will reward each one according to his works: to the ones on the one hand, who, by patient persistence in doing righteousness, seek for glory, honor and immortality, He will give eternal life. But to the ones on the other hand, who are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, He will give indignation and wrath.” Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man who does evil: to the Yahdai(Jew) first, and also to the Greek (Gentile) But glory, honor, and peace to every man who works righteousness: to the Yahdai first, and also to the Greek. For there is no respect of persons with Yahweh.For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.”

Are you talking about Joshua or Jesus the hebrew means the same I meant how do differ from the two? Because if I go to my Hebrew roots and examine the names Joshua and Jesus are the same, so how do you differentiate the two?

 

[JesusistheChrist]

In the above, you were responding to my post where I asked you a question:


I then asked in another post two other questions:


If you do not intend to answer questions, then please let the people you are supposed to be discussing with know, so they will not waste their time asking you.

Let's get something established right from the onset:

I'm not on your timetable, but God's and, consequentially, mine. I can assure you that your "questions" don't intimidate me in the least. Again, you're butchering the scriptures and, quite frankly, you sound like the typical misogynist...and that's coming from someone who doesn't even believe that women ought to be in charge in the house of God, but I'd never twist or wrest the scriptures, as you're presently doing, to seek to make such a case.

 

[AVoice]

Oh, so, according to you, both Paul and Peter went out of their ways TO SPECIFY WIVES AND THEIR OWN HUSBANDS, but, in reality, they were talking about "all women"?

You really do need to learn the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. IOW, you really need to stop replacing what the writers of scripture actually said with your own BIASES AND PRESUPPOSITIONS.

Let your women. The man with older single daughters would still be "your women". "Your women" includes all women. You are making it out as if he meant literally, "your wives". I am the one taking it more literally and in context.

 

[AVoice]

Let's get something established right from the onset:

I'm not on your timetable, but God's and, consequentially, mine. I can assure you that your "questions" don't intimidate me in the least. Again, you're butchering the scriptures and, quite frankly, you sound like the typical misogynist...and that's coming from someone who doesn't even believe that women ought to be in charge in the house of God, but I'd never twist or wrest the scriptures, as you're presently doing, to seek to make such a case.

Does this mean you do not intend on answering questions asked of you?

 

[AVoice]

Hogwash.

Paul said:

I Corinthians chapter 11

[14] Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
[15] But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
[16] But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

What is it about "we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" that you don't understand?

Again, if A WIFE USURPS HER OWN HUSBAND'S AUTHORITY, then she comes between him and his head, Christ, thereby becoming her husband's "covering". IOW, figuratively speaking, her husband now has her "long hair". THIS is what Paul was talking about and not the nonsense that you're going on about.

Seeing that Paul's conclusion that it is a shame for a man to have long hair is based on a line of reasoning going back to God's purpose in creation and that the hair has spiritual significance, it is unwise in my opinion to interpret verse 16 as if Paul was throwing out all the truth he just expounded on, giving anyone who so chooses to simply ignore it.
16: But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
I believe he is saying if anyone were to contend with the facts laid out by him concerning God's intention with regard to hair etc., as laid out in the chapter, then that man should know the church has no custom outside the sound revelation Paul has delivered. Paul was given abundant revelations, he doesn't recklessly treat them as you assert here.

I anticipate from you further childish insults etc. So I am putting you on my ignore list so as to not be further abused by you. Good bye. If you desire to make amends you are welcome to try to contact me by private message.

 

[oldhermit]

I would agree in general with what you say here But we also see the Lord raise up Debra ...as a Judge over the people under the law... We also see Paul affirm some women as "ministers" servants...same word. I also believe Paul goes on to explain why a woman is in the condition of transgression and that she can be delivered...saved from that condition under certain requirements that Paul speaks of... I also believe when Paul says its a shame for a woman to teach...that the shame is not on the woman as much as on the men who have failed to study and show themselves approved before God.

What does Deborah have to do with women's roles in the assembly?

 

[JesusistheChrist]

Make amends?

Good riddance...scripture butchering misogynist.