A Double Standard in Christianity?

[justbyfaith]

bust a gut laughing cause this is how it is really meant

How?

 

[Dino246]

There is not any error on my part (unless you want to point it out in a post that will be forward and not backward); and in calling me a fool you are in danger of hell fire (Matthew 5:22).

Go and do your homework, and don't respond until and unless you do. If you want to be treated like an adult, act like one.

 

[DavidTree]

Most translations indicate that the context of the third statement (actually, second, in the text) is marriage. "The man is the head of the woman" or something similar.

That would be in line with the design and plan of God, from the Beginning, for man and woman.

With the rare exception of those who desire to be 100% free unto the Lord - meaning, unencumbered by marriage responsibilities.

 

[SophieT]

"Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way opened for us through the curtain of His body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God..."

even applying the caveat of the 'contortionist' reply, that is no reply to what I said

if you do not want to, or you cannot reply, simply say so

 

[DavidTree]

yeah...heard this one before but I do not agree with it. sounds pretty iffy

all sexes are resident in a man if you want to look at it that way, since the man determines the sex of the baby conceived

(sorry...not picking on you...even though with 2 threads wherein we are not quite agreeing, it might seem so)

which would agree with Scripture = the first woman came from the first man

 

[SophieT]

I had to correct my post and say that it is concerning the New Testament.

There are in fact protocols for propriety in worship in the New Testament.

yes there are

and women were not, as a general rule as opposed to the situation in the church in Corinth which had myriad problems. told to be seen and not heard. ever

women prophesied in church in the NT. were they using sign language?

so any church, according to some, that allow women to even sing in church or say anything...including hello how are you...are in error

silent is silent

 

[Dino246]

There is not any error on my part (unless you want to point it out in a post that will be forward and not backward); and in calling me a fool you are in danger of hell fire (Matthew 5:22).

Start at post 77 and work forward. You will see that you did not make the claim that started the dialogue.

 

[justbyfaith]

Go and do your homework, and don't respond until and unless you do. If you want to be treated like an adult, act like one.

I don't go backward (Philippians 3:13). If you have a refutation, by all means give it.

 

[justbyfaith]

yes there are

and women were not, as a general rule as opposed to the situation in the church in Corinth which had myriad problems. told to be seen and not heard. ever

That is not a biblical statement.

women prophesied in church in the NT.

Give chapter and verse where women prophesied in the context of a church service, apart from the symbol being present that there was authority over them in the men who were present.

were they using sign language?

so any church, according to some, that allow women to even sing in church or say anything...including hello how are you...are in error

silent is silent

In context, it is referring to a woman teaching or usurping authority over a man.

Paul said that if anyone is contentious about the propriety in worship thing, that he had no such custom, as to head coverings, and that neither did the churches of God.

Iow, it was not a custom (it was not merely a cultural observance).

In fact, Paul refers to the order of creation (in 1 Corinthians 11:10) when he speaks of this propriety.

So, there is something eternal to this ordinance of holy scripture. For it is written in the timeless word of God.

 

[justbyfaith]

Start at post 77 and work forward. You will see that you did not make the claim that started the dialogue.

I did not respond to post #77.

 

[justbyfaith]

But I see what happened.

I supported the claim that was made by @EmilyNats.

So, you think that the fact that the claim was supported by a different person means that the claim remains unsupported?

 

[Dino246]

But I see what happened.

I supported the claim that was made by @EmilyNats.

So, you think that the fact that the claim was supported by a different person means that the claim remains unsupported?

Yes, because Emily has not affirmed that the passages you cited are the ones that motivated her claim.

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes, because Emily has not affirmed that the passages you cited are the ones that motivated her claim.

I am saying that the passages that were cited substantiate her claim...and the passages themselves affirm this reality.

 

[Dino246]

In context, it is referring to a woman teaching or usurping authority over a man.

Actually, the admonition to be silent in in 1 Corinthians 14, while the 'teach or usurp authority' is in 1 Timothy. They are not the same context.

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes, because Emily has not affirmed that the passages you cited are the ones that motivated her claim.

@EmilyNats.

 

[justbyfaith]

Actually, the admonition to be silent in in 1 Corinthians 14, while the 'teach or usurp authority' is in 1 Timothy. They are not the same context.

They are in the same topical context, according to the hermeneutic that we find in 1 Corinthians 2:13 (kjv).

 

[Dino246]

I am saying that the passages that were cited substantiate her claim...and the passages themselves affirm this reality.

You just don't get it. Not only is your reasoning circular, but you are simply wrong. Only Emily herself can affirm that those verses substantiate her claim; nobody else can do so.

 

[justbyfaith]

You just don't get it. Not only is your reasoning circular, but you are simply wrong. Only Emily herself can affirm that those verses substantiate her claim; nobody else can do so.

@EmilyNats.

I am calling on her to settle the issue.

 

[Dino246]

They are in the same topical context, according to the hermeneutic that we find in 1 Corinthians 2:13 (kjv).

That's not how context is used. Paul wrote to Timothy with specific issues in mind. He wrote to the Corinthians with different specific issues in mind.

You haven't taken any formal training in biblical interpretation, have you?

 

[justbyfaith]

@EmilyNats.

I am calling on her to settle the issue.

Even though I can indeed give verses that substantiate her claim; which is affirmed by the verses in question; because they do indeed substantiate her claim; as can be seen by anyone with a brain.