A Double Standard in Christianity?

[Gideon300]

Since God didn't mandate female prophets be working under men in the OT, I see no need to do so without scripture evidence in the NT.
Acts 2 plainly says daughters & handmaidens would minister prophecy by the Holy Spirit, so we need to understand that ANY prophetic utterance that's Spirit led is allowable, including teaching & preaching.
Many can say women shouldn't preach, but they can't use absolute, correct scripture to back their claims.
The best anyone can do is abuse the scriptures about husband/wife relationships to negate them. This is a very sorry excuse when some of our best scripture handlers on CC will flimsily squeeze out a single verse out of context to prove their point.
Using terrible TV preachers as examples when most of them are men hardly proves the point either.

If you study carefully, it is possible to come to the correct conclusions.
1. There is authority structure, even in heaven. The Son defers to the Father, who has placed all things under the authority of the Son.
2. The Holy Spirit effectively serves the Son (Read John 16)
3. Church government is by elders. The role of pastor is greatly overstated.
4. Children obey their parents. I realise that roles have been reversed these days.
5. Wives submit to husbands. That means if he says no to buying a new car, that's it.
6. Husbands submit to Christ. And love your wives. No man should be a micromanaging control freak. That is not love
7. Authorities - governments and police - should be obeyed unless they are requiring you to disobey God.
8. Each Christian has a place in the body. Each Christian should be in submission to the body. Pastors are a member of the choir, not the leader.
9. Younger Christians (in maturity, not age) should be willing to take advice from the older.

I don't listen to Joyce Meyer all that often, but she is a great example of how to be a teacher to the body of Christ and yes, gasp, a woman. She preaches and teaches outside of the local church. She speaks mostly to women, although men can be edified and blessed also. She preaches and practices submission to her husband. I don't agree with everything, but hey, no one is perfect. I may well be wrong. I do not believe that it is inherently wrong to have money. She writes a lot, people don't have to buy her books, and yes, she makes a living. She pays her staff, as she should. The worker is worthy of their wage . The organisation's books are open.

 

[JohnDB]

If you study carefully, it is possible to come to the correct conclusions.
1. There is authority structure, even in heaven. The Son defers to the Father, who has placed all things under the authority of the Son.
2. The Holy Spirit effectively serves the Son (Read John 16)
3. Church government is by elders. The role of pastor is greatly overstated.
4. Children obey their parents. I realise that roles have been reversed these days.
5. Wives submit to husbands. That means if he says no to buying a new car, that's it.
6. Husbands submit to Christ. And love your wives. No man should be a micromanaging control freak. That is not love
7. Authorities - governments and police - should be obeyed unless they are requiring you to disobey God.
8. Each Christian has a place in the body. Each Christian should be in submission to the body. Pastors are a member of the choir, not the leader.
9. Younger Christians (in maturity, not age) should be willing to take advice from the older.

I don't listen to Joyce Meyer all that often, but she is a great example of how to be a teacher to the body of Christ and yes, gasp, a woman. She preaches and teaches outside of the local church. She speaks mostly to women, although men can be edified and blessed also. She preaches and practices submission to her husband. I don't agree with everything, but hey, no one is perfect. I may well be wrong. I do not believe that it is inherently wrong to have money. She writes a lot, people don't have to buy her books, and yes, she makes a living. She pays her staff, as she should. The worker is worthy of their wage . The organisation's books are open.

Uhhhh....
She was hauled before Congress for fleecing the flock...golden toilet and all that. She has a compound and office building loaded with extremely expensive antiques.
She doesn't pay taxes... even property taxes because of the equivalent of a closet they deemed a chapel. When Joyce has clothing closets that are larger than the chapel.

Her organization's board of directors are all family members whose salaries she pays from the "ministry".

 

[Dino246]

So changing the word "husband" to suit your sensibilities.

I quoted the NASB.

You have enough discernment to know abominations? I doubt that.
There is no need for further responses. I think I have learned all need from you. I leave you with the last words.

Your comments only reflect on you.

 

[SteveEpperson]

and ignoring all other scripture while presenting this one only is not going to make biblical doctrine either

Sorry, the whole, "you took this out of context," argument is a bit tired. Also, I would expect that from an atheist, not a born-again believer in Christ.

When God spoke in Exodus 20:3, "You shall have no other gods before me," you don't need to read the entire book of Exodus to figure out what that means.

Neither do you have to read the entire book of John to figure this verse out:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16.

1Timothy 2:11-12 stands alone and does not need "context." I understand that the militant feminists of our day hate this scripture, which is keeping most of them from following the Lord. And unfortunately, many pastors and preachers are capitulating by explaining away or apologizing for the Word of God. It's shameful.

Just because something is difficult to understand, such as the trinity or predestination, does not mean it isn't there. I assure you, it is all there, in black and white. I just don't see 1 Timothy 2:11-12 as being all that hard to understand.

 

[JohnDB]

just don't see 1 Timothy 2:11-12 as being all that hard to understand.

So who wrote the letter to Timothy?
What was their relationship?
Would you characterize it as formal or informal?
Did Paul have a history of sarcasm?
Where was Timothy serving when he got this letter?

Did Roman men practice polygamy?
Did Roman men often have consorts ,(girlfriends) ?
Would Paul perceive the consorts as wives...in spite of their tag of consort?

Since most women couldn't read wouldn't it stand to reason that Paul didn't expect for Timothy to find any women capable of leadership?
And since pen, ink, and paper were horribly expensive wouldn't it stand to reason that Paul would write the letter in as brief a format and style as possible?

 

[justbyfaith]

Apparently you have no idea what the logical deductions are from these scriptures...

That's all you have demonstrated up to this point.

Where do you get the understanding that Apollos was a Greek; when scripture plainly identifies him as a Jew?

Are you just trying to pull me into a conversation here that goes nowhere? Arguing for some point knowing that it is not valid, thinking to draw me away into a fruitless argument?

That has happened to me before, with @Dino246.

Just wondering if that is also what you are trying to do.

Because your argument clearly has no leg to stand on.

 

[justbyfaith]

I quoted the NASB.

The NASB has been corrupted; I can prove from it that Jesus is satan, as I have said.

 

[justbyfaith]

So who wrote the letter to Timothy?
What was their relationship?
Would you characterize it as formal or informal?
Did Paul have a history of sarcasm?
Where was Timothy serving when he got this letter?

Did Roman men practice polygamy?
Did Roman men often have consorts ,(girlfriends) ?
Would Paul perceive the consorts as wives...in spite of their tag of consort?

Since most women couldn't read wouldn't it stand to reason that Paul didn't expect for Timothy to find any women capable of leadership?
And since pen, ink, and paper were horribly expensive wouldn't it stand to reason that Paul would write the letter in as brief a format and style as possible?

All speculation.

 

[JohnDB]

Where do you get the understanding that Apollos was a Greek; when scripture plainly identifies him as a Jew?

Are you just trying to pull me into a conversation here that goes nowhere? Arguing for some point knowing that it is not valid, thinking to draw me away into a fruitless argument?

That has happened to me before, with @Dino246.

Just wondering if that is also what you are trying to do.

Because your argument clearly has no leg to stand on.

These are all pertinent questions and part of hermeneutics. There are no wasted words in scripture...each word is precious...none of it is to be glossed over. (As you have done)

Because if you did answer those questions the truth I've stated is proven and you would have to repent...which I'm thinking that you don't do on a regular basis...whether willingly or not I don't know.

 

[JohnDB]

All speculation.

Nope...
Part of the hermeneutics process. Basic hermeneutics of who, what, when, where and why.

Context is King when reading scriptures...and these questions set the context.

 

[justbyfaith]

These are all pertinent questions and part of hermeneutics. There are no wasted words in scripture...each word is precious...none of it is to be glossed over. (As you have done)

Because if you did answer those questions the truth I've stated is proven and you would have to repent...which I'm thinking that you don't do on a regular basis...whether willingly or not I don't know.

I repent any and every time that I need to do so...which is getting farther and fewer between because I am running out of things to repent for.

If you can show in holy scripture that Apollos was a Greek, I am ready to repent before the eyes of everyone here.

But if you had scripture on such a thing, there would be a contradiction in holy scripture...which I don't think that there is any such thing...so I don't think you have an answer.

But if you have one, then by all means give it.

I know that you are just wanting me to waste my energy in order to win a fruitless argument, however.

But I will expend the energy in order to keep my track record.

Luk 21:15, For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

Act 6:10, And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.

 

[justbyfaith]

Nope...
Part of the hermeneutics process. Basic hermeneutics of who, what, when, where and why.

Context is King when reading scriptures...and these questions set the context.

Who, what, where, when and why does not, ever, change the plain meaining of a passage as you might read it with all of the added information. This is a basic rule of hermeneutics.

 

[JohnDB]

I repent any and every time that I need to do so...which is getting farther and fewer between because I am running out of things to repent for.

If you can show in holy scripture that Apollos was a Greek, I am ready to repent before the eyes of everyone here.

But if you had scripture on such a thing, there would be a contradiction in holy scripture...which I don't think that there is any such thing...so I don't think you have an answer.

But if you have one, then by all means give it.

I know that you are just wanting me to waste my energy in order to win a fruitless argument, however.

But I will expend the energy in order to keep my track record.

Luk 21:15, For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

Act 6:10, And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.

Hellenistic Jews...
Do you know what that is?
Do you know how that matters?
Do you ever think that you can be wrong?

 

[justbyfaith]

Who, what, where, when and why does not, ever, change the plain meaining of a passage as you might read it with all of the added information. This is a basic rule of hermeneutics.

I meant to say, that the added information does not ever change the meaning of a passage as you might read it as it stands on its own.

Not sure where my mind was when I formulated that post.

 

[JohnDB]

Who, what, where, when and why does not, ever, change the plain meaining of a passage as you might read it with all of the added information. This is a basic rule of hermeneutics.

It's not to change anything anywhere at anytime...it's to keep things understood in context and not twist them out to mean something that was never intended....every word is precious.

 

[justbyfaith]

Hellenistic Jews...
Do you know what that is?
Do you know how that matters?
Do you ever think that you can be wrong?

By all means show the scripture where it says that Apollos was a Hellenistic Jew.

Even if he was, that does not eliminate him from the candidacy for authorship of the book of Hebrews.

But it isn't really worth arguing over; since it is a highly peripheral issue and has no bearing on the conversation at hand.

I think therefore that we are arguing merely for the sake of arguing.

 

[justbyfaith]

It's not to change anything anywhere at anytime...it's to keep things understood in context and not twist them out to mean something that was never intended....every word is precious.

Again, the archaeological context, etc. never will change the plain meaning of any scripture as you read it by itself straight out of the Bible. The inspiration of scripture is such that the Holy Spirit is able to give you the intended meaning apart from the added information of when, what, where, how, and why.

As a matter of fact, sometimes that added information may convolute the scripture in question so that you cannot get the full impact of the scripture in question after you know all of the added information.

 

[SteveEpperson]

So who wrote the letter to Timothy?
What was their relationship?
Would you characterize it as formal or informal?
Did Paul have a history of sarcasm?
Where was Timothy serving when he got this letter?

Did Roman men practice polygamy?
Did Roman men often have consorts ,(girlfriends) ?
Would Paul perceive the consorts as wives...in spite of their tag of consort?

Since most women couldn't read wouldn't it stand to reason that Paul didn't expect for Timothy to find any women capable of leadership?
And since pen, ink, and paper were horribly expensive wouldn't it stand to reason that Paul would write the letter in as brief a format and style as possible?

These are extremely weak rationalizations for not following God's Word. All these ridiculous arguments have already been disproven many times. So, once again, I present Paul's very sober, thoughtful instructions to Timothy that are also meant for us today.

A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet. 1 Timothy 2:11-12

 

[Dino246]

The NASB has been corrupted; I can prove from it that Jesus is satan, as I have said.

No, you can’t, as I have made clear to you. You are stubbornly unteachable.

 

[JohnDB]

By all means show the scripture where it says that Apollos was a Hellenistic Jew.

I'm trying but you refuse to consider every word precious.
And when you discount scriptures, basically erasing them from the Bible, then your premise of "certain bibles are corrupt" is ludicrous and you are creating a religion based on your own notions instead of what the Bible really says.

This is a debatable discussion...
It's a long standing method of reading the Bible called the inductive method.

Getting the most out of every word we have.
The questions I originally asked are basic context questions about these people who were being discussed....and the sources which you think are accurate for some very illogical and probably ridiculous reasons.

This isn't being argumentative...this is exactly where you have gone wrong. You need to repent for discounting and disregarding God's word. Basically doing a hatchet job on scriptures cutting out what you want so it will say what you think it should say....placing yourself above God.