Why is the "Jezebel spirit" concept mostly in Charismatic, Pentecostal, WOF circles?

Verse 15 also seems like a contradiction to the entire gospel. Women are saved by believing and following Christ. And many women did not marry, or have children. Unlikely they were not saved. In fact, the "she" in verse 15 may likely refer back to Eve, who bore the son and the line which led to Abraham, David and eventually Christ, who saved us all.

In fact, the fall is really the point where God assigns roles. As Christians, Christ has redeemed us from the fall, and that means that we should be treating one another according to Gal 3:28, which I will quote again.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal. 3:28

[SUP]22 [/SUP]Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.[SUP]23 [/SUP]For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
[SUP]24 [/SUP]Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
[SUP]25 [/SUP]Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
[SUP]26 [/SUP]That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Ok, this is an EXTREMELY difficult passage

At any rate, this is a very difficult passage,

If you want to go back to your Hebrew Roots, 1still_waters, and live between the fall and the resurrection, go right ahead. Christ has redeemed us from the roles that were created at the fall. This "order of creation" is a real smoke screen for the truth, no doubt about it!

"To the woman he said,“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”

[SUP]17 [/SUP]And to Adam he said,
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
[SUP]18 [/SUP]thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
[SUP]19 [/SUP]By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.” Gen. 3:16-19

This is where the roles of man and women started, nothing about roles in Gen. 2. (If you want to discuss the word EZER in the Hebrew, we can do that, too!)

And I am not seeing "regions" anywhere in the Greek for 1 Cor. 14. Perhaps you could point it out to me?

ESV says "the women should keep silent in the churches."

Greek says "Αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν,"

There is NO "ALL" or "regions" in the Greek. "All" is panta, or παντα, which is no where found in this passage. What version are you using to twist Scripture anyway???

Like Stephen said, take a course or two in Greek, and then maybe we can discuss this issue as equals in the Greek language! (And Hebrew might help too!)

How do you know that the demon was telling you the truth?
I have no idea if he told the truth or not. All I can tell you is what happened. I was chatting online with a friend and told her I think I have a demon issue. She said "Don't say it's name." but before I could type back to her that I did not know it's name, it said it in a loud, clear and unmistakable goat or sheep like voice, "baphomet, baphomet, baphomet".

As I went thru deliverance much later, God showed me the curses placed on me when I was a baby in the form of a vision. In the vision I saw my body with what looked like 24 tattoos or other markings all over me. Among them, I saw three baphomets, which looked like a five pointed star with a circle around it. So it all made sense.

UMM Where does the Bible say that? Chapter and verse please.
The bible does not mention a great deal about demonic names. The bible does not mention America, yet here we are. Lack of proof is not proof.

However, we do see Jesus asking a demon "What is your name?" and the demon replies "Legion.." in Mark 5:8. We can assume from this that all demons have names. Legion does not give a middle name or surname or any other name.

UMM There may be many people named Dan but your middle and surname defines which Dan one is talking about. Again how do you know that there are many demons by the name. The Bible DOES NOT say one way or the other. The description of that demon is almost always the same. So why would it be a different one?

I don't understand why you feel demons have unique names. Nothing in scripture suggests this. No one in deliverance circles would agree with you either. If you want to believe that, it is fine but there is no proof or reason for it. In deliverance it is common to find demons with names like fear, depression, hate, etc, over and over.

Twice you say


http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...ic-pentecostal-wof-circles-9.html#post1123920

You say that in regards to..
[SUP]11 [/SUP]Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]For Adam was first formed, then Eve

That text appears to be appealing to male headship.
But as you say...


http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...ic-pentecostal-wof-circles-9.html#post1123920

[/I]So let's go to other scripture and see if there is anything to this male headship thing...

Eph 5


Ok, so we see that even though we're one in Christ, man is still head of his wife.
So this male headship thing is some clearer.

The immediate context gives clarity on male headship even in the church.


So it's in the church and in marriage.

Verse 13 is linked to 12.
The FOR indicates the reason for 12.

I'm going to the store FOR milk.

For links what's beFORE to what's after.

It's really really simple.

that's what i been tryin' to tell ya!

since the gifts ceased, why play demonbuster?

With regards to Eph. 5:22, sadly for complimentarians, the word "submit" does not appear in the original Greek!! . Hypotassio or to "voluntarily come under" only appears in the previous passage:

"ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ." Eph. 5:21

"submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.: Eph. 5:21.

The verses following, most scholars agree agree are directed towards the MAN to love his wife as Christ loved the church. That was quite a new thing in those days, where women were treated as the property of either the father or the husband.

As far as the JS, I posted much earlier, I have never heard of it. Perhaps my absence from Pentecostal/Charismatic circles for almost 20 years accounts for this lack.

I do find it strange that I have a library with thousands of books on theology, commentaries, and text books, and not ONE mentions the JS.

As far as feminism, I renounce that totally! I believe in what the Bible truly says, not what people have twisted it to conform to a worldly pattern - mainly the 1950's, where the little women stated home and watched soap operas, while her husband went into the world to work.

Time to conform to the Bible, not the writings of John Piper and Wayne Grudem. I honestly tried to read their book, but ended up laughing so hard I had to stop!!

With regards to Eph. 5:22, sadly for complimentarians, the word "submit" does not appear in the original Greek!! . Hypotassio or to "voluntarily come under" only appears in the previous passage:

"ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ." Eph. 5:21

"submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.: Eph. 5:21.

The verses following, most scholars agree agree are directed towards the MAN to love his wife as Christ loved the church. That was quite a new thing in those days, where women were treated as the property of either the father or the husband.

Oh please.

So it should read

[SUP]22 [/SUP]Wives, yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

not..

[SUP]22 [/SUP]Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

The first one is the right one?

If submit isn't there, then what are they to do unto their husbands as unto the Lord?

If there is no headship, then what does the ..as unto the Lord mean in relation to the wife?

Gimme a break.

Joel and Kathy try to make a big deal out of hupotasso not being in verse 23 (or Joel does). But he really butchers the Greek, redefines Greek words with no basis, and things like that. He said he used to think the Strong's was inspired, which signal he's not someone to go to for Greek. And their approach of blaming everything on the husband and having wive's threaten divorce if the husband won't go to their conferences is pretty bad.

I haven't heard anyone argue that 'hupotasso' is missing from the command in Colossians 3, I Peter 3 or other passages that tell women to submit to their husbands, so either way it doesn't change Christian doctrine on the issue.

In some manuscript traditions, the word 'hupotasso' shows up. In others it does not. It doesn't matter anyway, because the verb carries over from verse 22. Without the word emphasizes wive's submitting in my opinion. It further supports the argument that when Paul says to submit to one another, he means for each person to submit to the appropriate person, rather than everyone submitting equally to each other. If Paul's argument is "Submit to one another: husbands to wives, children to parents, and slaves to master" leaving out 'submit in 'husbands to wives' underscores the fact that he is telling certain individuals to submit to other individuals.

i've heard the argument that the word may not have been in verse 23 originally, but that the daily scripture reading left off at verse 22 and started the next day with verse 23, and so 'hupotasso' was added to make it make sense on the second day when verse 22 as not read. That's a theory.

Even if it's NOT there this IS there..

[SUP]23 [/SUP]For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

That is really clear.

You can't talk away male headship there.

The husband's headship is compared to the headship of Christ.
That's pretty strong talk.