Could it be that the bible is in fact just written by men for men?

Woman are both scary, and sexy at the same time so it's not good for woman to be a pastor. Woman are powerful there is many witches that are powerful, and woman are very scary compare to men, and woman are more dangerous than men. Men are dangerous, but they are not as bad as a woman. There is nothing worst than a woman scorn so it's not a good idea to have a woman to be leader, or pastor it'd drive men away, and make church near impossible if a woman is pissed off.

Men have higher tolerate, and can bear more, and are more patient, but woman doesn't they have quicker temper, and have lower tolerate, and they bite like crazy like a snake, and I much rather deal with men than woman for church things like debate, or discuss.

Also an another reason if a woman preach she may be turning on mens in the audience what if a woman was sexy, and good looking it would tempt men, and cause all kind of problems lol.

I've discuss bible with many woman, and I've never had good luck with woman, but it's very rare for some very real Christian woman that you may find, and I've found maybe 1 or 2 around, but most have religion spirits, and act pharisees, but even men are bad, and the truth is men tolerate it more than woman.

When I want to discuss bible term if a woman come along I am very self caution if it a female, and I know female are powerful, and are full of deadly poison, and I watch out for them, and religion spirits is a very real things, and Jezebel as well, and that why woman that are leader we must watch out for Jezebel spirits they like to be close to the leader, or high up in that rank, and religion spirits too.

Men, and woman both go hand to hand, but woman are more powerful, and hurt more than men, and are more prone to bite like snake. Men do bite, but not as bad as woman does like for an example if you say something you disagree woman will lash out, and force you to agree with them, but when men disagree they just disagree, and not lash out as bad as woman does.

Matthew 23:33
"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

Alright we may have woman flaming at my post, or delete my post, or maybe some guy will do it out of respect for woman, but if the first woman read my post just watch what the woman does, or how bad they will bite like crazy lol.

Dude, you have issues. I suggest you find a competent Christian counselor.

There is a woman ‘problem’ within christianity. The bible is a joint venture between man and God, with God being the senior partner. We know that God has made a number of concessions to our hard hearts. Jesus himself declared this to be the case in the matter of divorce. The bible was written in a time and culture in which women were second class citizens and this permeated through to the male writers. No one would have noticed if everyone obeyed the bible, but sadly we don’t. So you get arrogant bullying men exceeding their biblical authority and defending it on the grounds that women should be submissive. Women should be submissive, but they then have the right to insist that men are loving and if men are loving, women usually take over and have a marvellous time, bossing the poor men about. A loving man doesn’t usually mind. So, the bible isn’t the issue. It is the misuse of the bible that creates the woman ‘problem’.

What you are doing is reading the bible through 2018 feminist lenses.

Its not unique to the bible or that era. Have you ever travelled to foreign countries? Only in the west is it like this.

I agree with you. I was not saying that ancient Israel was unique in this respect. I would say, however, that social equality is not necessarily 2018 feminism. I hope we can all agree, as brothers in the faith, that women should not be oppressed. The bible has a formula for happy relations between men and women. It starts with love and respect. If these are in place, there are no problems.

I think there are many things in the Bible that describe traditions at the time, and not necessarily Gods word. I think some of these traditions and still perpetuated today due to some people interpreting them as Biblical.

An example would be unmarried couples living together.
In the Bible it is described how, thousands of years ago, it was traditional for a man to build a house on the side of his in-law's and move in with his partner.
This isn't God's word, it's simply a description of an old tradition.

But many people think that it isn't good to live with your partner unless you're married.
This is complete nonsense, and one of the reasons why it's good practice to read the Bible for yourself (every bit of it), rather than rely on somebody else's word rather than God's.

There is a thing called 'chain of command'.

It is necessary for a team to have good team work and get things accomplished.

If everyone thinks they are the leader and no one thinks they should be lead then the team doesn't get anything accomplished.

God has established this chain of command. Society doesn't like it because of the 'god' of this world. And natural arrogance and lack of humility plays a part as well. (Lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life)

The ‘chain of command’ is a human concept, not a biblical one.

The chain of command is a human term.

The concept is from the bible.

Of course if both men and women do their part, then it all works and if they do not, we get problems. Fine so far... BUT some women are leaders. It is not universal that women think from their emotions. Some women do, some do not. In the same way some men think from their emotions.
Men were chosen to be apostles because Christ had to work within the culture of his time. Women would not have been accepted, regardless of their abilities.
God used women when all the men failed the test. God has NO problem with women. Men do.
Christ had higher matters to deal with than social reform. I am sure he didn’t like slavery either.
It is mankind’s job to use his conscience to improve society. Abolishing slavery and creating conditions where talented women can achieve their full potential is part of that.
There is no job that a woman cannot do. All she needs is a fair chance.

We can agree to disagree, and I'm a seer I can see the spirits world, and feel them the word pharisees mean isolation, and I've had at least 4 woman that manage to isolate me very well, and I had one that sent me to the hospital, and I had an another that made me suffer tremendously.

What I've showed was a Christian woman, but I've had other woman tear me to pieces, but wasn't a Christian.

If any Christians manage to make you where you cannot have fellowship, or suffer in any form these Christians are pharisees cause a true Christians drawn people in while pharisees drive them away.

Men can do the same thing, but men are usually not that bad as woman, and some men can be flat out pharisees, and dangerous, but it's very rare to find them, and woman are more common than men.

What's with reviving four year old zombie threads, or older, of late?

There's no getting around the vernacular that pertains to a patriarchal age and especially as the Bible was formed into the canon.
For instance, God is a spirit. John 4:24. While there are scriptures that impart God is male and, unlike God's natural creation and generational procreation, the Father or male does not insure the furtherance of the species. The female does. And yet we use, God the Father, without thought. Imagine, Goddess the Mother. When God tells us God is a spirit how would the alternative gender pronoun offend anyone who first accepts John 4:24 as God's word of worship.

The identifier that makes the Holy Spirit, I Am, The Word, male, is one characteristic that of course man had their hand in the formation of the Bible.

Now watch this and the response it garners if you don't believe that.

Goddess Bless You. John 4:24

One could argue that it is gender bias, that in the biblical scheme, the entire human race is characterised as female. We are the bride, Christ is the bridegroom. So all men have to deal with being the wilting damsel.
Gender is a big deal on earth, but in heaven it doesn’t even exist.
There is no sex and no marriage, we are like the angels.
It should be clear that characterising God as male is pure symbolism. Jesus is male, but if you think about it, what did God require from the human race to accomplish his plan of redemption? Not a man, but a woman! He needed Mary!
So both sexes are honoured by God and were made equal.
God is called the Father and Christ is the son, but the Father did not generate the Son. Or ‘father’ him. The image of sonship conveys only Christ’s submissive role. The Father has all the attributes of maleness and femaleness. God is not a bloke!
The bible could have reversed the roles. God the Mother and Christ the daughter of God and the human race the bridegroom, but God as Mother would emphasise the reproductive nature of us as children and as I said, heaven has nothing to do with reproduction.
You should not feel that God using male symbols to express His relationship with humanity is some kind of male conspiracy hatched in an ancient, barbaric patriarchal society. The bible is the revelation of God. Certainly it is tainted with patriarchy, for God made some concessions to man, but all that is temporary!
In the kingdom the sexes will be equal and no dishonour will attach to women. In fact, the last will be first and the first last. Could be women and downtrodden minorities will be exalted!

Men must have altered scripture because it refers to God as masculine? What?

To observe that God in scripture, in all of his persons, is always referred to as a male; and then state this observaton drives you logically to the conclusion that human men must have altered the text to reflect male gender... errr... is a fairly presumptuous proposition.

This seems presumptuous, ad hoc, and circular.
We could just as easily, with no evidence, point to ANYTHING in scripture, and say THAT THING was changed by someone to reflect a personal opinion.
Believing that any particular view, or any statement in scripture, is only there because some individual altered it to match his personal opinion, is just extraordinarily presumptuous, ad hoc, and circular.

And you can make this same argument about absolutely anything in scripture, because this argument is entirely ad hoc.
Anytime you see something odd in scripture, you can just arbitrarily say, "look there's something I don't like in scripture; it must not belong there."

You are saying, in essence, "I don't think God really said this because... I don't think God really said this."



Just a thought:
A. If God is always referred to as a man, and often refers to himself in the masculine, why on earth would we just ASSUME the text has been altered?
B. We could just as easily assume there is some intentional lesson in the text exactly as it stands, and God wanted it like that for some purpose which He ordained... and this would actually adhere to orthodoxy, tradition, and a higher view of scriptural integrity.



...

The scriptures are God-breathed. Verbal plenary inspirational text. And yet, that same breath of God told us, God, no gender identifiers there, is a spirit. And as such must be worshiped in spirit.

To imagine God is male is to create God in our image and likeness. That's just silly.

To imagine masculine pronouns describing God throughout the entire Bible are only there because men added that to corrupt the bible... is also silly.

And to silly I would add presumptuous, ad hoc, and circular.


It would be more orthodox, traditional, biblically sound, and less ad hoc, to assume there is SOME REASON God is referred to in the masculine.
And then... to try and ascertain what that reason might be.


...

Yes, I read you the first time.
God is a spirit. Holy Spirit.

Lilywolf,

Sometimes debates get heated, and I feel like I need to take a step back.

I want you to understand that I wasn't trying to attack you or disparage you.
If I did, then I apologize.
I WAS intending to attack a few of your propositions, but I was NOT trying to attack you personally.
If I did, or if it seemed like I did, then I apologize.

Sometimes when people get into a debate, they begin to "miss" each other... as if they're both shooting at different targets.
That may be what we began to do.


So let me briefly explain why I went at the things I did.


1. When we see scriptures that seem odd to our modern sensibilities, and which don't quite agree with modern feminist culture, we probably shouldn't assume those scriptures are in error.

I understand that feminism has, at least in the past, accomplished some important things.
But please consider that our modern feminist culture is becoming so toxic toward men that young men are actually being psychologically attacked and destroyed.... systematically. So we needn't assume that all the trappings and ethics of modern feminism are necessarily all good.

Because all of us are fallen and corrupted, because the world is fallen and corrupted, because our cultures are corrupted... we need to be very careful about critiquing scripture based solely on our modern ethics or modern sensibilities. We just need to be extremely careful of this.

We may very well, all of us, have views that are simply distorted, or skewed.
The only solution is to subject our sensibilities to scripture, instead of the other way around.
This would seem, logically, to be a problem we all have, inherently.
No one gets a pass here; we're all fallen people in a fallen world.


2. The scripture, for whatever reason, is replete with references to the entire Godhead in masculine terms.

This is just what we find in scripture... it's just there.

God is always referred to in the masculine:
- Jesus was born as a man, and is always called the Son, or some other masculine term, even in reference to his preincarnation.
- Jesus called God his Father, and always referred to the Father as "he."
- Jesus always referred to the Holy Spirit as "he."

Jesus referred to all persons of the Godhead in the masculine, and throughout scripture God is always referred to in the masculine.



3. God is spirit, just as you quoted from scripture... but surely, being God, he should be able to present, or emphasize his divine nature, however he chooses.

God is spirit.
But God is also sovereign, and all powerful.
So if, for some reason, he wanted to be referred to in the masculine... would he not have the right to do so?

Certainly my masculine attributes are corrupted at best,
but God is perfect, and anything that comes from him is perfect.
If God wants to emphasize something in the masculine, for some reason, we needn't associate that with the fallen kind of masculinity you see in his creatures.

Perhaps God emphasizes his masculinity so men will be constantly convicted, by being forced to compare their fallen masculinity to God's great holiness.
Perhaps God emphasizes his masculinity because men need this extra role modeling far more than women do.
Perhaps God emphasizes his masculinity because men need this role modeling so that women can have better men!
There could be so many reasons.
There could be so many reasons, and none of these reasons disparage women in any way.

There is no reason to think that if the scripture emphasizes the masculine traits of God's character, that this in any way lessens, or disparages women. God may sincerely put extra emphasis into relating to men just in order to convict us, because perhaps we NEED more convicting.

There is probably a vast multitude of reasons this occurs, a multitude of answers.
But if we don't look for those answers... we'll never find them.


God Bless
Max


...

search KJV "he": 7608 verses, 10,431 hits
search KJV "she": 728 verses, 982 hits

Proverbs 30:5 5 Every word of God is pure ...
Luke 4:4 4 ...man shall ... live by ... by every word of God.

The Bible and feminism had a fight
each thought the other wasn't right
The Bible stood firm with grins and chuckles
while feminism only bloodied her knuckles

Your post is totally at odds with your name..YHWH not My way..

If it is YHWH way then what are you doing complaining about it?