A Double Standard in Christianity?

You didn't make the claim that I challenged; someone else did. They had something in mind when they made the claim; you cannot read that person's mind. If you post a verse as supporting evidence, it may or may not be the correct verse, and until they say, "Yes, that's the verse," we don't know whether it is.

Sadly, you are deceived.

men have always come first as priveliged, after all, God made Adam first, then Eve. Then he sent us his only begotten son (not daughter)

Women have always been relegated to second place unfortunately. But thing is God saved the best for last. Second IS the best.


in the Uk, the rulers who actually bought peace and prosperity to their subjects were not the Kings but the Queens!
Imagine, if Princess Margaret had been a boy, the line of succession would have skipped Elizabeth just because she was female. I dont know who makes the rules on royalty or who inherits but I know you are no less valued as an heiress if you are female in Gods eyes.

Dinah is often not mentioned as she was the only daughter in a family of 12 sons, in fact, when Jacob went to bless his offspring she is conspicously absent.

But that was OT. If it happened in NT, Dinah would have been included.

"But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven."

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels."

The first time a woman acted without the covering of her husband the fate of the human race was changed. This is why covering is important "because of the angels". These angels are the fallen angels, not the ones who serve the house of God. These angels will leverage the history of a certain woman against a woman who prophesies with her head uncovered. When a man gives way for the woman to prophesy, the outcome is then the responsibility of the man.

God has order and structure. Not all are apostles. Not all are pastors, teachers, evangelists or prophets. There are no second class ministries. A foot is no less important than a hand. Problems arise when a foot gets jealous of the hand and demands to know why it can't be a hand too.

If you fulfill your calling as a minister (which means servant, not arrogant control freak) or as a worker, or homemaker, student or whatever, God is content. When God is happy, we will be happy also. Don't forget why God created woman in the first place. God's plan and purpose has not changed. Don't allow the rebellious world to influence you.

I much admire and respect Joyce Meyer. She is a teacher, called by God and blessed with a world wide ministry. She ministers mostly to women. She is not the leader of any church. She is in submission to her husband, whom she loves, admires and respects. She is one who has the right balance in my view. She was not always that way, but God called her and has moulded her into a true servant.

I don't tend to hang around mousey church women. The women I know are strong in the Lord and powerful in their demeanor. When a woman, like that, submits to her husband before sharing a word from the Lord I am on notice and give my full attention to what is being said.

I guess the unmarried women have to keep quiet?

No, they are covered by an elder or their father.

Sadly, you have three fingers pointing back at you, my friend (Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:41-42).

Even if someone does not affirm that a verse supports what another person is saying, that does not mean that it does not support it.

Otherwise, when we read John 3:16 to affirm the gospel, it would mean that the gospel isn't itself true unless everyone affirms John 3:16 as being the gospel verse.

Wrong... again.

Until the person who made the claim affirms a particular verse (or other evidence) as the support for their claim, it is irrelevant to that person's claim.

There is no biblical support for that view. It's a holdover from the Shepherding movement of the '80's.

Your responses are getting increasingly inane.

I love you, too....

May the Lord abundantly bless you and receive you as a son.

I am the one making the claim, and I affirm that it is supported by the verse that I gave...

Never part of it but they weren't wrong about that issue.

"Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account."

"Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to elders."

All persons, regardless of gender, are to submit themselves to the elders with regard to activities within the local assembly. There are no extra requirements for unmarried females, and the elders have no extra responsibilities regarding unmarried females.

I suggest you trace back through the conversation to find your error.

How do the elders function in your circle?

The older females are to teach the younger females, are they not? Their instructions aren't arbitrary, they teach what they know. The same with the younger males. The older males teach what they know. How does a wife learn to submit to her husband? It should be by her own father, an elder. How does a man learn to submit to Christ? It should be through his experience with his own father. When he is married, he will learn that as his wife submits to him. The body of Christ is alive and organic when each does their part for the benefit of the whole.