A Double Standard in Christianity?

It would be better for you to concede the point. Even if she does affirm those verses, your claim that they substantiate her assertion without her affirming so will still be wrong.

More circular reasoning.

Chances are sign language was not around at that time. But women were a problem in the Corinthian church.

You are mistaken. There is a biblical hermeneutic that is given in 1 Corinthians 2:13, that we are to follow.

1Co 2:13, Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

This means that we do not only look at the immediate context but also at the topical context.

Circular reasoning is not always bad reasoning.

For example, we believe that the Bible is the word of God because it says that it is the word of God.

That is circular reasoning.

More specifically, we can alter that to say that the Bible claims to be the word of God and that therefore it bears understanding that we ought to examine this claim. It is not therefore a proof text that the Bible is the word of god but evidentiary; and further examination is needed.

I did, at CCBC.

It will not be wrong even if she does not affirm it. But if she does, it will definitely be right, even according to your reasoning.

Your first three sentences are correct. The fourth and fifth are incoherent. None of this supports your position. Your reasoning in the previous post is circular; the wrong kind.

I'm not going to tutor you in logic, but I am going to point out when you employ fallacies. If you pay attention, and don't stubbornly continue to dismiss my observations, you might learn something. It would be better if you did your own homework and learned how to avoid unsound and invalid reasoning.

None of this makes any difference.

If you are in debate mode and simply want to win an argument, I concede the argument. It isn't worth it to continue; because to me, whether or not women can speak in the church is a peripheral issue.

And the Bible says that if someone is ignorant, I should let them be ignorant.

So, I am not going to argue with you any further; while I retain my understanding that women are not to be allowed to teach or usurp authority over a man (because that is what scripture teaches).

Oop, except that's not even true. You must have missed the paragraph on overseers that came right before deacons. You already know what an overseer is, and that a pastor is an overseer. We both know it would be silly to think that the word pastor has little meaning in the bible just because that specific word was only used once, considering the word Christian was only used three times. The bottom line is, scripture is very clear that a man is the head of his own household, and that the head of a church household must also be a man. Its basic logic that a woman, who cannot even be the head of her own husband, can somehow be the head of a whole group of other men.

He knows all the passages, and he knows he's wrong. He's just playing coy because that's all he can do.

Given that I addressed the passage on elders, your snarky comments only reflect on you.

Where is that stated in Scripture?

We disagree.

Your "basic logic" falls apart given that not all Christian women are married. It falls further given that the term 'head' is not used with regard to pastors, elders, or overseers, but (in context), only of Christ Himself.

What exactly do you think a pastor is? Does a pastor not oversee? Do you not know what an overseer is? Perhaps you should look into what the meaning of the word is to help you. Then you will notice that the words for "elder" and "overseer" are different.

We disagree, and yet you still don't have a verse. Quite interesting.

And you are correct, not all Christian women are married. In which case her father is still biblically over her.

In any case, I'm done with your game until you can find a verse that allows women to have authority over men in a church setting.

Perhaps you should stop assuming that I know nothing. Pastors are never called overseers in Scripture. They aren't called elders either, for that matter.

My position is not founded on a single verse. Your reasoning skills need some attention, as does your attitude.

Wrong, and profoundly ignorant of reality.

I have no obligation to provide support for claims that I have not made.

chances are but then who knows...I was being sarcastic

yes, the Corinthian church was a bit of a mess...perhaps you remember the man caught in adultery with his father's wife? quite scandalous actually.....

no double standard there...everybody was up for examination

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


justbyfaith, post: 4686510, member: 310696"]That is not a biblical statement.

and that ^^^ is a silly non sequitur

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.

funny thing that. there are actually no recorded 'church' services in the Bible. why don't you give an example where women were told to shut up when they prophesied.

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

what does the word usurp mean? another funny thing, are all the men usurping authority from the Holy Spirit and changing what scripture actually states. hmmmmm?

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.

he said a gobsmack of other things too, including about speaking in tongues, but you don't believe that either. there's that narrow brush of yours again

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

well you know about those...seeing all those customs in your own church wherein you rule rather than the Holy Spirit

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

again, don't quote Paul when you agree with him and then turn around and say this, that and something else is not for today.

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

hmmm. well you believe only what you want to...so there's that. good thing you remind the rest of us though

I know it's not, that is my whole point. Thank you for finally openly admitting that not a single verse supports your opinion.

Invalid assertion; fallacy of equivocation.

some folks want a good kick in the end zone

At the inception of the U.S. any form of kingly rule was rejected. There is no wonder why it is rare to find U.S. believers who understand the order of the Kingdom. Authority is misunderstood in the church, especially the church in the U.S. We see it has "who gets to rule over whom" like it's merely a position of hierarchy.

You can get to the brass tacks of the issue by asking "Who watches over your soul and gives an account to the Father?" If they answer "No one" or "My pastor, who I don't know", etc. then there is no example of Kingdom authority in their church. This is common in U.S. churches because of the desire for independence especially independence from scrutiny. U.S. church tends to embrace a "Just me and Jesus" order of authority that creates an environment of lawlessness where each person does what is right in his or her own eyes.

Some other questions to ask are:

"Who among you may put a believer out of the church?" "How often does it happen?"
"Who among you may correct a believer, face to face, for an error in their ways?"
"How are pastors or elders chosen?" (if it's through a democratic process of selection then it is not of the kingdom)
"How are gifts within the saints recognized?" and "Are they permitted to function when you come together?"

Such questions will be offensive to a believer in an environment of lawlessness. They will be quick to throw in (out of context) all the verses that they think insulates them from giving an account to anyone. They have no context of delegated authority. Without it the apostles could not write:

"Brethren, join in following my example..."
"What do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness?"
"You are to imitate me, just as I imitate Christ."
"Therefore I urge you, imitate me."
"I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church."
"..though I might be very bold in Christ to command you what is fitting, yet for love’s sake I rather appeal to you..."
etc.