A Double Standard in Christianity?

I believe the label came from Rome according to Roman tradition, as one who is a follower of the message of a philosopher. The gospel of Christ is not a philosophical message. It is one of transformation, kingly culture, and grace.

And to your second sentence, I agree in so far as we can agree that it would have been foolish to act contrary to Paul’s example, or John’s, Peter’s, etc. It is easy to recognize that they wrote with authority today. How difficult it might have been to follow the directions of an old fisherman or even one who used to persecute your brothers. Discernment would have been needed to listen to these men.

All these men referred to those closest to them as their children. Paul went so far as to say he birthed some, as men “begot” their progeny. This is the grace I believe was restored with the appearing of John the Baptist, who was the Elijah to come. The grace of fathers and sons built into a real household that displays the royal priesthood and grace of Christ Jesus the Lord.

I will have more to say about this later but many here cannot bear it now.

Grace and Peace,
Aaron56

did you pass your finals in English?

people must snicker in your church if you get up to speak and talk like this

I can't even

Now that you put it that way... what he wrote is hilariously inappropriate!

Your response confirms to me that you don't understand the meaning of "usurp authority over". Please, for your own sake, go and look up the word "usurp" in a good dictionary.

Where do you get such codswollop? That is called eisegesis, and it's not a sound interpretive practice.

The passage says (and implies) nothing whatsoever about any other woman. NOTHING!

did you pass your finals in English?

people must snicker in your church if you get up to speak and talk like this

I can't even

Now that you put it that way... what he wrote is hilariously inappropriate!

Where is that prohibition explained in Scripture?

I know what the word means; and my statement was in perfect conjunction with an accurate understanding of the word.

It certainly does. In context, it is giving as a reason for not allowing women to teach, the fact that women are more susceptible to being deceived than men.

This is the truth; which no doubt you will also reject; because your track record shows that you have a tendency to reject the truth when you hear it.

I did not intend what I said to be inappropriate. If you consider it to be inappropriate, then maybe that is just the way your mind works.

*sigh*...

You're being stubbornly ignorant.

If you are going to resort to insults, I think that it may be time to place you on Ignore.

Did I mention that it was inappropriate when I responded to it earlier? No. Get your knickers untwisted.

Now that you put it that way... what he wrote is hilariously inappropriate!

Not in the least. It is correcting a gnostic myth that Eve was formed first and didn't do anything wrong, which was prevalent in Ephesus at the time. Your misinterpretation is misogynistic and your conclusion does not follow from the text at all.

That's yet another non sequitur. It's your interpretation, and your personal comments are unadulterated hogwash. I just reject your errors and fallacy-ridden misinterpretations of Scripture.

The truth of the matter is that God has indeed given men and women distinct roles and positions in the home and in the church. It is you who have imposed the pejorative term "limited second-class ministry". But that is not the case. So this sounds like another feminist attempt to subvert Scripture.

Can you tell me the context(about the church and surrounding's) where scripture distinct roles and positions of man and woman?

I'm not sure what you mean by "the context". The context is the whole Bible, and within the Bible God has clearly laid out the distinct roles of men and women in the home and in the Church. They are detailed in the epistles. Paul refers to the creation account and the Fall to establish these teachings, while Peter refers to Abraham and Sarah.

I majored in English in High School; and graduated with honours.

You want to ridicule me for one instance in which my sentence in English is not understandable to you; not taking into account that my track record is that I normally communicate well in the English language.

Your purpose, I suppose, is to attempt to hurt my feelings?

I have a thicker skin than that; and also, I find myself in good company; as can be seen in the above scripture.

You reject the truth.