Paul's view of women

[sojourner]

6. Peter didn't think so...He equated Paul's writings with the OT scriptures!!

You're misreading it. "Scriptures" can be a generic term for any writing, as well as a term for canon text.

7. The same applies to Moses when he wrote to one congregation; in one context against beastiality. I guess that makes it ok for a human to mate with an animal today.

the fact that beastiality is a psychological sickness takes precedence over the fact that "Moses taught against it," just as the fact that we now know how to make cotton/poly blends takes precedence over "Moses taught against wearing mixed cloths."

8. More bad logic. All of the epistles were "just letters". With this logic we can just as easily reject every single epistle in the NT.

Yes. All the epistles are "just letters," in the same way that Papal instructions are "just letters." The fact that they are canonized in no way "elevates" them to something more than they were intended to be. It only places their contexts as the "bar" by which other texts are measured. So, you're obviously committing idolatry by raising them to some iconic status.

We’ve already demonstrated your faulty reasoning , this is just another example.

"We've?" What's this "we've" stuff? You got a mouse in your pocket? And you've done nothing of the sort.

Get your head on straight and cease the hypocrisy by removing the term “Christian” from your religion title, dude.

You must be right. Therefore, I shall remove that term from my title, I shall renounce my ordination this afternoon, quit my position at the church, renounce God, stop going to church, reading my bible, praying, and trying to follow Jesus' example. Thank you for helping me to see the light that it's impossible for me to remain Christian and love homosexuals and treat women as equals. You have succeeded in pulling the log out of my eye.

 

[james2ko]

ING - Look at the last three words in 18 - meaning - bring forth a helpmate from other side. They are also in 20.

Gen 2:20 And did call the human, names for all of the dumb beasts, and flying things of the sky, and all alive of the field; but the human didn't find a helpmate counterpart/OTHER SIDE.

It is very interesting that it actually ends with a word meaning OTHER SIDE, - as we have already been told the human was in the image of the Elohiym, - male and female, - and we have a splitting so they can procreate.

There is absolutely NO superior, nor first, male here. They are created together.

1 Tim 2:13 For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve.​

1. But we don't really need Paul's confirmation:

Look at the last three words in 18

More importantly look at the first 14 words:

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him."​

Adam was alone and Eve was made/produced [asah] from him (vs 21-22).

Jesus did not teach on male and female roles, or against homosexuals. HUMMMM! Do you think he was a little smarter then those patriarchal Iron Age herders?

2. He didn’t specifically teach against beastiality either. Does that justify the behavior?

It is hilarious that you take the words of Patriarchal Iron Age male herders as the word of God! LOL!

3. What is sad is that Moses wrote against the practice of adultery (Lev 18:23) which your logic renders perfectly normal and moral.

Isa 3:12 As for My people, children are their oppressors, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, And destroy the way of your paths." ING - And what is your point putting this verse in? This is NOT from God! It is a vision of another patriarchal tribal male - Isaiah.

4. Oh but it is. It was a vision from God, as the context indicates:

Isa 3:16 "Moreover the LORD says........"

And while we are at it; - Paul's writings are obviously not from God either, - just another patriarchal male, but at least he put in an "I."

2Pe 3:15-16 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.​

5. Peter didn't think so...He equated Paul's writings right up there with the OT scriptures!!

 

[james2ko]

You're misreading it. "Scriptures" can be a generic term for any writing, as well as a term for canon text.

1. Nope. I'm reading it just fine. Peter was referring to Paul's writings as holy Writ:

Strong's: From G1125; a document that is holy Writ (or its contents or a statement in it): - scripture. ​

Good luck trying to prove otherwise.

the fact that beastiality is a psychological sickness takes precedence over the fact that "Moses taught against it," just as the fact that we now know how to make cotton/poly blends takes precedence over "Moses taught against wearing mixed cloths."

2. Moses, in the same chapter, also forbade adultery. So employing your logic would suggest since sleeping with someone else's wife/husband is not a psychological sickness, it's perfectly acceptable for your congregants today. Your twisted logic would also indicate if beastility is ever declassified as a psychological disorder, it would be perfectly ok for your church members to perform.

Yes. All the epistles are "just letters," in the same way that Papal instructions are "just letters." The fact that they are canonized in no way "elevates" them to something more than they were intended to be. It only places their contexts as the "bar" by which other texts are measured. So, you're obviously committing idolatry by raising them to some iconic status.

3. I'm perfectly ok with being an "idolater" to God's inspired word

"We've?" What's this "we've" stuff? You got a mouse in your pocket? And you've done nothing of the sort.

4. Oh but I have. So far, two major fallacies have been exposed in your argument--Appeal to popularity and Chronological Snobbery. I have also exposed the sick logic in point 2 above. And the longer we go, the more I will expose.

You must be right. Therefore, I shall remove that term from my title, I shall renounce my ordination this afternoon, quit my position at the church, renounce God, stop going to church, reading my bible, praying, and trying to follow Jesus' example.

5. Paul also claimed to follow Christ's example (1 Co 11:1), yet you question Paul's writings as holy writ even after Peter makes it abundantly clear.

Thank you for helping me to see the light that it's impossible for me to remain Christian and love homosexuals and treat women as equals. You have succeeded in pulling the log out of my eye.

6. Let's stay focused. This discussion is about women having a leading role over men in the church not about loving homosexuals, which as Christians we should. The scriptures collectively indicate women's roles in the church are different than men's, yet equally important.

 

[Ingledsva]

ING - Look at the last three words in 18 - meaning - bring forth a helpmate from other side. They are also in 20.

Gen 2:20 And did call the human, names for all of the dumb beasts, and flying things of the sky, and all alive of the field; but the human didn't find a helpmate counterpart/OTHER SIDE.

It is very interesting that it actually ends with a word meaning OTHER SIDE, - as we have already been told the human was in the image of the Elohiym, - male and female, - and we have a splitting so they can procreate.

There is absolutely NO superior, nor first, male here. They are created together.

1 Tim 2:13 For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve.​

1. But we don't really need Paul's confirmation:


ING - LOL! Did you miss that "I" in 8?


Also, whomever wrote this years after Jesus' death, was obviously in error on the ancient Hebrew Scriptures.



More importantly look at the first 14 words:

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him."​

Adam was alone and Eve was made/produced [asah] from him (vs 21-22).


ING - It doesn't actually say that.

Gen 2:18 And said He YHVH ELOHIYM, it isn't good for the human being to continue (bad) beside/each alike, I shall bring forth the helpmate from his other side.

Gen 2:20 And did call the human being, names for all of the dumb beasts, and flying things of the sky, and all alive of the field; but the human didn't find a helpmate counterpart/OTHER SIDE.

Gen 2:21 And cast YHVH ELOHIYM a trance upon the human being, and he/it slept, and he drew-forth (from the) (echad)united-one, from his other side, and he repaired the body/person, in place of.

Gen 2:22 And He repaired, YHVH ELOHIYM, the other half, which He did draw forth from out of the human being, the female, and He did bring beside the human being/man.

You can read about this in ancient Jewish writings.


2. He didn’t specifically teach against beastiality either. Does that justify the behavior?


ING - Bestiality is specifically prohibited in the Hebrew laws because it was part of Sacred Sex practices, thus Idolatry. Idolatry is taught against.



3. What is sad is that Moses wrote against the practice of adultery (Lev 18:23) which your logic renders perfectly normal and moral.


ING - Be more specific here. I don't know what you are referring to?

Also Lev 18:21-23 is about Molach Worship = Sacred Sex = Qadesh. It tells us this in 18.


Lev 18:21 And your semen don't give in copulation to MOLECH, and don't desecrate/prostitute yourself; honor Elohiym, I am YHVH!



4. Oh but it is. It was a vision from God, as the context indicates:

Isa 3:16 "Moreover the LORD says........"


ING - BULL! We are specifically told this is Isaiah's vision - and as such YHVH said nothing. He imagines God saying something in the future.

2Pe 3:15-16 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.​

5. Peter didn't think so...He equated Paul's writings right up there with the OT scriptures!!

And your point would be what? We have shown here that some of the followers of Jesus did not trust him - the convenient turncoat - that had been killing them. Besides - AGAIN - He says "I"!!!

1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

I suggest you read it from 1Co 1:1 - all those "I" - "I" - "I"...


*

 

[james2ko]

ING - LOL! Did you miss that "I" in 8? Also, whomever wrote this years after Jesus' death, was obviously in error on the ancient Hebrew Scriptures

1. But more importantly did you notice the "I" Paul used in verse 7 essentially identifying who authorized Paul to speak these things:

1Ti 2:7 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.​

Who appointed Paul an apostle?

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle (not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead),

Act 9:15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.​

No wonder you want to toss out Paul's writings like a used "Depends". It is very simple to prove your point when Paul's writings are rejected as canon, not so easy when they are accepted...huh?

ING - It doesn't actually say that.

Gen 2:18 And said He YHVH ELOHIYM, it isn't good for the human being to continue (bad) beside/each alike, I shall bring forth the helpmate from his other side.

Gen 2:20 And did call the human being, names for all of the dumb beasts, and flying things of the sky, and all alive of the field; but the human didn't find a helpmate counterpart/OTHER SIDE.

Gen 2:21 And cast YHVH ELOHIYM a trance upon the human being, and he/it slept, and he drew-forth (from the) (echad)united-one, from his other side, and he repaired the body/person, in place of.

Gen 2:22 And He repaired, YHVH ELOHIYM, the other half, which He did draw forth from out of the human being, the female, and He did bring beside the human being/man.

You can read about this in ancient Jewish writings.

2. None of this proves they were created simultaneously. I checked several Hebrew morphological texts and vs 22 specifically states the "woman" [lashe] was "built" [banah] from the "man" [eadm]. The term "banah" can imply rebuild/repair but our context does not warrant that definition. For it states Adam was alone. You cannot rebuild or repair something that did not exist previously. But you can "build" something that is not in existence. Curiously, the term in vs 20-21 "other side" [mtzde] does not appear in any of the ancient texts I consulted. Neither does the term in vs 22 for "other half" [chtzi]. Please provide the Hebrew source.

ING - Bestiality is specifically prohibited in the Hebrew laws because it was part of Sacred Sex practices, thus Idolatry. Idolatry is taught against.

3. Homosexual acts were also part of the Hebrew sacred sex practices and prohibited in vs 22, yet they are acceptable in your view. Do you see the faulty logic in your thinking?

ING - Be more specific here. I don't know what you are referring to? Also Lev 18:21-23 is about Molach Worship = Sacred Sex = Qadesh. It tells us this in 18.Lev 18:21 And your semen don't give in copulation to MOLECH, and don't desecrate/prostitute yourself; honor Elohiym, I am YHVH!

4. Verse 20 prohibits adultery. So it's ok to sleep with another's wife/husband or any animal as long as we're not involved in idol worship?

ING - BULL! We are specifically told this is Isaiah's vision - and as such YHVH said nothing. He imagines God saying something in the future.

5. YHVH, as He often did, spoke through His prophets through dreams and visions, Isaiah was no exception:

Isa 1:1-2 These are the visions that Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. He saw these visions during the years when Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah were kings of Judah. 2 Listen, O heavens! Pay attention, earth! This is what the LORD says: "The children I raised and cared for have rebelled against Me.​

The fact of the matter is the context warrants these words were given to Isaiah from the LORD. Everything Isaiah said prior to verse 15 was from God: Isa 3:15 "What do you mean by crushing My people And grinding the faces of the poor?" Says the Lord GOD of hosts." . And everything said after vs 16 Isaiah acknowledges was from God: "Moreover the LORD says......"

And your point would be what?

6. You stated Paul's writings are not from God. Peter refutes your conclusion by equating Paul's writings to the OT scriptures.

We have shown here that some of the followers of Jesus did not trust him - the convenient turncoat - that had been killing them.

7. So are you fallacious assuming Paul did not trust Christ after his conversion?

Besides - AGAIN - He says "I"!!!

1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

I suggest you read it from 1Co 1:1 - all those "I" - "I" - "I"...

8. We have Paul acknowledging his words are said by the authority of Christ (vs 10) who appointed him an apostle. Unless of course, this is another one of your discarded "dirty diaper" epistles.

 

[Freducator]

These things were probably not written by Paul. He was a Gentile, so he would not defer to the law – even if he was a Jew, Jesus said he had come to end the law. These passages were likely added to the Bible by sexists trying to enshrine – and successfully so – ungodly patriarchy into the apostolic church.

 

[Ingledsva]

This isn't actually about "Paul's view of women", but rather about church ordinances, that he details. We are free to follow what scripture says, or free to say "gee isn't that old fashioned!", and do whatever it is that we wish scripture had said. We are all given the free will to obey or disobey. To display our subjection or rebellion.

Up until about 50 years ago women pretty much universally followed those church ordinances, and wore head coverings, for example. If you wonder why a few grandmothers still wear little hats with veils and such, it isn't a fashion show, but an act of obedience to church ordinances they have engaged in all their lives. If you think church ordinances are unimportant, simply consider what's happened to the "church" over the last 50 years when women abandoned head coverings, during this "falling away" or apostasy. An interesting read on the subject is "Demons in the Church" by Ellis Skolfield, available free online.

If any of you women want a graphic demonstration as to what's happened to the "church", and want to get an idea as to how the enemy has infiltrated the temple of God - the body of Christ - try wearing a head covering next Sunday and see how you are received by your peers. Or google the subject and see how other women were received when they chose to obey that ordinance.

Try an image search like - 1950s church congregation - and you will see nearly all women wearing hats. You will see men in hats too, but when they went into the church, the men took their hats off while the women did not. While some women may not have even known why they were wearing a head covering, and perhaps even thought it was a fashion (when I asked my 70 year old sister recently, why she and my other sister wore babushkas in church, she thought it was fashion), but they were in fact following about 1900 years of church tradition, of women following church ordinances.

Look at what happened when the "church" began ordaining women over the last half century. It only took a couple decades, before most (all?) of the churches that did that, began to ordain gays too. Scripture has been set aside so the "church" can accommodate the carnal desires of congregants and clergy. The preaching of repentance has become unpopular too, because there aren't many ways to more quickly loose a congregation, than to preach about sin and repentance (particularly when so many congregants are engaging in serial sin).

While any Pentecostals or so-called non-denominational (denominations) in this forum may not notice, if there are Roman Catholics in here that are in more traditional congregations, they may still see head coverings on a number of women.

Actually they have been setting aside stupidity and outdated ideas.

The etymology behind your use of babushka says a lot.

In the original language babushka meant a grandmother. In has taken on the meaning of a scarf worn by old women.

Outdated patriarchy.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

1. But more importantly did you notice the "I" Paul used in verse 7 essentially identifying who authorized Paul to speak these things:

1Ti 2:7 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.​

Who appointed Paul an apostle?

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle (not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead),


ING - LOL! It wasn't even written by Paul. More then likely edited, or added. etc. However, Paul never met Jesus. The assassin Saul/Paul conveniently claims a vision of Jesus, and takes over the group, adding in pagan ideas, and changing their direction.


Act 9:15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.​

No wonder you want to toss out Paul's writings like a used "Depends". It is very simple to prove your point when Paul's writings are rejected as canon, not so easy when they are accepted...huh?


ING - LOL! It says "Ananias" in Acts 9, also conveniently had a VISION of YHVH saying something!

And isn't it interesting how they set up that three day fake blindness and healing, to fool the followers. LOL! In my opinion of course.



2. None of this proves they were created simultaneously. I checked several Hebrew morphological texts and vs 22 specifically states the "woman" [lashe] was "built" [banah] from the "man" [eadm]. The term "banah" can imply rebuild/repair but our context does not warrant that definition. For it states Adam was alone. You cannot rebuild or repair something that did not exist previously. But you can "build" something that is not in existence. Curiously, the term in vs 20-21 "other side" [mtzde] does not appear in any of the ancient texts I consulted. Neither does the term in vs 22 for "other half" [chtzi]. Please provide the Hebrew source.


ING - LOL! The source is the Hebrew word. Look up the sentence in the Hebrew.

Here is a simple Christian answer site with the side information, though they erroneously keep using "created from," which isn't there. It is "drawn forth." Why did God use Adam's rib to create Eve?



3. Homosexual acts were also part of the Hebrew sacred sex practices and prohibited in vs 22, yet they are acceptable in your view. Do you see the faulty logic in your thinking?


ING - You have the faulty logic here. Big difference between natural homosexuals, and the IDOLATRY of the Qadesh with Sacred Sex.



4. Verse 20 prohibits adultery. So it's ok to sleep with another's wife/husband or any animal as long as we're not involved in idol worship?


ING - Where are you bringing up these RED HERRINGS from? I did not imply any of that. Perhaps you would like to get back to your attempt at rebuttal?



5. YHVH, as He often did, spoke through His prophets through dreams and visions, Isaiah was no exception:

Isa 1:1-2 These are the visions that Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. He saw these visions during the years when Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah were kings of Judah. 2 Listen, O heavens! Pay attention, earth! This is what the LORD says: "The children I raised and cared for have rebelled against Me.​

The fact of the matter is the context warrants these words were given to Isaiah from the LORD. Everything Isaiah said prior to verse 15 was from God: Isa 3:15 "What do you mean by crushing My people And grinding the faces of the poor?" Says the Lord GOD of hosts." . And everything said after vs 16 Isaiah acknowledges was from God: "Moreover the LORD says......"


ING - LOL! Isn't that convenient. Long after the events, by people that were not there, made up stories, about "visions" of what God said. LOL!


And I will add that later Christians can't even get right, the stories they are reading. Thus Isaiah, for instance, about the King of Babylon, becomes a Satan/Lucifer verse, etc. LOL!



6. You stated Paul's writings are not from God. Peter refutes your conclusion by equating Paul's writings to the OT scriptures.



ING - LOL! Peter refutes nothing. Some later writer, that was NOT there, said that.


7. So are you fallacious assuming Paul did not trust Christ after his conversion?


ING - MY GOODNESS! You do twist things! Actually the SMART followers had a problem with Paul, and his teaching, and were rightly afraid of him, - since he was SAUL the ASSASSIN, that was trying to put an end to Jesus' followers! He never met Jesus! He claimed a vision on the road, and took over the group. A very smart way to derail the early Christians. His superiors were probably very happy - a final bloodless Coup d'État.



8. We have Paul acknowledging his words are said by the authority of Christ (vs 10) who appointed him an apostle. Unless of course, this is another one of your discarded "dirty diaper" epistles.

LOL! SEE ABOVE = Saul/Paul the ASSASSIN - that took over Christianity - by merely claiming a VISION of Jesus!



*

 

[Ingledsva]

Actually they have been setting aside stupidity and outdated ideas.

The etymology behind your use of babushka says a lot.

In the original language babushka meant a grandmother. In has taken on the meaning of a scarf worn by old women.

Outdated patriarchy.

Sure. The church got it wrong for 1900 years, and it wasn't until the second half of the 20th century that it finally got "smart" enough, to ordain women and homosexuals.
FALLING AWAY OR APOSTASY


ING - Jesus didn't think such patriarchal ideas, about women and homosexuals, worthy of teaching about! And, Obviously you missed (or ignored) those female preachers and apostles in the Bible.

Anna - in Luke 2 who was a Prophetess and Preacher, that preached about Jesus from the Temple, where she lived.

*

Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is Preacher of the church which is at Cenchrea:

*

Rom 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my co-laborers in Christ Jesus:
Rom 16:4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
Rom 16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house.

*

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

*

There is actually a wealth of information about female apostles and preachers in the early church, from many sources. I attended a lecture on such. Perhaps you might want to look into it.



Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: 12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find [it].

As I said, the good Lord gave us all the free will to either be obedient to His statutes or rebellious. And it isn't like we don't have 3500 years of lessons on the consequences of rebellion to learn from.


ING - LOL! All those years of Patriarchal MALES telling us what it means! And we know they got things wrong!



2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.


ING - Aren't such verses convenient to toss out, when you don't like a different interpretation of scripture then the one you subscribe to?

Throwing them out - however - does NOT automatically - like magic - make your interpretation correct!


I want to thank you for offering a compelling illustration, as to why the ordinances are there to begin with.
What do you suppose the scriptures would look like today, if willful women had been "setting aside" what they perceived to be "the stupidity" therein, ever since the second century or third century?

Yes, it has to be so, because you a male says it is so, - only women have been challenging the Patriarchy, and mistranslation, and additions, and changes to the Bible. You are so wise.

-- NOT! --

Oh the idiocy of Patriarchy.

Patriarchy has brought the world to the brink of disaster that we have now, but I'm sure you can make-up a way to blame women.



*

 

[james2ko]

ING - LOL! The source is the Hebrew word. Look up the sentence in the Hebrew. Here is a simple Christian answer site with the side information, though they erroneously keep using "created from," which isn't there. It is "drawn forth." Why did God use Adam's rib to create Eve?

1. The article is not what I was looking for. But since you brought it up, did you even read the article? It actually confirms my argument that men and women in the church have different roles. For it states:

"This [equality in physical creation] does not speak to the roles of male and female in the home or church....."[emphasis mine]​

And nowhere does it states they were created simultaneously.

Thanks! Lol.

ING - Where are you bringing up these RED HERRINGS from? I did not imply any of that. Perhaps you would like to get back to your attempt at rebuttal? ING - You have the faulty logic here.

2. It's amusing how skeptics immediately cry out "red herring!"when they entangle themselves in their own net of broken logic. Happens all the time. Let me recap for you. You said:

Bestiality is specifically prohibited in the Hebrew laws because it was part of Sacred Sex practices, thus Idolatry. Idolatry is taught against and that there's a "Big difference between natural homosexuals, and the IDOLATRY of the Qadesh with Sacred Sex".

Since adulterous and homosexual acts were also part of these sacred sex practices, that also classifies these behaviors as idolatry, which you acknowledge is taught against. According to your thinking, it is ok to perform a natural homosexual act but not a sacred one. This logic suggests it is also permissible today to engage in a "natural" adulterous act or a "natural" beastial act (yes bestials, just as homosexuals, believe their acts are natural), as long as it does not involve some sacred ritual! That's some stinkin' thinkin' --ING.

ING - LOL! Isn't that convenient. Long after the events, by people that were not there, made up stories, about "visions" of what God said. LOL! And I will add that later Christians can't even get right, the stories they are reading. Thus Isaiah, for instance, about the King of Babylon, becomes a Satan/Lucifer verse, etc. LOL!

3. You went from a feeble attempt to prove from the text this was not a vision from God, and once it was refuted, you moved the goal posthttp://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/130-moving-the-goal-posts to --it is a made up story long after the events anyway. You skeptic's mental gymnastics are LOL hilarious.

LOL! SEE ABOVE = Saul/Paul the ASSASSIN - that took over Christianity - by merely claiming a VISION of Jesus!

4. Since you are heavily steeped into speculation on Paul's writings, that gives me permission to engage in some of my own:

It is apparent that Paul spent some time in the deserts of Arabia (Gal 1:17). The text is absent on how much time he spent or what transpired there. Men retreating into the desert/wilderness to meet with God to receive instruction/inspiration/revelation is a common theme throughout scripture (Moses, Elijah, Jesus). I suspect this is where Paul received his instruction/revelation from Christ (Act 9:16; Gal 1:1,12). Since Paul had much knowledge of the Mosaic Law, Christ fine tuned his knowledge and probably taught him the purpose of the law, his relation to the law, and the gentiles relation to the law, as is evident in many of his writings.

ING - MY GOODNESS! You do twist things!Actually the SMART followers had a problem with Paul, and his teaching, and were rightly afraid of him, - since he was SAUL the ASSASSIN, that was trying to put an end to Jesus' followers! He never met Jesus! He claimed a vision on the road, and took over the group. A very smart way to derail the early Christians. His superiors were probably very happy - a final bloodless Coup d'État.

5. How eerily ironic that Peter warned Christians of his day, and by extension today, of the likes of you, who would twist Paul's writings as they do the rest of the scriptures:

2Pe 3:15-16 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. ​

We have definitively exposed your unstable thinking and immense ignorance of the scriptures.

ING - LOL! It wasn't even written by Paul. More then likely edited, or added. etc. However, Paul never met Jesus. The assassin Saul/Paul conveniently claims a vision of Jesus, and takes over the group, adding in pagan ideas, and changing their direction.ING - LOL! It says "Ananias" in Acts 9, also conveniently had a VISION of YHVH saying something! And isn't it interesting how they set up that three day fake blindness and healing, to fool the followers. LOL! In my opinion of course. ING - LOL! Peter refutes nothing. Some later writer, that was NOT there, said that

6. Which you are certainly entitled. I can accept a skeptics opinion of the scriptures, as wrong as I may think it is, but if you are going to defend your "faith", at least learn how to do it logically. BTW...Not sure what to make of the incessant barrage of LOL's. Either you have defective L and O keys or you are on some very happy supplements. If the latter, care to share? . I'll permit you to have the last word.

 

[Ingledsva]

1. The article is not what I was looking for. But since you brought it up, did you even read the article? It actually confirms my argument that men and women in the church have different roles. For it states:

"This [equality in physical creation] does not speak to the roles of male and female in the home or church....."[emphasis mine]​

And nowhere does it states they were created simultaneously.

Thanks! Lol.


ING - LOL! Dude, I said the "Christian" article was not totally accurate. I pointed you to it to show that "OTHER SIDE" of a single male and female creation is what is meant, - not rib - not created second.



2. It's amusing how skeptics immediately cry out "red herring!"when they entangle themselves in their own net of broken logic. Happens all the time. Let me recap for you. You said:

​

Since adulterous and homosexual acts were also part of these sacred sex practices, that also classifies these behaviors as idolatry, which you acknowledge is taught against. According to your thinking, it is ok to perform a natural homosexual act but not a sacred one. This logic suggests it is also permissible today to engage in a "natural" adulterous act or a "natural" beastial act (yes bestials, just as homosexuals, believe their acts are natural), as long as it does not involve some sacred ritual! That's some stinkin' thinkin' --ING.


ING - And again - nowhere does it say homosexuality is forbidden. What we do have are laws against IDOLATRY, which may include anal sex, but nowhere does it say anal sex outside of IDOLATRY, is forbidden.



3. You went from a feeble attempt to prove from the text this was not a vision from God, and once it was refuted, you moved the goal posthttp://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/130-moving-the-goal-posts to --it is a made up story long after the events anyway. You skeptic's mental gymnastics are LOL hilarious.


ING - You have refuted nothing yet. Also you seem to be having problems understanding what is said to you. It is both, - not from God, - and written long after such "supposed" events; - as well as by people that were not there.


4. Since you are heavily steeped into speculation on Paul's writings, that gives me permission to engage in some of my own:

It is apparent that Paul spent some time in the deserts of Arabia (Gal 1:17). The text is absent on how much time he spent or what transpired there. Men retreating into the desert/wilderness to meet with God to receive instruction/inspiration/revelation is a common theme throughout scripture (Moses, Elijah, Jesus). I suspect this is where Paul received his instruction/revelation from Christ (Act 9:16; Gal 1:1,12). Since Paul had much knowledge of the Mosaic Law, Christ fine tuned his knowledge and probably taught him the purpose of the law, his relation to the law, and the gentiles relation to the law, as is evident in many of his writings.


ING - It says his vision was near Damascus. However, obviously, there is absolutely no proof any such thing happened.


5. How eerily ironic that Peter warned Christians of his day, and by extension today, of the likes of you, who would twist Paul's writings as they do the rest of the scriptures:



ING - I haven't twisted Paul's writings.

1. They are not Paul's writings.
2. They are just a story.
3. I am pointing out problems with assassin Saul/Paul, just CLAIMING a vision, and taking over the Christian movement.

2Pe 3:15-16 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. ​

ING - It would be a stupid cult leader that didn't throw in texts to scare the followers into compliance, and warn against "evil" people trying to change their ideas, etc.


We have definitively exposed your unstable thinking and immense ignorance of the scriptures.


ING - And where exactly would that be? You have proven nothing. Nor disproved anything I've translated from the scriptures.

I always know I'm winning a debate when the person I'm debating starts to attack me, rather then the argument!


6. Which you are certainly entitled. I can accept a skeptics opinion of the scriptures, as wrong as I may think it is, but if you are going to defend your "faith", at least learn how to do it logically. BTW...Not sure what to make of the incessant barrage of LOL's. Either you have defective L and O keys or you are on some very happy supplements. If the latter, care to share? . I'll permit you to have the last word.

I do not belong to the religions of Abraham. The evil the God YHVH does in these texts tells me he is not actually God.

You know very well LOL! is laugh out loud. And I think you can figure out why I put them in some of my replies.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

Sis, if you would learn how to split a post up into multiple quotes, I could respond to your post without wasting otherwise unnecessary labor.
This may not be the best way, but the way I do it is to first copy the meta tag in the upper left of the post your are quoting, and then paste that tag after the last meta tag on the page. Then everywhere I want to break the post, I simply copy and paste that pair of tags, and then enter my text in between them. When you put your mouse in between the pair of tags you may want to hit "enter" a few times before typing.
It would also save you from having to goof the person responding to your reply by feeling the need to add color fonts.


ING - Haven't been here long - have you. Otherwise you would know that I multi-quote when necessary. It is quicker to just answer - within - your posts - adding color to note differentiation.


I see a lot of proof-texted verses, but I may not need to respond to them individually. Rather than wishful presumption, you need to explain exactly how each of those instances indicates that the woman mentioned, is in a position of being a teaching authority, specifically over men. No shortage of the "church" seems to find infant baptism in the New Testament as well, through similar leaps and self-serving presumption.


ING - It doesn't say they don't teach men! And the Anna verses say she taught - ALL - !


*

Yes, it has to be so, because you a male says it is so, - only women have been challenging the Patriarchy, and mistranslation, and additions, and changes to the Bible. You are so wise.

-- NOT! --

Oh the idiocy of Patriarchy.

Patriarchy has brought the world to the brink of disaster that we have now, but I'm sure you can make-up a way to blame women.

Perhaps you would like to revisit your claim, with the benefit of first doing an internet search on the subject, before repeating your claim. Though there is one notable woman with whom you may have a lot in common regarding responses to others.
NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS



ING - Dude! Can't you recognize sarcasm. I am saying that you CAN'T just blame women - because both men and women, theologians, etc., "have been challenging the Patriarchy, and mistranslation, and additions, and changes to the Bible." As well as what is actually Biblical, and what is just traditions of man!

*


I look at "the brink of disaster that we have now" as a fulfillment of prophecy. Though beyond the "brink" in this particular case.
FALLING AWAY OR APOSTASY

I agree it is a prophesied disaster indeed, perpetrated in part by women who pushed for ordination, who next would also seem to have been the motivating force behind ordination of homosexuals.


ING - And that is an absolute laugh; and false. We live in a patriarchal world - and MEN are responsible for all the horrors in it.


The prophesied "falling away" or apostasy, certainly isn't the only confirmation that leads me to believe mankind stands on the threshold of the return of Jesus Christ. The fact that an overwhelming majority of people in the prophet John's "whole world" (outside of Israel), follow THE false prophet Muhammad, would seem perhaps to be the clincher for me. People who believe that the single most "heinous" and only forgivable sin in Muhammad's anti-religion would be committed, if a Muslim were to confess that Jesus is the Son of God.
UNFORGIVABLE SIN OF SHIRK

But then there's the fulfillment of the prophesied restoration of YHWH's covenant people to their land, too.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/167474-shall-time-times-half.html

Christians have been proclaiming the End is Near, since Jesus' death. Obviously they have been wrong every time.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

Indeed many have. Still, 2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.


ING - And they will continue to make such predictions, without them coming true.

Here's a few maps of the prophet John's "whole world":

150 years later completely conquered by Islamic antichrists
THE BEAST

Today

ING - So your posting of the maps, is to show the spread of Islam? Where is your map of the spread of Christianity? People like me find any spread of the religions of Abraham to be bad. You folks won't leave those whom believe differently, alone.


Then since you choose to make your posts more difficult for folks to reply to, I won't feel further obliged to spend the extra labor and bother in reply, to any text you choose not to bother with.

They are not difficult to answer, you have several choices.

Such as just write your answer underneath in a different color.

Or put it in quotes, etc.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

I do not belong to the religions of Abraham. The evil the God YHVH does in these texts tells me he is not actually God.

God gave folks the free will, to follow gods of their own creation, since early on in the history of mankind. That you choose to reject the knowledge you received, as warnings against so doing, is certainly up to you.

An EMPTY warning.

The "God" of the Bible is Jealous, vengeful, a murderer, etc!


He murders the innocent - for the crimes of others -


Allows slaves, and the kidnapping and rape of women!


In other words - your "God" is just the self-projection of Iron Age Patriarchal MEN - giving themselves the right to murder, hold slaves, control women, and rape!


*

 

[Desert Snake]

1 Corinthians 13:34 was written because of women being extremely uneducated in that time, And so if they were allowed to speak, They would've been constantly disrupting that's why it said to wait until they could ask their husbands.

It doesn't apply anymore.

O.k. so we're supposed to take your word for it.

Incidentally, I don't believe that baptism applies anymore, it's unnecessary.

 

[james2ko]

For any interested lurkers:

Since the poor reasoning and unwarranted claims of the skeptics on this thread have been exposed, here is a list of media that detail the error in their arguments:

Inerrancy and Biblical Text

And no I am not an affiliate of this site nor will I gain financially from any purchase.

 

[Ingledsva]

For any interested lurkers:

Since the poor reasoning and unwarranted claims of the skeptics on this thread have been exposed, here is a list of media that detail the error in their arguments:

Inerrancy and Biblical Text

And no I am not an affiliate of this site nor will I gain financially from any purchase.

And that is hilarious!


Anyone that disagrees with "YOUR" understanding, - is in error, - has poor reasoning, and unwarranted claims! LOL!


SO, - why then can't you beat them in a debate on these subjects?



*

 

[james2ko]

And that is hilarious! Anyone that disagrees with "YOUR" understanding, - is in error, - has poor reasoning, and unwarranted claims! LOL!

There are plenty of debates I've seen where a skeptic presented a sound argument. You definitely weren't one of them.

SO, - why then can't you beat them in a debate on these subjects?

You think because I let someone have the last word they won the debate? LOL!..Now that's hilarious. I let my opponent sometimes get the last word because there comes a point in time where I realize I am casting pearls to swine, as Jesus made plain in his analogy in Mat 7:6. Anyone reading the last few pages can clearly see who had the more logical argument. I've exposed your poor reasoning and logic that's all that matters to me. BTW...Here's another example of your fallacious thinking. I attacked your dismal logic not you personally. Terrible reasoning doesn't necessarily make one a terrible human being.

 

[Ingledsva]

There are plenty of debates I've seen where a skeptic presented a sound argument. You definitely weren't one of them.



You think because I let someone have the last word they won the debate? LOL!..Now that's hilarious. I let my opponent sometimes get the last word because there comes a point in time where I realize I am casting pearls to swine, as Jesus made plain in his analogy in Mat 7:6. Anyone reading the last few pages can clearly see who had the more logical argument. I've exposed your poor reasoning and logic that's all that matters to me. BTW...Here's another example of your fallacious thinking. I attacked your dismal logic not you personally. Terrible reasoning doesn't necessarily make one a terrible human being.

The reality is you have not won this debate, or any that I have read in which you are debating. And that indeed can be seen by anyone reading these debates.


You just flop out text, and we are supposed to believe it. It doesn't work that way. We dig into the original languages, and colloquialisms, and culture, etc.


It also sometimes becomes apparent that there are problems, - when the text is put back in original order.


It is a BIG problem when Christian translators turn YHVH into Lord, to make verses sound like they mesh into NT "Lord Jesus" verses.


There are a lot of problems with our translated texts.


*

 

[james2ko]

You just flop out text, and we are supposed to believe it.

It's much better than being pawned off to some website. As you did.

It doesn't work that way. We dig into the original languages, and colloquialisms, and culture, etc.

Knowledge of the original languages, or at the very least its grammatical system, is important. Let's test your knowledge. Can you parse Isa 43:10 and explain the relationship between the syntatical terms in your own words? And please no dodging, ducking, or avoiding the question.

It is a BIG problem when Christian translators turn YHVH into Lord, to make verses sound like they mesh into NT "Lord Jesus" verses.

Christian translators???? It was the Masoretes who initially changed YHVH to Lord due to their high regard for the sacred name. Which is why I admire and acknowledge the work of Ginsburg. I'm sure you know all about Ginsburg, right?

It also sometimes becomes apparent that there are problems, - when the text is put back in original order.There are a lot of problems with our translated texts.

That's why we should lean more towards the original languages.

The reality is you have not won this debate, or any that I have read in which you are debating. And that indeed can be seen by anyone reading these debates.

Winning or losing a debate requires a neutral debate moderator. So who was it? Oh, let me guess....it was you...LOL!..More poor reasoning. The longer we continue the more embarrassing it will be for you..And BTW..Ask Pegg if I ever won any debates with her. You may want to quit while you're behind..ING.