10 Reasons Christians Should Affirm Women as Pastors & Preachers

10 Reasons Christians Should Affirm Women as Pastors & Preachers February 7, 2018

I’ve heard a lot of arguments as to why women are prohibited from teaching and preaching.

Just kidding.

There aren’t a lot of arguments– there’s just a lot of people quoting a couple of passages from Paul’s epistles in a way they believe “proves” that ministry positions which involve leading men, or teaching or preaching to men, is a boys-only job.

Here’s 10 reasons why I think today’s Christians should be affirming and supporting women serving in church leadership, whether it’s leading, teaching, or preaching the Gospel:

10.  The testimony of Scripture bears witness to female leadership in both the Old Testament and the early Church.

The Bible, as a whole, was written over a considerable span of time and from within various ancient cultures– most of which were patriarchal and viewed women as radically inferior at best. And while the Bible has plenty of traces of those ancient mindsets about women, it is also true that we see God raise up strong female leaders both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament church.

If women are forbidden from teaching or leading men, God really messed up by letting those parts get included.

9. Jesus trained female disciples– and they were the most loyal ones.

The men?

They fell asleep when he begged them to keep him company. One betrayed him. His right-hand-man publicly denied him three times. The rest abandoned him in his most critical moment. In fact, one of them even ran away naked (Mark 14:51-52).

But his female disciples?

The last people at the cross? Women.

First people at the tomb? The women.

8. God chose two women to become the first evangelists who proclaimed the Gospel– and they proclaimed it to men.

The Gospel, by definition, is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. This is the “Good News” we are called to preach to the ends of the earth.

And who were the first ones to preach it? You guessed it– the female disciples were the very first to proclaim the Good News, and they proclaimed it to the men.

7. Paul was not writing a manifesto to every church in every time, but wrote to specific churches facing specific issues that are not completely known to us.

The argument against women teaching, preaching, or leading in church, is often centered around a few passages from Paul. But here’s the problem: Paul wasn’t writing a general manifesto on how all churches should be run in all times and all cultures, and I think he’d be aghast that we often treat it that way.

“Epistles” mean “letters”. Paul was writing specific letters to specific people and specific house churches. He addressed their specific questions and their specific challenges– and we don’t always know for sure what those were, or what situations he intended specific advice/instructions to be applied in. Since we are not the people Paul was writing to, and our church context is not the same as theirs, it would be dangerous at best to approach his letters as being blanket prescriptions for all times and circumstances.

6. If Paul was issuing a decree for all churches in all times, he completely contradicts himself in the same letter and elsewhere.

Paul says that women should be “silent” in church, you say? Well, in his letters he references female church leaders and references women prophesying in church. If his other statements were intended to be blanket prescriptions for all circumstances, even he missed the memo.

5. The cultural context of Paul’s letters must be considered—some instructions were clearly meant to be applied within a specific cultural context.

Try this: the next time some guy says that women can’t preach and “God’s word never changes” and that we’re supposed to just “read and obey what’s written”, ask him if he kisses other men when he says hello to them at church– because Paul says to do that in 2 Corinthians 12:12.

You’ll demonstrate the point on how we all– even fundamentalists– seem to innately realize that the context of a passage matters.

4. Jesus said the Holy Spirit is free to go where it wills.

Teaching is a gift that is ultimately given to believers by the Holy Spirit, and Jesus describes the Spirit as one who is free to go where the spirit goes (John 3:8). Who are we to limit the authority of the Holy Spirit by claiming that the Spirit is only allowed to gift men to preach and lead the Church?

3. The Bible never commands us to abandon evidence and reason, but commands us to consider them.

On my own journey out of fundamentalist Christianity, it was being confronted with the clear and undeniable evidence that women can be equally gifted as men to teach and preach the Gospel that became the sticking point I couldn’t ignore. Seriously, listen to a few sermons by Brenda Salter McNeil and tell me women can’t preach.

The Bible invites us to reason. It commands us to test everything and then look at the evidence. One cannot survey the evidence honestly and walk away with any conclusion other than women– especially Brenda Salter McNeil– have *clearly* been gifted by the Holy Spirit to teach and preach to the body of believers.

2. God gives people gifts with the intent they be used– not squelched. 

What would be the point of God gifting and equipping someone with a clear gift, and then prohibit them from using it? (Oh, and don’t tell me they can be gifted but can only preach at women’s conferences). The entire point of a gift is to remove it from the bushel that we or others use to obscure and hide it, and to then use that gift to grow God’s kingdom as far and as wide as we can.

1. Our mission is far too critical to exclude gifted teachers and leaders.

As Christians, we need to ask ourselves an honest question: Do we believe our mission to the world is urgent and critical, or not?

Do we really believe all that jazz when we talk about making Christ known among the nations, and when we say there’s no time to waste?

If we do– if we *really* believe in the calling to spread the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and if we *really* believe our mission is critical and time sensitive, why in the world would we want (or think God wants) to silence half of the people who are best gifted and equipped to actually do it?

 


unafraid 300Dr. Benjamin L. Corey is a public theologian and cultural anthropologist who is a two-time graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary with graduate degrees in the fields of Theology and International Culture, and holds a doctorate in Intercultural Studies from Fuller Theological Seminary. He is also the author of the new book, Unafraid: Moving Beyond Fear-Based Faith, which is available wherever good books are sold. www.Unafraid-book.com. 

Be sure to check out his new blog, right here, and follow on Facebook:

"Wasn't Jesus, the entity you worship, a socialist? Seems to me he was."

5 Serious Questions I Have For ..."
"Well, dude he's not in favor of abortion, want me to vote for an abortionist? ..."

5 Serious Questions I Have For ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Greta Holt

    Your posts make me feel lucky. General Conference/now CDC allowed our group of Mennonites access to women’s ministry earlier than many religious groups. Rather than having to sit in a corner and fume, we ran to keep up with the talented women in the church. Your essay builds to #2 and #1. Yes, the missions of humble believers are more important than gender.

  • gloriamarie

    Dear fellow GCTS alumnus, the debate over the role of women in the church was a hot one when I was a student at the GCTS Hamilton campus back in mumble mumble and is it still? Oh dear. David Scholer taught a wonderful course called “Role of Women in the Greek New Testament” or something like that, and he point out a pivotal verse in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

    He maintained that this was the lens through which all of Paul must be read.

    Women are. We women are created in the image and likeness of God. Says so in Genesis. It is clear that throughout both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, we women served equally with men. The history of the early church attests to this, as we see in so much of the documents that were once considered as important as what became the canon of the Christian Scriptures. For instance, the Acts of Paul and Thecla.

  • swbarnes2

    How does that square with “slaves, obey your masters”?

    Sounds like radical equality was an ideal, not a value he actually expected people to live by.

  • Herm

    Ben, just a quick correction to a typo in item 5. It is 2 Corinthians 13:12 not 2 Corinthians 12:12.

  • gloriamarie

    You seem to have missed the point of the article which is that everything Paul wrote was in a context of a specific place for a specific reason. And as much as it bothers us today, back in the day, Christians did own slaves. But slavery in the Graeco-Roman world was nothing like slavery as we knew here in the USA.

    Also look at the history of the early church… Christian men and women were marrying other Christian men and women and sometimes the spouses were slaves.

  • Matthew

    I think the church, at times in its history, has thought through its hermeneutics and its interpretive lens and adjusted them as the Spirit led and as need be. The Bible does not explicitly state that slavery is wrong. In fact, the Bible seems to embrace slavery in the Old Testament and accept it as the cultural norm in the New Testament. That said, Christians in most parts of the world eventually determined that slavery is in fact morally wrong. Why? I think it´s because of a hermeneutical adjustment and a different way of viewing ethics in light of the revelation of God´s love in Jesus Christ. Just my 2 cents though.

    Also, it´s interesting to note that when the apostles were dealing with the issue of Gentiles and Jewish practices at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, the eventual outcome of the council was a decision not based on the letter of the law in Scripture, but rather on what many (I included) interpret as a movement of the Holy Spirit within the realm of the apostles´ meeting. It appears that arguments were made and a decision was finalized — Gentiles did not need to be circumsized in order be part of the new movement of God.

    Couldn´t the same type of council be held regarding the role of women in leadership positions in the church?

  • Matthew

    I have gotten beyond the issue of women in pastoral or pulpit teaching roles. I affirm.

    That said, I still greatly struggle with how to determine what in Paul´s letters is simply cultural
    specific and what is for all times and places. It seems like there are only three choices really:

    Throw out everything Paul teaches.

    OR

    Pick and choose the Pauline ethics, instructions, morals, etc. we want to follow in our modern world.

    OR

    Accept everything in the Epistles as God´s absolute decree for yesterday, today and forever (except,
    of course, where Paul says “To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord).”).

    [Edited]

  • The sex of your teacher is not as important as their message is it?
    What is the basis of your belief that “Paul was not writing a manifesto to every church in every time.” His epistles have been read and preserved for the last 2000 years in a book that is the most published book in the history of the world.
    Which of you blogs or any of your writing or any of your teacher’s writings will have that distinction? None actually. Why? Because they are not inspired by God; they are simply your liberal beliefs which beliefs will not stand the test of time.

  • Realist1234

    Good points. I generally agree with Ben’s post on this question but I suppose Im slightly biased – my sister is an Anglican minister! And she often preaches better than any men Ive heard.

    But Im not sure one can simply understand Paul’s words as purely ‘culturely specific’ despite his letters being written to specific churches in specific circumstances.

    I suspect that although to Paul he may have been against women preaching in churches, which is hardly surprising given his Jewish background, if he was alive today and witnessed female preachers and teachers, he would actually be encouraging them!

  • Matthew

    How do you understand Paul’s letters in terms of cultural specifics, Peter?

  • gloriamarie

    “Couldn´t the same type of council be held regarding the role of women in leadership positions in the church?”

    Matthew, not wishing to be rude, but you have no idea how insulting to women is this suggestion. Maybe you don’t realize how patriarchal it is to make such a suggestion.

    The implication is that others get to decide for women what we can an cannot do as if we are incapable of knowing for ourselves.

    My question is this. If it says in Genesis that God made humanity in God’s image, male and female God created them, then that says that both genders participate fully in the image and likeness of God and for that reason alone, people are free to follow their vocations based on the gifts it delighted God to bestow on them.

    Our plumbing, be it external or internal, should never have been the deciding factor.

    And again, Galatians 3:28, if Genesis doesn’t convince you.

  • Matthew

    I in no way meant to be insulting gloriamarie. I’m so sorry you interpreted my comments that way. I was merely suggesting a process that seems biblical and that could bring all corners of the church together to discuss this very important issue. Truth be told, I am personally for full inclusion of women in all facets of church ministry, but many are not (even some women in conservative circles are against it). Don’t these brothers and sisters also have a voice that should be heard? Shouldn’t they be extended the same dose of grace you also expect?

    You make some very good points that I had not considered, and I thank you for the correction(s).

  • Al Cruise

    The sex of your teacher is not as important as the “fruit” they produce. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit. Good fruit can never be denied . . Here are some male religious teachers. Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker , David Koresch , Fred Phelps, Robert Tilton, Ted Haggert, Mike Warnke, Mark Driscoll, Tony Alamo, Lonnie Frisbee, George Rekers, Peter Popoff, Billy Hargis, Bill Gothard, these are just a few male trees . As you can see gender means nothing. Where are person’s [male or female] heart is at means everything.

  • gloriamarie

    Thank you, Matthew, for clarifying your own position. But I will ask you to reflect more deeply on your suggestion. While I applaud that you wish to be a voice of reason, harmony, and peace, the very idea that men consider themselves to be in a position to decide for us women what we can and cannot do it really an abhorrent one and seems to me to fly in the face of being created in the Imagio Dei.

    I know there are women opposed to the ordination of women. I have a very feminist Lesbian friend who is against it because her personal theology is rather more Anglo-Catholic than mine. I point out her to her that when Anglo-Catholicism turned up in the Church of England, it was women, not men who were the first to take religious vows.

    When the Protest Reformation had shaken itself out, it left Protestant women with nothing to be except wives and mothers. Before the Reformation, women had positions of authority. St, Catherine of Sienna told Popes what to do, for instance.

    The limitation of the roles of women in the Church is a new-fangled, Johnny-Come-Lately bit of theology. The modern Church, especially in the USA is plagued by such theology as if the only Church History that matters that form the 16th century took place in the 16th century and onwards. Some particularly bad theology developed in the midish-1800s and has really taken hold in the USA despite the fact that it is quite obviously heresy. And yet it has been embraced by the most conservative among us.

    But I digress.

    This discussion was old when I attended the same seminary as Benjamin Corey, although we were there at different times.

    I recommend that you see if you can track down articles by David Scholer, an American Baptist who was quite comfortable with the full inclusion of women into the Church.

    Some of the Christian apocryphal texts were eliminated from the running as part of the canon of the Christian Scriptures for the simple reason that women are shown as fully equal to men in their service to the Church. The early Church, in the spirit of Gal 3:28 was quite egalitarian. The Montantists were deemed a heresy during the days of Tertullian simply because of the equality of women. Tertullian himself is not a doctor of the Church because along the way, he himself embarced Montanism and the full equality of women.

    Unfortunately for Tertullian, the Montanists, and women everywhere, the patriarchal view won the day and it is far more culturally based than Biblical.

  • Matthew

    Thanks gloriamarie. I am currently reading a book about our Celtic christian heritage. The early Celtic church was very egalitarian as well.

    Lots to think about …

    [Edited]

  • Matthew

    Haven´t some of these men repented? If so, maybe we need to stop being so critical of their past fruit and look instead to both their current and future harvest?
    You do have a point though … where the heart is (male or female) is what is most important. Thanks Al Cruise.

  • gloriamarie

    Umm… women ran churches in Acts and Paul praised them for it. He praised many women in Romans, including calling Junia an apostle among the apostles. Those women had to have been preaching, so I think that once again, et me point out tht Gal 3:28 is the lens through which to read all of Paul.

    Something happened to him on that Damascus Road and it apparently wiped his slate clean and he saw everything with new eyes. His mind was transformed by the renewal of his spirit.

  • One basis for that belief is that Paul is writing a letter to a particular church. If you are going to contend Paul intends the contents of that letter to transcend space and time, then the burden of proof is on you to do that. Just like, if you wrote a letter to your old church, the default understanding would be that your letter was for them and may or may not be applicable to anyone else. The default understanding would not be that your letter was meant to address every church on the planet throughout history.

    The task of exegesis is to understand Paul’s letter in its original context as his audience would hear it, and from that, we can make wise decisions about whether or how that information might speak to us, today. This is, in fact, why some of Paul’s letters (although not all of them) ended up in the canon. The church at large at the time decided that there was plenty of good content that would be useful outside of its original context. But it’s a whole package and there aren’t little notations to help us make a clear cut distinction. I would think that even you would agree that there is content in Paul’s canonized letters that do not directly apply to churches, today, such as his instructions to greet each other with kisses or his instructions to bring his cloak and books from Troas.

    That makes the applicability of these letters discussable. Maybe Paul intended those passages about women to apply to all churches everywhere in all respects throughout time. Maybe he didn’t. It’s a debatable subject (hence the debate) and cannot be settled simply by declaring that those verses are in the Bible. As noted, there are verses in the Bible that have nothing to say to us in any kind of direct, prescriptive way.

    But that’s a difficult process and requires both knowledge and critical thought. It’s far easier to just pick up a Bible, read it the way a modern person would read it, and assume it’s speaking directly to your situation, and that’s what many Christians do.

  • May I offer a fourth choice? It’s a variation of your second option, there.

    We can, as the Spirit-filled and Spirit-led church, read Paul’s letters to these other churches in the past and, in the context of community discussion (and debate), decide with utmost reverence for the source material what it has to say to us, today, and what that looks like in our present circumstances.

    This is, in fact, what we already do to some extent. As Ben pointed out, in many cultures, male Christians do not kiss other male Christians as a form of greeting. Instead of taking that passage as a literal prescription, we instead adopt it in principle when we shake hands or hug or just express that we’re glad to see a brother or sister. And nobody is flying out to Troas to search for Paul’s cloak and books.

    I think the issue is that we’re quick to jump into a black and white, highly dichotomized scenario where either everything in Paul’s letters are meant to apply directly as written to all churches everywhere throughout space and time, or none of it does (or we make arbitrary declarations). I can’t think of a good reason why that has to be the case.

  • Matthew

    Thanks so much as always Phil.

  • Al Cruise

    “critical of their past fruit ” . A good tree cannot produce “bad” fruit, past or present . They produced bad fruit in the position of “Christian theological teacher”. Most of them with a degree in Divinity.

  • Realist1234

    As a devout Jew, his ‘religious’ life would have involved primarily men. I understand, for example, in 1st century Judaism women could go to the Temple, but were not allowed to go beyond the Women’s Court (a part of the Temple that was not mentioned in Solomon’s Temple, which is telling). They were also not allowed to be part of public prayer at the Temple. So men and women were often separated in ‘religious’ life. Most were likely to be illiterate as it seems it was usually (probably solely) men who were taught by Rabbis. It is also likely that synagogues, where they existed prior to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, were generally populated by males. Given Paul’s background, he would not have thought of any of this as ‘wrong’. Nevertheless it is Paul himself who said that all are the same in Christ, male or female, Jew or Gentile etc, though he was primarily referring to salvation. But he still had that cultural baggage when it came to ‘roles’. It seems to me the primary reason why women did become important members of the early church is as a direct result of Jesus’ attitude towards them – He freely accepted them, speaking to them in what male Jews would have thought to be at inappropriate times, as often evidenced by His disciples’ reactions. I think like slavery, the negative attitude towards women in 1st century Palestine was to change gradually over the years. It should of course be noted that it wasn’t just within Judaism as taught by the Rabbis that women were treated badly compared to men, it was rife throughout all society.

    Today I would argue men and women are equal but different. I dont have a problem at all listening to a sermon given by a woman. I think the Lord gifts all.

  • Not to mention that there is doubt (below some indications that there are a great deal of doubts) that Paul actually wrote 1st and 2nd Timothy?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy

  • gloriamarie I just have to say I love your calendar system. I will have to remember ‘in mumble mumble’!

  • Matthew

    Do they deserve forgiveness and full acceptance if they have repented? That is my central question.

  • Ron McPherson

    “What is the basis of your belief that ‘Paul was not writing a manifesto to every church in every time’.”

    So you believe women should wear head coverings in the assembly and keep silent?

  • Robert

    It’s like asking, “Should pseudoscientists award women qualifications in pseudoscience?”

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “10 Reasons Christians Should Affirm Women as Pastors & Preachers”

    New testament says no…. Benjamin must be using some weird copy of the Bible that doesn’t have these passages:

    1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
    35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

  • Ron McPherson

    “…there is content in Paul’s canonized letters that do not directly apply to churches, today, such as his instructions to greet each other with kisses or his instructions to bring his cloak and books from Troas.”

    I’m tempted to show up at that church down the road with the sign reading “PreTribulational-PreMillennial-KJV Only” and kiss every mysogynistic alpha-male in sight just for kicks. Then distribute MapQuest directions to Troas. I’ll keep you posted how that goes.

  • Matthew

    Thanks so much Peter. Have a good day.

  • Jack Wellman

    If what you say is true, and that “Paul was not writing a manifesto to every church in every time, but wrote to specific churches facing specific issues that are not completely known to us,” where do we deliniate from Paul’s other teachings and say, in effect, “That’s not for us…that was for those churches, then!” Your comment is so broad and sweeping,” that it takes much of what Paul wrote to be out of touch with today, so again, where do we decide where Paul was writing to the church in general or specific churches facing specific issues? That surely waters down Paul’s teachings. Which chapter are you referring to or are you referring to all of Paul’s writing? Or only those regarding women? By neutering part of Paul’s teaching, at your convience, you are doing a great violence to the Apostle Paul’s writings.

  • Rudy Schellekens

    It is with amazement that I read the presuppositions in the article above! That, and “interpretations” based on cultural influences. The use of terms does not meet Biblical standards, either. So I will make one reference – “Because of Eve…” The final statement Paul makes on the role of women in the gather of the Saints, in regards with learning etc. Because of Eve… Not because of Gentile vs Jewish culture. Not because Paul is a a hater of women. Not because women had a less then complete role in the time of the apostles.

    Because of Eve… Something happened in the very beginning. Because of Eve…Before there was ANY kind of culture.

    The misunderstanding of leadership terms in the New Testament these issues arise, time and again. Women had no limits in the proclaiming of the “Good News.” They were referred to as “co-workers” by Paul. But when it came to leadership, to those who could be appointed as elders/overseers/shepherds Paul was very clear. But the clarity goes beyond gender. I would strongly suggest the texts dealing with these issues be read from the perspective that Paul has already built – women an work as evangelists without limits. That is a clear fact. This very same Paul sets strong limitations on leadership – SINGLE people, for example, cannot be elders/shepherds/overseers. These are not different functions for different people, but the different aspects of the same job. MEN WITHOUT CHILDREN cannot be elders/shepherds/overseers. YOUNG people cannot be elders/overseers/shepherds. Those who do not ASPIRE cannot be elders/shepherds/overseers. NOVICES cannot be elders/shepherds/overseers.

    Back to evangelists/preachers. The early church had a very different idea about these roles. When you do a word study and look at how these words are used in the pages of the New Testament you see they are NEVER used in an “Assembly” setting, when the believers are gathered. These functions were to those who were not believers. The role to evangelize was given to all believers. And people, evangelistic sermons, talks, lessons are not for the converted! These are ALL directed towards those who were not part of the family of God.

    The roles for what is happening when the believers gather are mentioned by Paul in both 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2. NEITHER of those passages, however refer to “evangelism taking place.” When the Body of Christ is gathered, the purpose is building up, encouraging, teaching… No t evangelism!

    But it is so much easier to “bring someone to church, and let the preacher do what he/she is paid to do…” Abdication of responsibilities… Same with the move towards more and more female leadership – the men are no longer the head of their households, the spiritual leaders of the family – so why should they be thus when the Body gathers?

  • Jack Wellman

    Spot on. I could not find one single Scripture where it mentioned the qualifications of an elder to be anything but a male; although not one not new to the faith (1 Tim 3:6). Some denominations have teaching elders. Any one designated as a pastor is already an elder but these can be separate offices, as they are in our church. Paul writes to Titus that “An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient” (Titus 1:6). Since the elder is to be the husband of one wife, we can naturally conclude that this is speaking of a male.

    Paul also instructed Titus in appointing elders in the Crete church writing, “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward“ (Titus 1:5-7). The fact that pastors are also elders is found in these verses as he uses the words “elders” and “overseer” interchangeably and includes the fact that elders must be a man above reproach and the husband of one wife. What is obviously missing is any reference to a woman being an overseer or an elder.

  • Ron McPherson

    But if Paul was indeed ‘writing a manifesto to every church in every time,” then what do you do with these?

    I Cor 11: 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

    I Cor 14:34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.

    I Timothy 2:9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments

  • Ron McPherson

    “It is with amazement that I read the presuppositions in the article above! That, and “interpretations” based on cultural influences.”

    Of course we interpret Paul through cultural influences, which is why most churches today don’t adhere to these:

    I Cor 11: 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

    I Cor 14:34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.

    I Timothy 2:9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments

  • Ron McPherson

    Great points

  • C_Alan_Nault

    This would seem to settle the question of affirming women pastors.

    But many Christians cherry pick the new ( & old) testament to choose which passages they will follow & which they will reject. Or they deny that the passage says what it says & try to explain that while it does say “X”, it is actually saying “X-ish & sometimes Y”.

    Often it seems that Christians view the new teastment as a menu from which they get to decide which parts of the Bible are the word of god & which parts are just filler.

  • Should I start the GoFundMe for your hospital bills now, or…?

  • Ron McPherson

    Gulp!!

  • Al Cruise

    Yes, if they repent. They should not teach ever again .

  • Al Cruise

    If Paul were to write a letter to the American Churches today he would write…. ” A conservative religious man should not be allowed to be a Pastor or teacher for they will lead many into an attitude of hatefulness.”

  • Jack Wellman

    Well said. Didn’t Jesus say worshipping God must be done in spirit and in truth (John 4:24), but obviously today, truth is relative to many.

  • Jack Wellman

    Well said, That was my question. Where does the author draw the line with the rest of Paul’s writings, or for that matter, the rest of the Bible!? Which are “not a manifesto to churches in every time” and which are? Who decides this? The author? Sounds like the time of the Book of Judges.

  • heathercariou

    It’s amazing, in this day and age, that this stupid question even gets asked…

  • bill wald

    During Paul’s ministry, he was egalitarian and churches were organized “bottom up. Women had equal status with men as pastors. Not until the Pastoral Letters, probably after Paul’s death, maybe after 70 AD, did Paul require a “bottom up” organization ruled by males.

  • heathercariou

    Let me remind all the stiff-necked, pompous, narrow-minded and truly un-Christlike know-it-all religious “gentlemen” on this thread that Paul was NOT God, and wrote his own manifestos which reflect the culture, place and time in which he lived. Context is everything. Including the context of the Bible having been patched together over centuries by Popes who differed wildly in their sanctioning of certain texts, leaving many Gospels out completely. Barring women from the ministry or priesthood is not because of Eve, it’s not a God mandate, it’s a Man mandate. And it’s BS.

  • Ron McPherson

    “Where does the author draw the line with the rest of Paul’s writings, or for that matter, the rest of the Bible!?“

    Where do you draw yours?

  • Chuck Johnson

    The contents of the Bible can confirm misogyny or equality and inclusiveness.
    Pick and promote whatever politics you personally prefer.
    That’s the way that the Bible actually gets used.

  • If anyone would actually study the Greek – what Paul said was – I do not permit women (or anyone else) to teach nor practice “authentein” over men. Authentein is a Greek word connected to priestess worship which included the belief that the way to salvation was through having an encounter with those priestesses. King James decided to limit the translation to a more general meaning of “usurp authority over,” which means to gain control by manipulation, in this case control by manipulating men’s desire or physical attraction to women. So Paul was saying that he did not permit women to teach this priestess religion, nor to practice that priestess religion, much less control or lead by manipulation. In fact, no believer should be leading by manipulation, but with faith and humility.

  • I Corinthians 14:34 – the Greek word for “silent”`in that passage is the word for gossip, not talking or teaching. Women were gossiping and disrupting the service. Paul goes on to say if they have a question, wait til service is over and ask their husbands…
    The Timothy passage is dealing with modesty of dress – which isn’t being followed very much… also the passage was talking about women not wearing the same garments that prostitutes and Greek priestesses wore – I wish we could say the same thing about clothing today.
    I Corinthians 11:5 – the end of the paragraph states this: “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is
    given her for a covering. But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.”

  • Ivlia Vespasia

    And your point is, what exactly? I agree about cherry picking what we want to follow although like many other people I dress modestly and cover my head, as do the other women where I worship. But remember that in the time of Paul women usually covered their heads in public, it was normal for that time in history (which is why Mary is always depicted with her hair covered). Nuns cover their heads because in the time period when they were established women wore a wimple , usually with a veil. Fashion changes but if I want to cover my hair in church (or anywhere else) that is my choice. If you insist someone should dress a certain way based on the time period in which Paul lived then I expect both men and women to dress in a way that would have been common in the first century. ps: roman style clothing is far more comfortable than modern garb.

  • James Gertmenian

    It should be an embarrassment to the church and all of its people that this is even a question anymore, that anyone should have to spend time arguing for women’s leadership in the church. The world is burning . . . and this is what the church spends its time on? What utter irrelevance!

  • Matthew

    Paul´s letters drive me crazy most of the time.

  • Ron McPherson

    My point is that the writings of Paul SHOULD be interpreted and understood in light of his audience and their culture, and that those who insinuate otherwise (ie that the epistles are manifestos for all churches even today) selectively contextualize themselves.

  • Ron McPherson

    Which is why we should read the epistles (and other biblical) writings within their proper context (ie he was not writing a manifesto to every church in every time).

  • Slow morning at the rectory?
    I believe we should adopt Sharia Law and replace our Constitution so Liberals can finally be happy.

  • Fernando Saravi

    I fully agree with Dr. Corey. However, about his argument at point 5: Here in Argentina, Christian men DO kiss each other at Church meetings. Again, it’s the cultural context, I submit.

  • Realist1234

    lol. I know what you mean. But I think when you delve into his background and mind-set, you come to understand him and his teaching. I comment sometimes on atheist blogs and I find it irritating how some ex-pastors dont seem to understand him at all (which might partially explain why they are ex). One even totally misunderstood his view on sex within marriage, thinking it was Paul’s view in 1 Corinthians 7: 1 that men should not have sex with their wives. In fact that is what the Corinthians had been doing (or rather not doing) and Paul was responding to that and negating it! That ex-pastor couldnt have gotten it more wrong!

    This might be controversial to say as an evangelical, but Im not wholly convinced that Paul himself thought his letters to individual churches would have become ‘scripture’. Writings with apostolic authority yes, but scripture? Im not so sure. Im not saying his letters should not be viewed as scripture, but rather his own view of his own writings. But that’s a discussion for another time.

  • Ron McPherson

    So should I take that as a “yes” or a “no”?

  • Realist1234

    Whilst I agree with female preachers etc, I think youre making too many assumptions in that defence.

    Although it is likely Junia was a woman, it is not decisive based on the Greek, and the disagreements amongst the early church fathers. I think it’s likely but not certain.

    There is also dispute regarding the understanding of Romans 16: 7 – outstanding among the apostles or esteemed by the apostles?

    As for Galatians 3, it is not true to argue that Paul’s theology and thinking must be understood through that. He was specifically talking about salvation and Jewish inheritance – salvation is open to all and received by all, regardless of ethnicity, sex etc. He said to a particular church that women should be silent in a particular circumstance. He did not say the same about the men. So you cannot simply quote Galatians 3.

  • Realist1234

    Pl tell me that is not a real church.

  • Realist1234

    I agree. The other day I agreed with an atheist, and now I agree with Phil. What’s going on?

  • Matthew

    Paradigm shifts are tough to avoid for the thinking person :-)
    Maybe we´re being transformed by the renewing of our minds?

    [Edited]

  • Matthew

    Man … there´s ALL kinda´ churches in the U.S.A.!

  • Maybe…

  • Ron McPherson

    Ha, yes. The sign says something like, “Pre-Millennial, Pre-Tribulation, King James Version Only” (or something at least close to that). It’s hilarious

  • TS (unami)

    Because having a male member is so crucial to being a spiritual leader…

    (/obvious sarcasm)
    SMH

  • TS (unami)

    Braided hair connotes prostitution?
    Seriously?

  • otrotierra

    Piper and his followers have never been able to explain their need for male genitals to be attached to authority.

  • Matthew

    “Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone.”

    Maybe some (if not all) of these words from Paul should be placed in the “every church in every time” manifesto category, Bob? Being peaceable and considerate and gentle without slander seem like good things to be across all cultures and across all times :-)

    [Edited]

  • TS (unami)

    It’s really absurd, if they’d just think about it!

  • I think that’s the third seal, isn’t it?

  • On this side of the Pond, we have a reasonably entrenched Fundamentalist (with a capital F) movement. Every town has a church like Ron describes, although they don’t always put it on their sign.

    While I don’t care for the mentality, that strong influence in our recent history is at least partially why Christianity has been slower to recede from the culture here than in some of our European counterparts.

    Less than 10 years ago, I was talking to someone who was a member of a brand new conservative denomination that had broken off from a much less conservative one. I asked why his church didn’t just hook up with the first denomination that broke off. He said, “Well, we would, but they aren’t KJV-only. Otherwise, we’d be happy to have fellowship with them.”

    Granted, even in the USA, most churches would think of that as being on the extreme side, but it’s not uncommon.

  • Great post. Thank you. I’ll try to be more compassionate in my responses.

  • Matthew

    We can ALL learn from this Bob … not only you :-)

  • Marshall

    there’s a larger question embedded in foundations of the gender debates: Where does “teaching & preaching” belong? From the New Testament, there be no (honest) place for preaching in the church. Preaching was practiced and appointed for outside the ekklesia (church). The Acts record lacks the sermon-monolgue. Instead, everyone present is admonished to bring-learning. So then, what are gender-oriented demands or theses coming to? Are women also seeking to present like a stage-entertainer behind a podium (and be paid 6 figures for it)? Few positions hold as much “missery” for the soul venturing into systematic religion.

  • Marshall

    since Ephesus had no high priestess in the days of Paul’s letter writing [1st century], and since Paul is known to laser-point problems (even as sharply as to naming individuals), the theory you borrow here, Kat-Renee, seems unlikely at best.
    αυθεντεω: to self-authenticate; authority derived in oneself.

  • gloriamarie

    “Although it is likely Junia was a woman, it is not decisive based on the Greek, ” You don’t find second declension dative case decisive? A great many translators of Romans do.

    “As for Galatians 3, it is not true to argue that Paul’s theology and thinking must be understood through that. He was specifically talking about salvation and Jewish inheritance – salvation is open to all and received by all, regardless of ethnicity, sex etc. He said to a particular church that women should be silent in a particular circumstance. He did not say the same about the men. So you cannot simply quote Galatians 3.”

    Thank you for mansplaining even though I stated clearly it was the teaching of David Scholer. I doubt very much a scholar of his stature ever made a single assumption.

  • Ben claimed a Paul’s epistles were for specific churches only. I ask him to support that statement. He can’t and that is why you ask me to prove something – because you can’t.
    Exegesis is not necessary to determine who the epistles were written for is it.
    I have not said anything about women and preaching.

  • Most of the epistles state whom they’re written for. That’s how letters work. You write them to somebody because you intend to communicate to them. They aren’t books; they’re letters. If you think someone’s letter to someone else has application beyond that audience, that’s up to you to establish. It’s not Ben’s burden to prove that letters are for their recipients.

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    The letters are all to individual churches. Study the history of tge Bible by actual experts and those erudite qualifications!

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    Trolling is not a Christian virtue!

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    Many of the comments touch on something very disturbing that is happening currently in US Christianity; that of literally replacing Paul’s latter writings (much of that with dubious authenticity as his own) in importance even with the Gospel!
    This is being done for purely political reasons and is literally distroying my religion!
    Oh, and my moniker, ironic!

  • Try to read more carefully:
    7. Paul was not writing a manifesto to every church in every time, but wrote to specific churches facing specific issues that are not completely known to us.
    Ben stated who the book was meant for and not meant for. I ask him to provide some backup for his assertion. I am still waiting. Your answers are non-responsive. Why is that? We both know don’t we….

  • If you have studied this then provide some support for your view. Which “experts” are you referring to? Today a biblical expert is generally opinionated without merit. That is exactly what Ben is. So without reference to an expert I cannot accept your endorsement. Also this is not a difficult topic like Grace vs. Faith so explain your conclusion please. Pick any epistle and elucidate please in your own words. Until you can discuss the subject comfortably without “expert” help you are just parroting.

    And as to your handle, Jesus loved little children didn’t he? Democrats endorse “baby killing.” So Jesus would not be a democrat would He?

  • I am not trolling.I am responding to Ben’s outrageous biblical errors. You perhaps don’t like my statement about abortion or liberals but they are in response not otherwise.

  • Marshall

    parishioners & adherents of systematic Christianity tend to default to Paul (over Jesus) because Paul (at least, by traditional English New Testament translation) appears as to present an easier road. such as, Paul writes, “for we have died…”, while from the gospels Jesus saying, “take up your cross and follow Me”. By way of systematic theology, Paul’s outlines are already re-cast as “positional” or pragmatic… Jesus, they surely don’t know what to do with Him. It’s too late (presumably) to begin a different translational-exegetical tradition with the declarations of Jesus (the force of His gospel is already “out of the bag”). Yet, this contrast between Christ and Paul is at least 98% fabricated by way of the religious system long ago put upon him (and us).

  • Matamoros

    Women can never be pastors or priests. There are no priestesses in Christianity, so they try and claim they are “priests” or some such. A lie. And it is settled doctrine that women are not to teach in Church, but rather to listen at church, and ask their husbands for explanation. Anything else is SJW Churchianity not Christianity.

    If women want to “pastor” or “teach” or be “priests” let them start their own religion. But whatever it may be it is NOT Christianity.

  • Ron McPherson

    There ya go Mata. Give ‘em what for. Alpha male all the way. Keep ‘em barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen where they belong dangit. Don’t talk until their husbands tell ‘em they can and, oh, don’t let ‘em think on their own either. Husbands can tell ‘em what to believe. This country went downhill, dadgummit, when we gave ‘em the right to vote. Rise up alpha males, and reclaim your country. Put these women in their place and let ‘em know who’s the boss.

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    Read Romans and tell me about Phoebe and all the other deacons, leaders and saints that Paul greets by name!

  • I told you directly – it’s a fundamental assumption of a letter that it’s for the recipient. It is not a fundamental assumption of a letter that it’s for anybody else, unless it might happen to directly say so. I don’t know what other “proof” you’re looking for.

    It’s like you’re asking Ben to prove that Paul meant for human beings to read the letter. That’s basically implicit in the act of producing a letter. If someone argued that Paul had also meant for aliens or dogs to read the letter, we’d expect that person to offer arguments as to why they thought that. We would not expect a person to offer arguments proving that Paul intended the letter for human beings – that is implicit in the act of writing a letter to human beings.

    So, when Paul writes in Galatians 1:1, “To the churches in Galatia,” we know that Paul’s intended audience is the churches in Galatia who received his letter. If you want to establish that Paul’s letter is intended for anyone else, you need to offer some arguments that illustrate that Paul intended his letter for other audiences. Because that’s how letters work.

    It is, for instance, a federal offense for me to go over to your mailbox and read your mail. Why is that? Because letters written to you are meant for you and not meant for me. You may decide to share a letter meant for you with me because you think I’d find it helpful. Or, maybe the person who sent you the letter said, “Please show this to Phil, too,” thus indicating they meant it for both of us. But by default, we assume a letter written to Bob Shiloh is intended for Bob Shiloh and not everyone in the world. In fact, we have laws specifically around that understanding.

    So, for you say, “Prove that Paul didn’t mean his letter for other people” is sort of like saying “Prove that Paul didn’t have a horn growing in the middle of his forehead.” People’s foreheads do not (as a matter of course) have horns growing in the middle of them. That’s not what human foreheads are or how they work. Our assumption is, when we hear about someone’s forehead, that it does not have a horn growing in the middle of it. If someone said, “I think Paul had a horn growing in the middle of his forehead,” we would expect that person to produce arguments as to why they thought that; we would not expect someone to produce arguments proving that Paul’s forehead was a normal forehead.

    Likewise, if someone says, “Paul’s letters are intended for a broader audience that the people he sent them to,” I’d expect someone to produce argumentation to that effect. I would not expect that someone would produce argumentation that Paul intended his letters for the recipients and not everyone else.

    And that’s the challenge in Ben’s article. Typically our uncritical, evangelical default is that, if a letter ends up in the Bible, it must have been intended for everyone everywhere at all times. But this is an assumption that is actually counter to how letters normally work. In addition, we have clear proof (that I have offered to you) that there is content in Paul’s letters that is clearly not for all people at all time.

    You have offered exactly zero argumentation establishing that Paul intended his letters for specific churches to address other churches.

  • PedasiPaul

    Corey makes a far more persuasive case than Mata.

  • Matamoros

    And so it shall be. We are in the last dying embers of feminism – the reaction will be severe. And you cucks that enabled them will find out the penalties for being self-hating males.

  • Matamoros

    One snowflake a blizzard doesn’t make. There were a few female “deacons” but they were only in charge of women’s communities not over men, or having authority in the Church. Do your research and quit believing fable.s

  • Matamoros

    Persuasiveness doesn’t count, only facts. I gave the facts, liers lie, persuaders persuade, and cucks cuck; but facts are constant.

  • Phil, you are wrong on every point. I notice that you can’t answer the simple question I asked Ben. This is your third try and you failed again! Ben said, “Paul was not writing a manifesto to every church in every time, but wrote to specific churches facing specific issues that are not completely known to us.” So by his own admission he notes that others believe that the letters are written for every church in every time; you indicate that it is an evangelical belief. To the contrary it is a Christian belief. Why would Evangelicals and Christians believe this? Perhaps because the bible explains the concept itself.

    Rev. 1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: (the seven churches are Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis,Philadelphia, and Laodicea.) John’s letter is to all the churches. They were on a mail circuit. All the churches read all the letters.
    Rev. 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
    Rev. 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
    The “things which will be hereafter” is self-explanatory. Your fundamental assumption is without support, wrong and unbiblical as well.

    But I remember that you do not believe the bible was written by the Apostles and their aids, cannonized by John before he died; rather you believe the bible was written hundreds of years later from stories passed down orally and is not reliable. So isn’t it remarkable that a Book like the one you describe is still with us?

    So let’s look at the situation today 2000 years later. The bible is the most published book in the world, cherished by most Christians who believe the proof of the bible is prophecy. The bible commented on this, 2 Tim. 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Notice there is no time qualifier on this verse or limitation by virtue of its initial dissemination.

    Still waiting for Ben to offer an explanation to his comment. There is no challenge in his blog just a statement that he (nor your) seem to grasp.

  • Ron McPherson

    Go get ‘em Tiger

  • Bob –

    What on earth does the book of Revelation have to do with Paul’s intentions for his epistles? If anything, your citations make the case for limiting the scope of the biblical writings. John says which churches he’s writing to. This indeed impacts our understanding of the book of Revelation, in that the literature should be understandable and relevant to those seven churches.

    But nevertheless, that’s a different writing than Paul’s epistles.

    This is a consistent error you make when you actually pony up an argument – you treat the Bible as if it were a completed book that all the biblical authors had access to while they were actually writing the writings that ended up in the completed Bible. You argued this same point when we talked about the gospels – that when Jesus used the word “gospel,” he was referring to the completed four gospels that would be canonized later. This is, frankly, nonsensical.

    2 Timothy 3:16 is not talking about the Bible as we know it, since the Bible did not exist when 2 Timothy 3 was written. Secondly, there IS an audience limiter in 2 Timothy. I’ll quote from the KJV so you’ll know I’m using Paul’s original language – medieval English:

    “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.” – 2 Timothy 1:1-2

    If your theory is correct, this is an incredibly confusing thing for Paul to write. What he should have written, according to you, is something like:

    “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, To everyone who will come to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ here and everywhere, now and into eternity.”

    The thing is, Paul’s letters do address specific circumstances that his audience was struggling with. Behold:

    “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?” – Gal. 3:1

    To me, that seems like Paul is talking to the Galatians and addressing one of their errors. I think this because he said so. According to you, however, Paul was misspeaking here. What he ought to have said was something like:

    “O foolish people who may read this someday, somewhere and be suffering the same theological errors I have been discussing in the abstract. Who hath bewitched you? Also, can someone recommend who I ought to send this to in order to get it into everyone’s hands as expediently as possible? I’d sent it to Galatia, but then people might mistakenly thinketh that I intended this for them.”

    In fact, the very fact that Paul wrote different epistles to different churches proves he has them in mind. If he just wants to write general theological truths that apply to all space and time, why not just send all those to Rome or Jerusalem for publication and dispersal? What possible motive would he have for scattering them across different churches who have different capacities for copying and routing?

    As for New Testament authorship, I assure you my views are very conservative on that front. There are some writings that are debatable, but for the most part, I’m fine going with a document’s ascription and church tradition, and I tend to skew early for the authorship.

    But that has nothing to do with the scope of those writings. Your point is basically, “This is the BIBLE! The Bible is a special book! Therefore, everything in it has to be literally for everyone at all times!”

    That assumption is completely unfounded. It’s arbitrary, and directly contradicted by the content of the scriptures themselves.

  • Elca

    Do you have sisters and a mother?

  • Elca

    It may be absurd to you, But God the Father set men as Head of the Woman and in the Church. That’s why we have the term ‘patriarchy’…
    It is God ordained. So you can make fun of the idea of having a ‘ penis’ but it is God who gave him that ‘ penis ‘ and allowed him to exercise authority over the animals and the ‘ female ‘ that God made with a ‘ vagina’. This is God’s doings.
    I guess it is still absurd…some people know better than God.

  • Ron McPherson

    Yes. I hope you realize I’m being sarcastic ; )

    Mata sounds terribly mysogynistic

  • Elca

    “Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.” [ Romans 16:16]
    “Greet one another with an holy kiss. “ [2 Corinthians 13:12]
    “All the brethren greet you. Greet ye one another with an holy kiss.” [ 1 Corinthians 16:20]
    Context is important, but none of these vesese are specific to ‘male men’.
    Secondly, people in America and the Western World still greet with a kiss. Men in Argentina may not but I am sure the women do…

  • Elca

    Yes the world is burning…and so are our homes. If we concentrate on putting out the Fire in our homes first , we may just be able to put out the fire that’s burning the world, one family at one time.
    Why save the world and leave your home? for who to put out fire? your neighbor? Then who put out the fire in his house?

  • Elca

    Are you suggesting that men weren’t manipulative in Paul’s time and day and that no men were worshiping goddess idols? No sister, this is not a Cultural instruction and Paul made sure to put the instruction in context to Creation. [v:13-14] 1 Timothy 2:12 has nothing to do with culture of the day.
    Neither man or woman was and is allowed to bring the worship styles of the World into the Church. That’s why we consecrate the House and vessels of God for His purpose.

  • Elca

    Yea, the KKK and American Slavery did use the Bible for their own purposes, until they found out they were wrong , very wrong…

  • Elca

    As long as the Bible remains, women will have a hard time justifying their deceitful desires. The Bible will stand as a front to them…it is hard to kick against the wall.

  • Elca

    And he would also write that a ” Feminist Liberal should not be a Pastor or Teacher for he / she will pervert the Churches and lead people in an attitude of deception, lust and lewd sexual behaviors.”
    He will remind the Churches of Isaiah 3:12 “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” But will they listen?

  • Elca

    Ohh I see..OK…sometimes I have trouble making the distinction.

  • James Gertmenian

    I’d like to understand what you’re getting at here. In what way does arguing about whether women should be ministers put out the fire in my home? or yours? To my mind, debating the equality of women is like debating whether the world is round. Or, to use your metaphor, it’s like debating whether water really puts out fire. Meanwhile – yes – your house burns down, and so does the world.

  • Ron McPherson

    Sorry about that. I just assume everybody on here is familiar with my many other posts on this blog and would have known the sarcasm.. My bad. I should not have assumed that. Thanks for allowing me the chance to make that clear
    : )

  • Ron McPherson

    I think we must be careful to read Paul within the context of his times.

    Edit: For instance, most don’t believe it is God ordained for women to wear head coverings in church and yet those were Paul’s instructions too. Same with not braiding hair and not wearing gold.

  • TS (unami)

    Umm, not in the US… unless they are gay, I do not see men here greeting each other with a kiss. What state do you live in?

  • TS (unami)

    Just as there are other Christians today who are opposed to gay Christians. These who attempt to use scripture against others, like the slave owners and the KKK, are wrong, very wrong…

  • TS (unami)

    Please tell me what “deceitful desires” I have — just for being born a woman.

  • TS (unami)

    Ooops!
    Galatians 3:28
    There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

  • Marshall

    what is regarded “mysogynistic” changes much with the times. In 50 years, a generation or two in-coming will bring a new view to it (much contrary to ours). Do we submit to the social-cultural norms/mores/values/definitions (and politics) of the current times? That’s more definitively what the condemnation or praise here is about.

  • Elca

    Hey, I can guarantee you that you are still a female with all the attributes of a female capable of getting pregnant.
    How is it then you are no longer a ” female”? this is quite strange.

  • Elca

    I cannot answer because it is specific to you. But I can answer base on what the Bible said and if you or any other woman falls into that category then it applies to you as well.
    The Bible said Eve was deceived, why? because she desired “to be like” the image the devil painted for her and as a result, she followed what felt pleasant. What God said was secondary to her desire to be like.
    The Bible forbids a woman from usurping the authority of men and for being in positions of authority over men.
    If you or any other woman desire those positions, she is no better than Eve.
    Does this describe you?

  • Elca

    You are missing the point, I said the instruction isn’t male-specific… just because males in the USA do not greet each other that way, doesn’t mean it is Not a cultural thing. For women in the USA do.

  • TS (unami)

    Being female is not a restriction on spiritual participation or leadership. That was the point.

  • TS (unami)

    You mistake Paul’s instructions to a *specific church at a a specific time* as applicable to all women?
    Please.

  • TS (unami)

    Now you’re attempting to dodge and move the goalposts. You said above that MEN “greeted each other with a kiss”… and that’s not true as a *cultural norm* in the US, is it?

  • Elca

    quote,”You said above that MEN “greeted each other with a kiss”…” No I did not say this. Can you copy and paste my exact words?
    My comment to Fernando is filled with verses saying ” greet one another…” these verse do not say men greet the other with a kiss…
    I think you are misunderstanding me and or taking me for another.

  • Elca

    Yes Jesus chose to appear to Mary Magdalene and gave her a message of His Resurrection to the Brethren. And Yes He trained women even at His feet where she leaned much.
    Yet Jesus Chose ALL Men as Apostles and Appeared to Paul and gave them the authority to lay a Foundation of Doctrine for ALL to follow. He Chose NOT to ordain women (even Mary ) to be Apostles, Pastor/ Elders, to have any authority in His Church.
    Was Jesus wrong? was He mistaken? or was He being a sexist or male chauvinist?
    Women can preach and teach and they are commanded in Titus 2 to ” Teach” the younger women to be Good Keepers at home”. But why is this NOT spoken about?
    This is an instruction given to women? Why is Cory overlooking this?
    Paul’s Letters was for the Churches everywhere and Transcend time and culture.
    2 Corinthians 1: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia: The letter was for ALL SAINTS Everywhere…
    1 Timothy 2:4 “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. ” the Letter is for ALL men everywhere . Not just the Church at Ephesus.
    v8″I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.” Everywhere mean not just in Ephesus but in the USA and beyond.
    Finally, gifted teachers must subject themselves to the Word of God. It isn’t by Might, nor Power, nor our gifts, talent, experience and notoriety, but By the Spirit Said the Lord.
    With all the learning institutions producing gifted and talented and qualified people, what is lacking therefore to impact a community and a Nation for the Lord.?
    The power of the Holy Ghost is Lacking… that will cause women to be Good Teachers at home and to be humble Submissive wives , like women of Old, who knew how to trust God in bad situations. Seems most want to be and do what is forbidden of them yet claiming to be doing it for the Lord. The Battle is NOT Yours to save the world. Why save the World and lose your own home in the process? That’s the definition of a “Foolish Woman”. And Churches are filled with too many…

  • Elca

    No, Paul’s instruction and the Bible, (taken in it’s proper context) is for ALL times and Culture. For example, 1 Timothy 2:12 forbids “a woman” from usurping the authority
    of the man.” the use of the generic “woman” is inclusive to ALL women. It did not mention a *specific name * or Adam by name. The subject ” woman” is inclusive.
    But follow Paul’s use of the word ” ALL” in the same letter and see he is speaking to a wider audience than the *specific * Church at Ephesus.
    In V:4 ” Who will have ALL men be save…” Are you suggesting that only men in Ephesus should be save? Not the men in the USA in 2018?
    In v:6“Who gave himself a ransom for all,…” Are you suggesting that Jesus did not die for the women of America in 2018? only those in Ephesus at that time and culture.?
    In v:7 “…I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.” Do you know ” Gentiles” includes ALL NON JEW? which includes Americans?
    In V:8 “I will therefore that men pray every where,…” do you not agree that men in America are to Pray and not just the men of that time and culture?
    in V:9 Like manner…” connects to the previous verse where men pray everywhere, so to women ” everywhere ” (including America)
    I believe the overwhelming preponderance of the Biblical evidence demonstrates that His letter is for ALL men / Women every where , for ALL times.
    Finally, Paul did not reference the culture of his day but the Creation narrative as to why a woman ( generic woman of ALL times and Culture) is not allowed to usurp the authority of men.
    You don’t have to like it, or feel good about it or agree with it, but this is what is said and meant.
    Can you give me a justified Biblical reason for you thinking and saying Paul’s letter is for a *Specific church at a specific time*?

  • Elca

    No that was NOT the point. The issue was not Roles or Leadership in the Church. The issue was the gift of Salvation is for ALL those Socio-economic class, NOT Roles.
    One can be a Gentile and now have Access to Salvation, for it is NO LONGER of the Jews. But thanks to God for the work on the cross, we all ( who were excluded ) are now grafted in the same gift of salvation so we can cry Abba father.
    I think Galatians was one of the first Letters…and then came his other letters that set forth Male Headship and female Submission to Male headship, like Ephesians and 1 Timothy, even Peter came after Paul wrote Gal.3;28. How do you reconcile Ephesians . 5:22 and 25 1 Timothy , 1 Peter 3 and Colossians which all speaks to the Headship of man and the submission of the woman.? Is Paul confused? or are you cherrying picking and twisting the scripture to say what you want it to say and mean?

  • Elca

    “I think we must be careful to read Paul within the context of his times.” except Paul NEVER reference the Culture of His time as a reason for male headship and female submission . In fact, Paul referenced the Creation narrative as his justification forbidding a woman from usurping the authority of men.
    He did not mention the Greco-Roman culture as a reason. Yes, men back then abused women as it is today. But that was NOT a consideration. Neither was her education. But the Creation Order.
    ” For instance, most don’t believe it is God ordained for women to wear head coverings in church and yet those were Paul’s instructions too.” This is a typical misunderstanding of what is saying.
    In short, a proper understanding for Paul’s argument is found in v10 of 1 Corinthians 11. ” For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” In this verse, it gives the reason for the ” covering ” which is NOT a physical item, but a symbol of being under the authority or Covering of a man, because the angels are also under authority and they expect her to be under or submissive as instructed to be. Because the Angels are submissive.
    Angels are God’s Ministering agents assigned for your benefit. But only when we ( both man and woman) is in line with God and His word.

  • Elca

    “Same with not braiding hair and not wearing gold.” You are missing the context.
    “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2:While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 3:Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4:But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 5:For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6:Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.” 1 Peter 3;1-6.
    Back then , women ( then and now) spend more time with the external adornment which was seen as great value and social status. But their hearts were far from God.
    They were often led away by the fashion of the Culture, as is today’s women. But Peter is putting some perspective as to what beauty really is, and it starts in the heart.
    One way a woman demonstrates that inner beauty, is by her submission , in her speech and her actions, towards her husband. Just Like Sarah did to her Husband.
    Sarah was a beautiful woman well dress with her gold and diamonds as well, but she knew what it meant to be submissive and how to speak to her husband with respect.
    The instruction isn’t to stop women braiding hair or wearing gold or diamonds, but that those things do not make a woman ” Precious in the sight of God.”
    Her humble and submissive heart does…it is priceless. When taken in context, it transcends time and culture.
    …beautifully dress and sexy women are a dime a dozen…

  • KonCern

    And of course you would rather [ quote,”different translational-exegetical tradition …” ] that conforms to the current culture?

  • KonCern

    And what would you read in the current culture? are you going to disregard the whole Bible ? or cherry pick what pleases you and what you think applies to this times?

  • TS (unami)

    Please explain why having a p*nis makes someone more spiritual?

  • TS (unami)

    I think you’re a bit confused, but hey… I hope your not married though!

  • Ron McPherson

    How do you decide which parts to cherrypick?

  • Ron McPherson

    So you consider both culture, context, and subject matter when reading the scriptures too then lol. That’s precisely why one can’t use a literal reading to use as a manifesto to all churches in all times. You just showed the reason why, by taking the words of Paul and re-fitting them into your interpretation and what he REALLY meant. Not trying to be argumentative. I have no problem at all with that. I do have a problem, however, if one takes such liberties without affording that same right to others when they might interpret differently.

    Peace

  • Ron McPherson

    “… except Paul NEVER reference the Culture of His time as a reason for male headship and female submission “

    Why should he? He was writing to a particular audience in a particular setting on particular issues. People reading his letters knew it was addressed to them. We read his writings like Paul was somehow understanding that he was really writing to Christian Churches two millennia later transcending time. I guarantee there are far more biblical instructions we do NOT adhere to than do. We could literally start at Genesis and meticulously go thru Revelation and I’ll show you. Again, I’m not being argumentative, but rather demonstrating that no one (that includes both you and me) has the right with absolute certainty to tell anyone which biblical standards apply and which do not. Otherwise, we open ourselves to the very legitimate charge of hypocrisy.

  • KonCern

    I am not the one cherry picking…i am saying one should faithfully and humbly comply with the instructions given and not to look for loop holes to NOT conform and comply .

  • Why would he be confused ? Verse 26 reads for ye are all the children of God, by faith in Christ Jesus, and then verse 28 details the meaning of the word all.

  • TS (unami)

    He’s confused about men, women and enamoured with patriarchy.

  • It doesn’t. Furthermore, according to Christ’s own words (Matthew 19:14; Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16), children are far closer spiritually to God’s kingdom than grownups. Nevertheless, presbyters or bishops are not chosen from among the former category, but only from among the adults.

  • Ron McPherson

    Have you ever read “A Year of Biblical Womanhood” by Rachel Held Evans? She actually spent a whole year living according to what the Bible actually prescribes for women.

  • Hello ! You replied to one of my comments on Debunking Christianity, concerning Galatians 3:28. Since getting banned seems to be one thing that I and the person from my profile picture have in common, I thought it best to leave an answer here: Paul’s point in that passage (3:26-29) is that being Jewish, free, or male does not guarantee a bigger share in God’s kingdom than being Greek, bond, or female.

  • TS (unami)

    And being a male doesn’t make one a better bishop or presbyter. God enables who He will.

  • Ron McPherson

    I think your logic is faulty here on several fronts. For instance, the fact that Paul writes he would have all men to be saved does in no way set the stage that everything he writes in the epistle must be for all people. If I were to write you a letter and say something like, “I sure hope all women come to the knowledge of Jesus and live the abundant life. Also, wear that red dress to church Sunday because it looks great.” Surely you can see the illogic of suggesting that all women should wear a red dress to church merely because I referenced all women the sentence before. Also, Paul said all MEN in the translation you referenced. Does that in turn mean he didn’t want women to be saved to?

  • TS (unami)

    However, we didn’t see any facts in your statement, only your opinion.

  • TS (unami)

    Cultural changes… Like voting? Ownership of property? Legal decisions without a male cosigner? You’re against those changes? Shall we keep going?

  • TS (unami)

    Ron, use the “/s” at the end :-)

  • TS (unami)

    No, he said, that conforms to Jesus rather than Paul.

  • Ron McPherson

    And my point is that people who disagree with you on a certain passage may do so, not because they are looking for “loopholes”, but rather because they interpret the text differently than you. All, and I mean ALL, contextualize the Bible.

  • TS (unami)

    Like not wearing gold jewelry? Does your wife ever wear gold jewelry, to church or anywhere?

  • Ron McPherson

    “/s” lol

  • TS (unami)

    So, dumpy = spiritual.
    Check.
    /s

  • TS (unami)

    Ok, I did misunderstand you. Thanks for pointing out that you actually said “people”. Women do kiss on greeting here — and also some men. Nothing wrong with that.

  • TS (unami)

    Yep! I’ve been burned before when I didn’t use it — people thought my sarcasm was serious! (*shakes head, I thought it was obvious to them…*)

  • Phoebe was a deaconess, of which there were indeed many in the first millennium. However, deacons and presbyters form distinct categories, and neither Paul’s letters, nor the New Testament as a whole, nor later Church history, are aware of any woman being ordained as either priest or bishop.

  • TS (unami)

    The Anglican Church has many women priests and bishops.

  • …since the twentieth century. Not before.

  • TS (unami)

    And people held slaves back then… Your point?

  • Ron McPherson

    Yes thanks. Will remember that

  • My point was that Phoebe was neither a priest, nor a bishop, and that we are not unaware about the existence of female deacons.

  • Better than whom ?

  • Elca

    I agree, but the idea was to demonstrate that ” greet with a holy kiss ” wasn’t a cultural thing in America and Argentina.
    But it is…

  • Elca

    Not sure what this means…

  • It is known that the wives of the Twelve Apostles aided their husbands in their missionary activity (1 Corinthians 9:5). The same holds for Andronicus, one of the Seventy Disciples, and his wife Junia. But these saintly women were not counted among the Twelve (Matthew 10:2-4; Luke 6:13-16, Acts 1:13), nor among the Seventy.

  • Elca

    The only how your Logic can make sense if you now specify who you are speaking to. For you would then move from the General ” All ” to the Specific ” an individual or a group “…until then, ALL women are to wear Red. Because you were talking to ALL women.
    “Surely you can see the illogic of suggesting that all women should wear a red dress …” No I don’t. It would be illogical not to assume that you are speaking to ALL women, since you started out speaking to ALL women, without identifying a change in the subject you are now addressing.
    Paul made NO such distinction in women.
    ” Does that in turn mean he didn’t want women to be saved to?” This is absurd and illogical.
    Follow the argument slowly and detoxify your mind form Feminist thought.
    V:9 said quote,” In like manner…” does one need a Ph.D. in Theology to understand that this is NOT an abstract term pulled out of thin air. It connects the instructions to the previous that speaks to ALL men, everywhere.
    The letter is filled with general instructive language. He never points out a specific group of people.
    So as men everywhere are to do this =( pray with holy hands) women everywhere are to do this = meaning dress in modest attire…
    Are you suggesting that ONLY women of Ephesus at the time of the Letter was to dress in modest attire? Can you not see how absurd your argument is?

    Can you say which translations do not use the word ” ALL”? Now, this is a different discussion, for I have always said that we are flooded with a plethora of different versions and translations which only adds to the Theological Chaos we are witnessing in Christendom.
    question, do you also reference the Queen James Version?

  • Elca

    I have not read her Book, but I realized that She and others under the Egalitarian Banner do not tolerate dissenting views. They are what I call Blind leaders of the Blind.
    Given their point of view, I am pretty sure their’s are filled with a Cultural perspective driven by today’s cultural understanding of ” equal right”.
    Have you ever read or listen To Dr. Mary Kassian the Genesis of Gender or her presentations?

  • Ron McPherson

    Beat me to it!!! Was gonna make the exact same point

  • Ron McPherson

    So you criticize Evans as not “tolerat(ing) dissenting views” while simultaneously labeling her as “Blind leaders of the Blind” lol. See the irony? You’re accusing her of the very thing you’re doing here. But aside from that, my point is that she ACTUALLY DID live it, regardless of her viewpoints. Once you read that book you’ll see that anyone claiming to live by the Bible just comes across as hypocritical

  • TS (unami)

    Great :-) and we can see that women are just as capable of spiritual leadership as men. We are equal in the eyes of Christ.

  • Elca

    “Why should he? He was writing to a particular audience in a particular setting on particular issues. “ This is speculative, and a stubborn defiance in light of Biblical facts.

    You are allowed to be argumentative. These sites allow for a vigorous respectful debate of ideas.
    I am convinced that your foundation is cultural, emotional and NOT Biblical.

    “…has the right with absolute certainty to tell anyone which biblical standards apply and which do not.” well, I am not telling anyone to do anything, but trying to give a proper defense of the Word of God that does speak to women and their roles, in the Home and the Church.
    I am trying to do what Jude requires of me to quote, ” …contend for the Faith that ONCE delivered to the Saint”.
    When you adopt this approach, you will find that Cultural changes have NO bearing on the FAITH that was ONCE given. Or else, if it changes over the centuries from Culture to culture, we will not be able to do as Jude admonished, for it would be a Changing Faith packaged and repackage over and over again as time and culture changes.
    That, in essence, is a confuse perverted Faith not worth contending for.

  • If that spiritual leadership excludes the presbyters and the bishops, as it seems to have done throughout Church history, then yes.

  • TS (unami)

    Being a male doesn’t make someone better at being a bishop or presbyter than being a woman.

  • TS (unami)

    No — women may be priests and bishops, just as well as men.

  • Elca

    “So you consider both culture, context, and subject matter when reading the scriptures too then lol Unlike you, I am not saying that Culture is the reason for Paul’s instructions.
    However, there is really nothing new under the sun. Brading of the hair is a 2018 American Culture. You personally make not engage, but Billions$$$ are Spent by women to braid their hair in many different fashions. But, Context is what’s failing you…
    The issue is not the ” Brading of hair or wearing gold” do you not understand the issue is what’s in the heart?
    “That’s precisely why one can’t use a literal reading …” The Bible is both filled with Literal imagery and allegories and analogies and Typologies…that’s where due diligence of studying to show yourself approve so you can separate what is to be taken Literally from what is an allegory…
    But it takes an open mind to do this…
    Biblical Truth can be found and is found within the pages of scriptures.
    Truth is God, His word is true…it isn’t an imaginary concept foreign to His people.

  • TS (unami)

    *sigh*
    Would you say that men greeting each other was a cultural thing in Paul’s day?

  • TS (unami)

    It seems that your saying that a woman should only attempt to look good for her husband. That if she wants to look good *for herself* that she’s sinning somehow. I call that baloney and misses the point entirely.

  • Realist1234

    Cant wait for the fourth.

  • Ron McPherson

    No, it would not be illogical to suggest I was not talking to all women because the letter was addressed to the recipient. That should be apparent. The fact I wrote a hopeful expectation referencing the general populace in no way meant that every request in the letter, addressed to the recipient, becomes an injunction upon all women.

    As to shedding “Feminist thought” lol. I lived over four decades enmeshed in that type of fundamentalist thinking. I could stand the hypocrisy no longer. Fortunately, God rescued me from it. If you want to believe what you believe, that’s fine. You take liberties with respect to hermeneutics and that’s fine too. But afford others the same right as well.

  • Elca

    Well, I did not say that…but do me a favor and lean to copy and paste my words and not your summation of what I wrote.

  • If this is indeed the case, then how would one reasonably explain the complete absence of any mention of female presbyters and female bishops not just from within the pages of the New Testament itself, but also from the entire historic record of the Christian Church, from its earliest times until (very close to) today ?

  • Elca

    I am not arguing what was or wasn’t cultural. I Have not done a study as to whether or not the verse was done by men.
    It is not very important to me… but it is a FACT that in today’s America ” greet one another with a holy kiss” is the done thing and is almost cultural, at least in some communities.

  • Ron McPherson

    Lol. You keep making my point. Context is subjective in how it’s applied. That means it’s open to interpretation. That’s kinda the point! People have different views. It doesn’t mean that those not aligning with yours just don’t want to face the truth. There is a difference between your version of the truth (and mine) vs God’s.

  • Elca

    I agree that Hypocrisy is everywhere, including with Rachel, and if you and her say otherwise, then I will say you all are liars.
    I have been on her site and on CBE and other egalitarian sites and have been banned because my views conflict with theirs.
    That’s why I said thus…it is a reality for me. Or else, if I can discuss with you at length and you still hold true to your ” False point of View” why not let them hold theirs rather than Ban a different view.?
    Blind leaders of the Blind for the very reason, they reject a different point of view.
    I have no fear of others and their point of view because the view I expressed is not my own, but on the foundation of the Word of God I stand, unmoveable abiding in His truth.

  • Ron McPherson

    No, you are contending for YOUR VERSION of the faith, like I do and others as well. You’re making the assumption that you’re right and others who disagree are wrong. It’s painfully evident in your posts. I’m not trying to convince you of altering your convictions. I’m trying to get you to see that it is mildly possible you could be wrong. Just like I can be.

    “…you will find that Cultural changes have NO bearing on the FAITH that was ONCE given”

    I agree. The difference perhaps between you and I is what we consider to be “the faith.” If by that you mean affirming Christ as risen Lord and Savior and attempting to adhere to his greatest commandment to love God and neighbor, on that we can agree. Love absolutely transcends time and culture. Interpreting every jot and tittle within Paul’s letters to churches in a Greco Roman setting and using them to rigidly govern congregations two millennia later?…um, not so much.

  • Elca

    If our interpretation of a verse contradicts what’s written, then our interpretation is flawed and usually skewed to please self and appease others rather than seeking to rightly divide the Word of Truth.
    No matter the hermeneutics used, our interpretation Should not contradict the Written Word and Cannot supersede the Word.
    Or else we will be making God’s Words to be False and Man be true. That would be backward thinking. I rather let God be true and ALL others be a Liar.
    (for example). 1 Timothy 2: 12 said, ” I do not permit a woman…” Now if we then interpret this verse so that we now permit a woman, then our interpretation is Wrong, false, and contradictory of the Written Word.
    We have got to change our interpretation or Change the Written Word to reflect it permits a woman to Usurp the authority of the man. Since the latter is impossible and not allowed, we have got to change our exegesis. Until then, your interpretation is wrong.
    This is a literal reading and understanding forbidding ALL women for ALL time and Culture.
    How you and or women ” feel” about it, is Irrelevant. God speaks, we Obey. That’s it.

  • Ron McPherson

    “I have no fear of others and their point of view because the view I expressed is not my own, but on the foundation of the Word of God I stand, unmoveable abiding in His truth.”

    Again, here’s the problem. You’re absolutely NOT accepting other views because you equate YOUR view with God’s. You just admitted it by your own words. So viewpoints differing from yours is somehow viewed by you as an attack against “the Word of God.” You see it as one and the same.

  • Ron McPherson

    “ 1 Timothy 2: 12 said, ” I do not permit a woman…” Now if we then interpret this verse so that we now permit a woman, then our interpretation is Wrong, false, and contradictory of the Written Word.
    We have got to change our interpretation or Change the Written Word to reflect it permits a woman to Usurp the authority of the man.”

    See what you did there?. Paul literally said, “I do not permit a woman” and you yourself automatically defaulted to an interpretation of it to mean God does not permit a woman. This is precisely what I’m trying to get you to understand. You are standing on YOUR interpretation of a text while claiming that the Bible is clear about this topic for all churches in all times. I’m not even trying to change your convictions. I’m just pointing out how all of us enter passages with presuppositions

  • Elca

    You are giving me too much credit, implying I am not affording you or others the right to ” interpret the word as you see fit.”
    I have NO Problem with what you say and your interpretation. I think the problem for most is the Power behind my comments, for is points others to the Written Word, which is the Son of God. I don’t advocate Culture as many seems to do, hence they have NO power in their convictions and defense of their positions and belief. Theirs are built on Mud…shifting sands of time and culture.
    Mine is on the Written Word of God. I am not trying to convince or convict, but I am going to defend the Written Word and will Trust The Holy Ghost to accomplish what it pleases. It is NOT my job to stop anyone from presenting a flawed ,false or skewed point of view.
    It is my job to present Jesus and the unadulterated Written Word to the situation at hand.
    Sorry if you are offended…

  • Ron McPherson

    I’m not offended in any way.

    “ I am not trying to convince or convict, but I am going to defend (MY UNDERSTANDING OF) the Written Word and will Trust The Holy Ghost to accomplish what it pleases“

    I fixed it for you.

  • Elca

    You make me laugh. Do you not know that ALL Scripture is God’s breathe and is given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? This is a ridiculous point.
    Jesus has NO other voice and hands but His Apostles that He ordained with the Authority to Lay a foundation of doctrine for ALL to follow in His Church.
    Paul, himself said, he is an Apostle by the Will of God. You are grasping at straws…therefore No need to listen to Paul?
    Wow, this is disappointed. Do you know that Gays and lesbians follow this same logic and affirm their folly because when Jesus was on earth He did NOT address the issue of Homosexuality?
    Sorry, but your argument is ridiculous.
    Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ by the Will of God…hear ye Him…

  • Elca

    “(MY UNDERSTANDING OF)” Hum….No, I am going to defend the Written Word of God. My understanding sometimes is wrong. I am NOT omniscient… Seems you are.
    To do so is to be stubborn and arrogant. I will yield when “(MY UNDERSTANDING OF)” … is wrong. It’s a major difference.

  • Most parish priests do not sing better than cantors, nor do they preach better than orators, nor do they argue better than lawyers. Nevertheless, they are ordained, whereas the others usually aren’t. So it is not entirely clear why one would assume that personal skills is what enables or disables a person from becoming a presbyter or bishop.

  • Elca

    Hey, man, I am going… will respond at a later time.
    Thanks for conversing.
    Blessings.

  • Ron McPherson

    thanks much. peace

  • Ron McPherson

    “”(MY UNDERSTANDING OF)” Hum….No, I am going to defend the Written Word of God. My understanding sometimes is wrong. I am NOT omniscient… Seems you are. To do so is to be stubborn and arrogant. I will yield when “(MY UNDERSTANDING OF)” … is wrong. It’s a major difference.”

    Of course I can be wrong. We all can. Why would you think I believe otherwise? As long as you can admit you could be wrong about this topic (as can I), then all is well. The problem comes in when you assume you’re defending the bible against others,when in reality you’re actually defending YOUR VIEW of it. There’s a huge difference. Suggesting you’re defending the bible (rather than your view of it) implies to others that those with alternative views are somehow dissing it, disbelieving it, or ignoring it.

  • Ron McPherson

    “Do you not know that ALL Scripture is God’s breathe and is given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? This is a ridiculous point.”

    That’s not the issue here. Since when did Paul (that would be the pronoun “I”) become synonymous with God? I’m not discounting that the Scriptures came by inspiration, but that’s a whole different story than saying everything Paul wrote expresses a dictate by God for all circumstances in all times for all churches. Unless you think Paul somehow shed his own imperfections and became God-like every time he took up the pen to write a letter. If you truly believe what he wrote, then “I” means “I”. No fudging here. Furthermore, when Paul penned words to Timothy with respect to “all scripture”, I assume you understand he was not holding, nor referencing, a 66 book compilation of the Protestant bible that we now hold dear. NT books had not even been completely written nor assembled. You’re reading something onto the text that isn’t there. The scriptures in Paul’s day consisted of the Hebrew portion (OT), and could have even been a reference to the Greek translated Septuagint. If so, that means apocryphal writings as well. Ironically, that means you could be assuming he meant books that weren’t there yet, but discounting books that were. You’re taking a book canonized three centuries after Paul penned those words and reading that back onto the text. Paul didn’t say, “Ok now Timothy. All scripture is inspired but just know neither you nor I knows yet what that will consist of because some of it has yet to even be written. But in a couple hundred years, some councils of men will get together and take the Hebrew scriptures (that’s the only portion you’re aware of Timothy), and then take some of my stuff, some of Mark’s (remember that’s the guy who quit on me), some of James (even though we seem to butt heads over who gets to sit at the table of faith and he ticked me off by sending some of his cronies to Antioch who screwed up both Peter and Barnabas), etc.” It’s just lousy exegesis to read the words “all scripture” as the Protestant or even Catholic Bible. That’s exactly what I mean by reading presuppositions upon the text.

    “Paul, himself said, he is an Apostle by the Will of God. You are grasping at straws…therefore No need to listen to Paul?”

    What makes you think I believe we don’t need to listen to Paul? I think we can learn much from the scriptures with help from the Spirit. The difference is that I don’t equate the scriptures as being God, nor do I equate Paul to God either. Christ followers in the first several centuries didn’t even have access to bibles (they followed the Spirit). In fact, most were probably even illiterate.

    “Do you know that Gays and lesbians follow this same logic and affirm their folly because when Jesus was on earth He did NOT address the issue of Homosexuality? Sorry, but your argument is ridiculous.”

    Uh huh. Predictable. I wondered how long this would go before this was trotted out. It almost never fails. Let’s jump on the gays while we’re at it. Sheesh. If people actually focused as much on what Jesus DID say rather than what he did NOT say, there’s no telling what a difference Christ followers could make in this world. Meanwhile, 30,000 people around the world died of malnutrition last night and we can’t stop ragging on gays. Good grief.

  • Ron McPherson

    LOLOL!!!

  • Ron McPherson

    “…how would one reasonably explain the complete absence of any mention of female presbyters and female bishops not just from within the pages of the New Testament itself, but also from the entire historic record of the Christian Church, from its earliest times until (very close to) today.”

    I’ll take a shot at this. How about because the culture during biblical times was that women were viewed like cattle.

  • Ron McPherson

    In the bible belt where I live, some conservative churches are so systemically homophobic that they’d immediately throw two kissing men outta the congregation thinking they were gay.

  • …as were slaves and new-born children, both of whom could be killed without punishment by the one to whom they belonged, under Roman law. However, human history is not unaware of slaves and others of the lower classes being ordained into the Christian priesthood, and of the latter Christ famously said that theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.

  • KonCern

    Yes she does including diamonds.

  • KonCern

    And the different is?

  • Ron McPherson

    True. I just tend to be wary of using church history as a measuring point as to what should or should not be done

  • countervail

    OR recognize religion as an organized hoke and stop letting people makes things up in life because an invisible sky god told them?

  • TS (unami)

    Perhaps you can rephrase…?

  • TS (unami)

    Did the church get some things wrong over all that time,eh?
    Support for slavery…
    Slaughter, pillage and rape during the Crusades…
    Coerced confession of faith and torture (the Inquisition)…
    to name only a few…

    How about some of the other restrictions imposed on women such as head coverings, no braided hair and no gold jewelry? Hmmm?

    The church doesn’t always “get it right” — and thank God that we CAN change to live our faith more like Christ, rather than more like the Pharisees!

  • TS (unami)

    WHERE in America can MEN be found “greeting one another with a kiss”?

  • TS (unami)

    I never said that personal skills did that — those are your words. I said that one’s *gender* doesn’t qualify one for service over another person of the opposite gender.

  • TS (unami)

    Then, if you’re going to restrict her from teaching a man, or speaking in church, you better make sure she covers her head and takes off all the gold jewelry — since you want to follow Paul *literally*…

  • TS (unami)

    Paul is NOT Jesus.

  • Chuck Johnson

    Firstly,
    John Loftus almost never bans people from hid Debunking Christianity blog.
    You don’t need to worry about that. But you might get hostile commentary from visitors there.

    Secondly,
    That’s a nice egalitarian thought, but it applies to the kingdom that the Bible asserts to be God’s. I am an atheist, and I see that kingdom as being a theological assertion with no physical reality.

    Servants obey their masters, employees their employers, wives their husbands, children their parents, and pupils their teachers. This
    practical social order, meant to protect from chaos and dysfunction, has
    little to do with the issue of salvation, which constitutes Paul’s main point in Galatians 3:28.-Lucian

    Religions with their deities have a high priority in asserting and enforcing the ancient pyramid of authority. God, Jesus, heaven and hell are ideas which are promoted to make the masses obedient.

  • Richard B

    It is the Holy Spirit who distributed gifts the way the Holy Spirit chooses. Who are we to decide?

  • Elca

    Why ask me this question? You have already conceded that is does happen in the USA.
    quote,“Ok, I did misunderstand you. Thanks for pointing out that you actually said “people”. Women do kiss on greeting here — and also some men. Nothing wrong with that.”

  • Elca

    Rephase what? Paste the words I have written so I can see what you are speaking about.

  • Elca

    Yea, I also have a problem with the Religious Right…they are the ones that defend Racism and white supremacist groups and endorsed Trump’s coded rhetoric, MAWA.
    Yea, that bunch is filled with hypocrisy, they would rather believe Roy Moore was dating teenage girls so he can read Bible stories to them on the back seat of his car.
    Yea, that group is strange…

  • wit brown

    And it is the same Holy spirit to set rules for those same gifts to operate in His Church. Why are they only one senior Pastor per Church or one Sheppard per flock?
    Aren’t there no more ” gifted ” man to be a Senior Pastor or Sheppard of the same flock?

  • Elca

    “You’re absolutely NOT accepting other views because you equate YOUR view with God’s.” You are right, I won’t accept views that are antithetical to the Written Word. However, unlike Rachel and many at CBE I won’t be banning you for your views. In the final analysis, I am not controlling what my audience read. I will Trust God to accomplish what He pleases via my defense of His Word.
    I do not equate my Views with God. But I will say that I do not express my own Views derived from Culture, times and man-made ideologies.
    I contend that the Views or defense is in Line with God’s written Word and does not Conflict or contradict His Word. This is very much the antithesis of yours.
    Whereas your’s is built on times and culture and a need to please and appease others, I am presenting to you God’s Words that transcend time and culture and calling ALL men Everywhere to conform and comply to His Written Word.

  • wit brown

    And Gay and lesbian priests and bishops as well…don’t overlook that.

  • wit brown

    You must make a distinction between the ” Church ” and what is Written for the proper function of the One Church of Jesus Christ.
    The Bible does not endorse American Style Slavery and knows nothing about American Christianity.
    Those are false and a fraudulent ideas perpetuated by White Racist Americans.

  • KonCern

    And neither is Peter and the other Apostles… Yet Jesus sends them forth with the authority to lay a foundation of doctrine for His Church and gave them the same Power to heal the sick, raised the dead and greater things than what Jesus did.
    So tell me again, what is your point.?

  • KonCern

    NO ! the head covering is symbolic of being under the authority ( in this case her own husband) of a man.
    Head covering is an attitude of a submissive, humble heart. You can wear all the hat, scarf and other head coverings and yet be a rebellious, argumentative and contentious wife, the angels won’t be coming to your defense for you are NOT under cover of a man. A man is admonished to not live with such a woman.
    Don’t overlook the Spiritual dimension. It isn’t physical, but more spiritual …what if she can’t afford the material head covering?
    Secondly, it is NOT the husband’s role to make sure his wife is undercover.
    Paul is speaking to her as something she is to freely chose to do, because of the angels. It is her choice, NO man is to force her. But the consequences of her choice she will have to live with.

  • Elca

    I realized that many on this thread believe Paul’s teachings is inferior to or different from Jesus’s teachings.
    So that is it justified to ignore the Pauline Letters especially as it relates to women. But I would ask them to prayerful consider these verses:
    ” But the Comforter… whom the Father will send…, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” [ John 14:26]
    “For it is not ye that speaks, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” [ Matthew 10:20]
    “8: But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost comes upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” [ Acts 1:8]
    “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.14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him:”[1 Corinthians 2:13-14]
    “If any man thinks himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 38: But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” [1 Corinthians 14:37-38]
    “3: For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” [1 Thessalonians 2:13]

    Contrary to popular belief, the Apostle Paul was NOT a woman Hating bigot nor a Male Chauvinist. He was a consecrated vessel Personally appointed by Jesus Christ to bring His teachings to His One Church ( which includes a word to Women).

    May we put away our Folly and accept Paul’s teachings as if it was coming from Jesus Himself, for it is… Amen.

  • Ron McPherson

    “You are right, I won’t accept views that (IN MY OPINION) are antithetical to the Written Word.”

    Fixed it for ya.

    “However, unlike Rachel and many at CBE I won’t be banning you for your views.”

    I would find it odd that you were banned for merely having dissenting views. If, however, you repeatedly told others their views were “antithetical to the Written Word,” rather than saying something like, “It IS MY OPINION that your views are antithetical to the Written Word,” then I can see how that would get old to the moderators. Just sayin.’

    “I do not equate my Views with God. But I will say that I do not express my own Views derived from Culture, times and man-made ideologies.”

    Sure you do. We all do. Theology itself is a “man-made ideolog(y).” Most of American Christianity filters scripture through a western cultural lens. Our views are crafted and formed over time, based on what we’ve been taught to believe handed down from generation to generation, pulpit to pulpit (e.g. Calvinism borne the 17th century, dispensationalism in the 19th century, just to name a few, utterly dominate the gospel message today; a strong case can be made that today’s prevailing views of the atonement may not even align with those over the first 17 centuries of Christianity). If you didn’t derive your views from culture, then I wonder how you feel about Christians serving in the military (early Christians believed it antithetical to the gospel to do so)? But Constantine and the crusades changed all that. Rest assured, Christianity today does NOT look like it did with the early Christians. To suggest that your views are not derived from culture just seems silly to me. Sorry. I doubt (though I could be wrong) you greet others at your church with a holy kiss because, surprise, that’s just not a part of the American CULTURE. I’m doubting (though again I could be wrong) you require your wife to keep silent in the assembly. Why? Because there apparently were some issues within the congregation to which Paul was addressing that may not necessarily be applicable to the assembly you attend two millennia and thousands of miles removed from when and where Paul penned those words. I doubt you would forbid her to braid her hair or wear jewelry, etc. Again, I could be wrong about all this. To take this even further, I doubt you adhere to Levitical requirements either. We could go over the myriad of those and I’ll prove it. Why? Because they were addressed to Israelites during that time, in that particular CULTURE. And yes, I’m fully aware of the argument that we no longer must live by those because Jesus fulfilled the law. My argument however, is that Jesus’ cross freed us from rules and regulations, and thus, frees us to live by the Spirit, whether that be instructions from Moses or Paul.

    “I contend that the Views or defense is in Line with God’s written Word and does not Conflict or contradict His Word.”

    Fine. Others of us can say the same with respect to our views.

    “(IN MY OPINION) this is very much the antithesis of yours.”

    Fixed another one for ya.

    “Whereas (BOTH MINE AND) your’s is built on times and culture…”

    Fixed another one.

    “Whereas yours is built on…a need to please and appease others (BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH I CLAIM I DON’T EQUATE MY VIEWS AS THE SAME AS GOD’S, I’M ABLE TO JUDGE YOUR MOTIVES JUST LIKE GOD)…”

    Another one fixed lol.

    And finally, this one:

    “I am presenting to you God’s Words that transcend time and culture and calling ALL men Everywhere to conform and comply to His Written Word (PROVIDED IT IS BASED ON HOW I INTERPRET IT).”

    Hope this helps.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    Reason number 11: Paul never said women couldn’t be preachers anyway. At the risk of shameless self publicity (and because I only wrote it a few days ago and the coincidence is to good to pass up) here is a link to an article I did going through the relevant passages:https://worldviewsandcurrentnews.wordpress.com/2018/02/10/mansplaining-the-bible/

  • Phil-
    Revelations has everything to do with Paul’s intentions for his epistles. Ben is already on record stating the same thing about Revelations that he stated about Paul’s epistles. He said Revelations was a “local book” and that it had no prophetic applications as everything in the book had already happened. Quite a statement don’t you think? Now he says the same thing about Paul’s epistles. So I asked again what support Ben has for this view as it is definitely cultish and yet you don’t answer. So I have to guess; Ben is a Preterist! The Preterist movement essentially teaches that all the end-times prophecies of the New Testament were fulfilled in AD 70 when the Romans attacked and destroyed Jerusalem.” Or, “Preterism, preterist theology or the preterist view of eschatology is the Christian belief that Jesus has already returned and that most, if not all, end time prophecies have been fulfilled primarily or exclusively in the first century. It is a very old view and condemned from the beginning of Christianity. Indeed Paul warned about it in 2 Timothy 2:17–18 “and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are eHymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some.” So as the bible itself states there is nothing new under the sun.

    Your analogy of the letter and the mailman doesn’t hold up. When you said, “What possible motive would he have for scattering them across different churches who have different capacities for copying and routing?, I have shown you the reason but you can’t accept it. Some of the New Testament letters were sent to a Church like Colossians but they were not intended to limited to that church. Colossians 4:16, “And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. As I stated the letters were to be circulated to the fledgling churches to whom the Apostles ministered. Indeed Jesus instructed John to send his letter to seven churches, Rev. 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. Notice that Epheus is one of the churches that Paul addressed in Ephesians and he instructed Colossians to be read in Laodicia. These letters eventually were canonized and are in the bible today; your views about who wrote the bible and when it was done notwithstanding.

    Last, and already said, the bible is full of prophecy: some fulfilled some waiting fulfillment. Rev. 1:19 “Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;” So the prophetic content of the letters is not in issue except to Ben. Why is that? What is his justification? This is the last time I will ask.

    You also said, “Your point is basically, “This is the BIBLE! The Bible is a special book! Therefore, everything in it has to be literally for everyone at all times!”That assumption is completely unfounded. It’s arbitrary, and directly contradicted by the content of the scriptures themselves. That is not my point and you are wrong. My point is stated now five times with proof and you have offered nothing substantive. Do you have a view on Preterism? Can you defend Ben’s view which is against the bible itself and specifically condemned 2000 years ago by Paul? You mention scriptures but quote none.

    I have to go the postman is at the door…

  • Revelations has everything to do with Paul’s intentions for his epistles. Ben is already on record stating the same thing about Revelations that he stated about Paul’s epistles.

    Wait, so the book of Revelation (there is no book of RevelationS) should be used as an interpretive guide to Paul’s epistles because… Ben once made a comment about the scope of Revelation that was similar to his comments about the scope of Paul’s epistles?

    So, because Ben did this, we should now, hermeneutically, read verses in Revelation and apply them Paul’s epistles? I didn’t realize Ben had such an impact on historical theology. I’m impressed.

    But, anyway, since you’re dead set on mixing this all together, let’s look at the book of Revelation as a test case.

    The writing itself addresses itself to the seven churches in Asia Minor, to be read by them at that time. So, in the first place, we know that’s who the intended audience is, and that’s primarily whom the book has relevance for – the churches in Asia Minor in the first century.

    So, hermeneutically, when we approach that book, we should -in the first place- try to understand it in the context of the first century churches in Asia Minor, as much as we can adopting their points of reference and historical situation. There is -no- reason to do something besides that.

    Once we have interpreted the book of Revelation in the context of the first century Asia Minor churches, THEN we ask ourselves, “Does any of that have anything to say to us, today?” I would certainly say it does. But the difference is that I’m entering the Bible’s world and seeing how I might or might not fit that versus making the Bible fit my world – i.e. reading it as though it were written for me/us in the contemporary West.

    The text itself tells us who the book is for. To assume that the book itself intrinsically transcends those boundaries is to go well beyond the biblical text, itself. You have yet to offer any evidence to support the proposition that the writings that ended up in the Bible were specifically written to address all people everywhere at all times and places. The biblical text itself says this is not the case. Why won’t you believe it?

    Incidentally, I got a huge kick out of this, and it’s illustrative of the problem:

    The Preterist movement essentially teaches that all the end-times prophecies of the New Testament were fulfilled in AD 70 when the Romans attacked and destroyed Jerusalem.” … Indeed Paul warned about it in 2 Timothy 2:17–18 “and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are eHymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some.”

    If you don’t believe Paul wrote 2 Timothy, this is a valid argument, because that would put 2 Timothy well after 70 A.D. If you do believe Paul wrote 2 Timothy, as you do, this doesn’t work at all because Paul would have written that letter before 70 A.D. If someone believes “the resurrection” happened at 70 A.D., Paul could not have been critiquing that view in 2 Timothy… unless Paul didn’t write 2 Timothy.

    Paul would have been critiquing what people were saying -before- 70 A.D., and the Preterists would agree with him that the resurrection had not yet happened.

    This is illustrative of the problem because, since you insist on interpreting the Bible as transhistorical, Paul’s criticism of a heresy at the time of his writing can simply be reallocated to some other point in history, and abracadabra, Paul is now talking about something later.

    This is the exact hermeneutical principle Ben is warning about in his article. You cannot excise passages from their time and context and just drop them onto whatever you like.

    Acts 2:1 says the believers were in one accord. How do I know that doesn’t mean they were in a Honda Accord? Because Honda Accords did not exist when that verse was written. I can’t just yank that verse out of its historical situation and say, “We have Accords now. They’re cars. The Bible is about everyone at all times and also predicting the future. This is a prophecy about Honda Accords and how the believers loved them.”

    Hopefully, you recognize that doing this would be absurd. Any sane person would respond that the best way to understand that verse would be to understand it against the backdrop of first century believers in their historical situation, which makes it far more likely the verse is talking about being in unity as opposed to being in a Honda.

    That’s the principle that’s at stake and is regularly violated by contemporary Christians who will happily ignore a biblical writing’s historical situation and audience and just drop those verses against their current understanding or situation.

    Some of the New Testament letters were sent to a Church like Colossians but they were not intended to limited to that church.

    Quite true. And how do you know that? Because the text tells you who the letter is for. Colossians 4:16 has those instructions. Note that Colossians 4:16 does not include many churches at that time, nor does it include everyone, nor does it include future generations.

    So, if we’re to use the Bible as our guide for interpreting it, our task is to -in the first place- interpret it according to the historical context of those churches. Once we have our arms around that, we’re in a position to figure out what, if anything, a given text has to say to us.

    Last, and already said, the bible is full of prophecy: some fulfilled some waiting fulfillment. Rev. 1:19 “Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;” So the prophetic content of the letters is not in issue except to Ben. Why is that? What is his justification?

    See, once again, this is a classic problem with your hermeneutics. Because Revelation mentions things “which shall be hereafter,” you think of the future from -your- standpoint.

    But Revelation (I believe, anyway) was written in the first century. It is the future from -their- standpoint. -They- are the original audience. If something happened in the second century, it’s in the past to -us-, but it would be the -future- to the audience of the book of Revelation.

    This is why nothing in Revelation -has- to be about the distant future. We may, as we interpret and discuss it, decide parts of it are. But first, we have to understand the book as intelligible to the original audience, and interpretations of Revelation that would make some level of sense to the original readers are to be greatly preferred to interpretations that would be totally alien to them.

    Furthermore, we have several surviving Jewish apocalypses, and many of them use similar symbolism to Revelation and explain themselves. While we can’t just use them like a decoder ring as if a symbol has to mean the same thing everywhere it appears, it still gives us a lot of insight into how a first century reader would have heard that literature and, once again, helps us determine more likely understandings from less likely understandings.

    This why, for instance, even though Trump is an almost picture-perfect fit for the Beast in Revelation, I think it is highly unlikely Revelation is about him directly. The oppressors in Revelation are likely the Roman Empire and a complicit Judean power structure, because that fits the context and understanding of the first century audience. I might decide, as my amillennial brothers and sisters have, that these symbols can also meaningfully describe other oppressors. For instance, the White Rose described Hitler as the Beast, not because they believed John was literally prophesying about Hitler, but because the situation John described could be used to explain their experience under Hitler, as well. This mechanic, in fact, is largely how the New Testament uses the Old Testament.

    My point is stated now five times with proof and you have offered nothing substantive.

    I’m 97% confident you are the only person who sees our exchange this way.

    Do you have a view on Preterism? Can you defend Ben’s view which is against the bible itself and specifically condemned 2000 years ago by Paul?

    Once again, Preterism can only be condemned by 2 Timothy if Paul didn’t write it. So, which is it? Are you wrong about what 2 Timothy means or are you wrong about its authorship?

    I don’t have a view on Preterism except that I think it has a tendency to collapse too much language directly into Israel’s story. I favor understandings of texts that respect the fact that they were written to an original audience, and the text was expected to be cogent to them. Therefore, I think the best understanding of the symbols in Revelation are along the lines of entities and events that would be relevant to the original audience – the same things Jesus warned that present generation about. At the same time, I think there are things Revelation posits as a hope flung out into the future, such as the renewal of creation after a “thousand years,” and how the audience would have understood the significance of a “thousand years” would make that interpretation cogent to them.

    But I think your fascination with Preterism in this discussion sort of opens up the real issue, here. If we understand texts -first- in the terms of the original audience, and -secondarily- in terms of what those meanings might have to say to us, my guess is that would seriously wreck your eschatological views. Christianity sure would be boring if it turned out we Christians in the 21st century weren’t living in the “end times” and ATM cards weren’t the mark of the Beast or whatever, eh?

  • Ron McPherson

    I read it. It was excellent!

  • TS (unami)

    Have a nice day.

  • TS (unami)

    Fine.

  • TS (unami)

    Yep. No problem with them either –we’re all one Body in Christ.

  • TS (unami)

    Slavery is still wrong. Don’t attempt to explain away ancient slavery as if it were indentured servitude — because to a non-Jew, captured in war and sold into slavery, they’re is no chance of freedom.

    You’re just property, passed down to be an inheritance to the children of your slave owner. You could be beaten to the *point of death*… as long as you “didn’t die in three days”.

    If you think slavery is so copestetic, then I’m sure you would have been just chipper as a slave in those days.

  • TS (unami)

    Funny how you completely overlook braided hair and gold jewelry…

  • At first glance I see you protest too much….I’ll read it more critically later.

  • KonCern

    I did not…you maybe confusing Paul with Peter. But none of them is telling the women don’t wear Gold or braid the hair.
    Read the verse carefully again.
    “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2:While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 3:Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4:But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 5:For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6:Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.” 1 Peter 3:1-6

    So your idea of ” literal” is out of Context, for the instruction isn’t a ban on gold or braided hair. But the emphasis is on the adorning of the Heart. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

  • TS (unami)

    Oh sure, the emphasis is in the heart — but he makes it plain that he’s also opposed to jewelry and hair styles (since you’re taking the restriction against female spiritual leadership literally).

  • wit brown

    We are all slaves to our creditors today. If you owe money to the bank, you are a “slave” to the bank.
    The Bible does give instructions for slaves to honor their commitment and serve their Boss faithfully. The Bible gives instructions to our creditors and ” Boss” how to treat us.
    Ephesians 6:5-8 gives an overview of that relationship.
    For the record, the Bible knows nothing of the American Style Slavery which was and is an Evil stain on our Country’s legacy.
    In fact, the Bible gave an account of a hard master who won’t show mercy to his debtor, but rather would throw him in jail and take his wife and family. Then the Lord heard of this Evil and punished that master. [ Matthew 18:25-35] This master sounds like a White American Racist, who dealt harshly with his Black Slaves working for him.
    I am afraid your idea of ” Slavery ” is influenced by White American Evil system of Slavery and Racism.
    The Bible knows Nothing of that kind of slavery. The Bible recorded the first act of Racism done by a woman, who was a racist. God personally punished her making her a Leper.

  • wit brown

    You have no problem with ” Gay and lesbian ” priest and bishops? I am not surprised, but are you a Christian or an atheist?

  • TS (unami)

    I am a Christian.

  • TS (unami)

    I see that you’ve skipped over the beaten to the point of death allowance in so-called biblical slavery…

    Hardly the same as your relationship to a creditor.

  • Bones

    Or the fact that translaters used their bias to omit women eg

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

    Up until recently it wasnt understood that Junia was a woman even then translators tried to diminish her role.

  • Bones

    Lol…..another idiot who can’t get a girlfriend.

  • Bones

    Yeah need to get back to the days when women were unclean and the males property.

    Like in the bible.

  • Bones

    Yes having a vagina means you cant lead a church.

    Are you scared of them?

  • Bones

    Derp foreign slaves were treated just like black slaves.

    Remember when Spartacus rose up with thousands of slaves against Rome.

    They didnt do that because of wonderful treatment.

    Yet again the aplogetics of slavery in the bible is exposed as a complete fraud.

  • Bones

    You mean like when Paul sent a slave back to his owner?

  • Bones

    This is in a culture where women on their periods were unclean.

    And yes women did lead churches. in fact one of the popular early writings were ultimately rejected for giving too much prominence to women – the Acts of Paul and Thecla.

    Tertullian inveighed against its use in the advocacy of a woman’s right to preach and to baptize.

    Christianity also has a history of hating Jews. I don’t see too many people nowadays saying that was a good thing.

  • Bones

    Most of that teaching is errant eg the the belief that the 12 disciples were men therefore only men could be chosen in perpetuity is stupid. The 12 disciples were also jews.

    All of axsudden that argument doesnt hold.

  • Bones

    Junia was an apostle according to Paul.

  • Bones

    Nor left handed priests…..nor married priests….

    Sue me.

  • Bones

    And the left handed ones…..

  • Bones

    Junia was an apostle according to Paul.

    Interestingly the author of revelation rants against churches with women leaders.

    He didnt like gentile christianity much.

  • Bones

    I trained with women priests one of who. is now a bishop.

    You lose.

    What is it about vaginas that scares you?

  • Bones

    Derp opinion isn’t fact.

    Eg women cant be priests because they dont have a d#ck is not a fact.

  • Bones

    Jesus didnt ordain anyone. This is catholic propaganda.

    And the idea that women dont have the Holy Spirit is complete and utter ignorance.

    If the catholic church had more women priests they wouldnt have such a problem with kiddie fiddlers.

  • Bones

    The holy spirit didnt set rules dumbarse.

    Did the holy spirit set rules on celibacy?

  • Bones

    Lol….Blind leaders of the Blind are those who want to enforce Bronze Age beliefs about women on modern humans.

    As for not tolerating dissenting views who’s having a massive dummy spit about what other churches do.

    You need a safe place mate?

  • KIZMET

    Recommended.

    I was a Minister.

  • KIZMET

    Erm, my 20 odd years formal training IN Ministry, begs to differ to your claims. SOZ.

  • KIZMET

    Frankly, anything anyone wrote was at best 2nd hand account as to what this ” Jesus of Nazareth” allegelly stated and Paul, got the “purple monkey dishwasher” version.

    You can even PERSONALLY WITNESS an event and everyone who’s there, version will be different to the actual truth of the matter.

  • D.M.S.

    Yes…

  • D.M.S.

    Scripture states that women are not to have authority over men in the congregation.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    You are referring to Exodus 21:20-21, that may simply be a mistranslation. The Hebrew verb sometimes translated “is alive” literally means “stands”. Immediately preceding this in the chapter (vv18-19) the penalty for assault on a free man is death if he dies, but only payment for his time and ensuring his medical treatment if he recovers with no permanent ill effects. It seems to me that to make sense vv20-21 require that the verb is taken literally as “gets up”: the rule for a slave is the same as for a free man (death if he dies, otherwise not) save that, with a slave, the master need not compensate the slave for their lost time and earnings if they recover because the loss of the slave’s time and earnings are the master’s own loss.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    No it doesn’t, it says a woman wishing to learn should be allowed to do, so so long as she respects the teacher and doesn’t try and take over the class.

  • Bones

    Lol……So you’re Catholic now?

  • Bones

    Yeah I don’t accept ISIS’s views either….

    So sue me…..

    Your views are based on ignorance and the cultural taboos of the Bronze Age.

    Let us know when you enter the 21st century.

  • Bones

    Great to see you back, Kiz….

  • KIZMET

    Hey Bud. I live in the UAE now! lol ( my fella got a gig here with AIS).

  • Bones

    Yeah maybe the Handmaid’s Tale is actually prophecy.

    “Do we submit to the social-cultural norms/mores/values/definitions (and politics) of the current times?”

    Yes….of course it depends what informs your values….Bronze Age superstitions vs equal rights…..is a bit of a no brainer.

    Of course there are those who seek to stop the betterment of society by harking back to Bronze Age beliefs.

  • Bones

    Aaaah but Peter, James and the other Ten believed that Christianity was only for Jews ie you had to become a Jew. This was a source of much conflict between Paul and the Twelve (Judaisers).

    Paul never read any of the gospels….That’s obvious….He had been dead for some time before the first gospel (Mark) was written. If he had’ve he’d have referred to them like he referred to pagan writings.

    Same goes for all the Disciples. They were all dead.

    Btw how’s that ‘raising people from the dead’ power going.

  • Bones

    Lol….what complete and utter garbage.

    If the Catholic church had some vaginas in leadership, you wouldn’t have a problem with kiddie fiddlers.

  • Bones

    There is definitely a problem with a religion which enables kiddie fiddling.

    Why is that?

  • Bones

    The Pharisees said the same thing…..

  • Bones

    Do you make your wife wear a burqa?

  • Bones

    How long should I have my hair cut before it is considered unnatural according to Paul?

    14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, (1Cor 11:14)

    Btw the answer to Paul’s question is no.

  • Bones

    Maybe Paul liked kissing men…..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdbt-sx5MDc

  • Bones

    Good luck kissing men around here……

  • Bones

    Not here it isn’t……

  • Bones

    It doesn’t happen here….at all…..

    Apart from gay mardi gras….

  • Bones

    Person with strange misogynist beliefs points finger at other group which has strange bigoted beliefs…..

    Some people need to look at themselves first.

  • Bones
  • Bones

    I’d be more worried about what kiddie fiddlers in your church are doing.

    You seem to be burning your own house down.

    Women are the only way to save your church.

  • Bones

    “since Ephesus had no high priestess in the days of Paul’s letter writing [1st century],”….

    Really????

    Rick Strelan, in his book Paul, Artemis, and the Jews in Ephesus, writes about women’s roles in pagan cults, and quotes from leading scholars.

    “In terms of cultic life in Ephesus, it is clear that women played a significant role and held important offices in many cults. The mythology of Ephesus [including the myth that Ephesus was founded by warrior women known as Amazons] bolstered their status in the Artemis cult. According to Pausanias, from very early days, if not originally, the Amazon women resided at the sacred place and performed rituals to Artemis there (7.2.4). Cultic activity for women was more prominent in Asia Minor than elsewhere (Ramsay 1900:67). Kearsley notes that the fifteen women who were archiereiai (“chief priests” or “high priests”) in Ephesus is the largest group known from any city (1986:186). At least some held the title in their own right and were not dependent on the title of their husbands. Women were prominent in the Artemis cults as priestesses; and in the cult of Hestia Boulaia in the civic centre of Ephesus, the influential position of prytanus is known to have been held by women (for example, Claudia Trophime I.Eph IV.1012). Favonia Flacilla was both prytanis and gymnasiarchos (I.Eph IV.1060).[3]”

    A prytanis was a priest or priestess who ministered in the Prytaneion. The Prytaneion was a large administrative building situated in “a central position in the Upper Agora and was the home of Hestia Boulaia with the sacred fire of the city.”[4] Paul Trebilco states that “In Asia Minor twenty-eight women were known to have held the position of prytanus (a position of very high rank involving the finances and cultic life of the city) in eight cities of the first three centuries of the Common Era.”[5] While we have evidence for twenty-eight, there may have been even more women who held this office. In his commentary on Ephesians, Clinton Arnold explains that the prytanis “was similar to the mayor of a city, and this office holder presided over the town council.”[6] Thus, the priest or priestess of a Greco-Roman city, including the city of Ephesus, exercised “liturgical authority in parallel to the legislative, judicial, financial or military authority of the city’s officials.”[7] Political and religious activities were intertwined in the Greco-Roman world.

    S.M. Baugh presents a different view of Ephesian women. He presents them as possessing the virtues of the respectable Roman matron—quietness and modesty, and not as being either powerful or prominent. I doubt, however, that a high degree of quiet respectability was uniformly typical among Ephesian women. There are many indications (from ancient statues found in Ephesus, etc) that the “new Roman woman”, with new social freedoms and powers, was making her influence felt among the wealthier Ephesian women. The passage in 1 Timothy 2:9-10, where wealthy women in the Ephesian church are given corrective instructions, is another indication that not all women in Ephesus were the epitome of sōphrosunē—modest propriety.

    Baugh comments on the evidence of inscriptions and somewhat downplays the significance of women office holders, and the titles and positions they held, but he concedes:

    “Nevertheless, Ephesian women and girls do appear in some official capacities, not just as the honorably mentioned wives of patriarchs and patrons. Evidence to this effect picks up in the first century AD, so we cannot trace it to a long-standing emphasis on a “feminine principle” connected to Amazons, Ephesian culture, or Artemis Ephesia. Upon examination, we find a few first-century women filling one or more of four offices: priestess of Artemis, kosmeteira, prytanis, and high priestess of Asia.[8]”

    Guy Maclean Rogers (commenting about the generous endowment of Salutaris for a celebration in 104 CE) states:

    The priestess of Artemis appears as the chief official of the cult of AD 104. She was in charge of the liturgy of the cult, and several different priestesses claimed to have celebrated the mysteries during the first and second centuries AD . . . These priestesses came from prominent local families of wealth, and were represented in inscriptions spread throughout the city as daughters and wives of asiarchs, neopoioi, and Roman citizens, often for generations. Often, but not exclusively, family wealth was used to fulfil the functions of the priesthood, which included the erection of buildings, and over civic projects, entailing great expense.
    Rogers, Sacred Identity of Ephesos, 54-55.

    http://margmowczko.com/the-prominence-of-women-in-the-cultic-life-of-ephesus/

  • Bones

    Lol Paul would be horrified to think his words to a church in first century Ephesus was to apply to a church in modern US.

    Even Paul said he wrote this of his own hand and not the Lord’s.

  • Bones

    Men are better at molesting kids though…….

  • Bones

    Your ignorant understanding of the New Testament says no.

  • Bones

    Paul didn’t write Titius….nor 1 Timothy…..

    Oh and Junia”s was an Apostle and a woman…..

    Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. Romans 16:7

  • Bones

    This would seem to settle your inability to read and apply scripture.

    But Christians like you cherry pick which laws (for that is what it is) to enforce over other Christians.

    Christ didn’t die for your sense of entitlement and legalism.

  • Bones

    It’s certainly relative to you.

    I seem to recall Jesus standing against those who practised legalism to keep others out.

    Do you think a Christian pharisee is any different to their Jewish counterpart?

  • Bones

    Not to mention your child would be safer with a female minister.

  • Bones

    You don’t have to be a scholar to understand that the letter to the Romans was to the…..Romans……

    Btw God endorsed an abortion test in Numbers 5.

  • Bones

    Lol…Christian sulking because liberals reject their version of sharia law.

    Has Trump overturned gay marriage?

  • Bones

    Speaking of abortions – Numbers 5……

    Seem the Bible is ok with aborting bastards.

  • Bones

    A leopard can’t change it’s spots.

  • Bones

    And stop thinking as children….

  • Bones

    I look at Paul as I would the pastors down the road.

    Agree with him on some things. But he has no clue about others. ie Men with long hair….attitude towards sex (the worst marital advice ever)….nearly anything he writes about women…..

    Ultimately Paul never knew Jesus beyond a vision. He didn’t even have any gospels.

    Btw I wonder if the writer of Titus understood the paradox ‘all Cretans are liars’ (Titus 1:12) was written by a……. Cretan.

  • Bones

    If you tried to kiss a guy over here, you’d be knocked out.

  • Bones

    So Phil, when the author of Titus 1:12 refers to ‘all Cretans are liars’, we’re to take it then that that applies to all the people in Crete living today.

  • Bones

    Speaking of cherry picking….

    Titus 1

    “One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13 This testimony is true.”

    I take it the writer’s words apply to Cretans today.

  • Bones

    The UAE hey…….that’s a long way from the Gold Coast (wasn’t it?)

  • Bones

    Scripture also states that menstruating women are unclean.

  • Bones

    Do the worshippers of Paul* still apply this verse?

    Titus 1

    “One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13 This testimony is true. ”

    * Trick question….Paul didn’t write Titus.

  • Bones

    Do you agree with Paul about people from Crete?????

    Titus 1

    One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13 This testimony is true.

  • KIZMET

    SO basically you’re completely reliant on words written by human beings, assuming they know this God’s actual word?

    Again, even knowing the religous texts, back and front and sideways in MANY different languages, at NO POiNT did the GOD to which you refer, EVER actually write anythng. Not even the jesis of nazareth bloke… Not a dot nor dash. :)

  • KIZMET

    Yeah the daughters are still there in our house and now BOTH at Uni!! One at Uq in Brissie and the other at the Griffith Campus on the GC. :) We are in Sharjah and have been since August last year. :) You still up Bundy/GinGin way?

  • Bones

    While the New Testament does not tell us specifically what pastors did, we do know that both men and women provided spiritual leadership for churches which met in their homes. In the early church, almost all Christian meetings were held in private homes. Among these house-church pastors was Mary, the mother of John Mark, who later became a missionary with the apostles Paul and Barnabas. It was to her house church that Peter came in Acts 12:12 after an angelic visitor set him free from prison. The Bible says that many had assembled there and were praying, no doubt petitioning God for Peter’s release. Their prayers were answered!

    Another house church leader was Chloe, according to I. Corinthians 1:11. In that passage, Paul relates that “some of Chloe’s household ” had reported that there was strife among the Corinthian Christians. Those Chloe sent with this message to Paul were probably Christians who were members of her house church. They may have been relatives or household servants, or they may have been Christians who lives in the area and gathered at her home for worship. These believers would have come under Chloe’s spiritual guidance, care and protection. But Chloe’s influence extended beyond her own flock. Evidently, she had sent a deputation from her house church to Paul, who knew her or knew of her, to inform him of the need for correction in the Corinthian church. She was a trusted leader and source of reliable information for the apostle Paul.

    Acts 16:14-15, 40 tells us about Lydia, Paul’s first European convert to Jesus, who offered Paul hospitality in her home. Scripture relates that when Lydia was converted, her entire household was baptized and that her home became the first meeting place for European Christians. Lydia was a business woman who traded in valuable, dyed garments. The fact that Scripture mentions no husband or father indicates the high prominence of this woman. Since first-century Greek and Roman women were almost always under the legal guardianship of a husband or father, Lydia may well have been a wealthy widow or only daughter who inherited her parents’ estate. Thus, she became the head of her own household. She either managed the family business or developed a business of her own after her husband’s or father’s death.

    The Book of Acts says that Lydia’s entire household was baptized upon her conversion to Christ. This follows the custom of ancient Roman families. Under paganism, household gods were believed to protect and help the family and its enterprises. Thus, it was the duty of members of these households, relatives, slaves, and their families to worship the gods adopted by the head of the household.

    Roman households were often large since almost all businesses were home-based before the industrial age. Those who worked for Lydia in her business, and possibly others engaging in the trade who belonged to the dye-makers guild, would have been among her converts. By virtue of her position as head of household, Lydia had the opportunity and responsibility to lead all of its members to Christ and then to establish and lead them in the faith. This put her in a similar position to the modern-day pastor. To fulfill part of this responsibility, Lydia invited Paul to come and preach in her home.

    Paul and Silas established their gospel mission headquarters in Lydia’s house and no doubt preached there regularly. After their release from prison, Scripture tells us that they returned to Lydia’s and, having met with the brethren, exhorted them. This may have been the first church planted on European soil, and its pastor was a woman.

    Another New Testament woman who led a house church was Nympha (Col. 4:15). Paul sent greetings to her and to the church at her house. Some modern scholars try to get around this by saying that Nympha was “just” the hostess, not the pastor. If that were so, who did pastor her house church, and why would Paul so rudely fail to greet the pastor as well as the hostess?

    Another woman house-pastor was Prisca, or Priscilla, as Paul often affectionately calls her. Romans 16:3-5 expresses his gratitude to her and her husband, Aquilla. This couple had a team ministry and worked with Paul in planting the gospel in Rome, Corinth and Ephesus. In his Roman letter, Paul sends greetings to the church that met in their house, which they pastored together.

    It has often been pointed out by Greek scholars that Paul’s practice of mentioning Prisca’s name before that of her husband emphasizes that she was the more prominent leader. Just as today we would address a letter “Mr. and Mrs.,” so in ancient times, the husband’s name was customarily given before the wife’s. Prisca must have been an outstanding Christian worker for Paul to have reversed custom by honoring her in this way.

    The brief, personal letter II John is addressed to a church and its pastor, a woman with whom the apostle John evidently had warm ties. John opens the letter, “to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth. . .” “Children” was a term of endearment that John used for Christian believers. (I. John 2:1, 12, 18, 28). “Truth” was a term John often used in his writings for the revelation of Jesus (See, for example, John 1:14, 17; 8:32; 16:13; I. John 1:6-8; 2:4, 21; 3:19; II. John 4; III John 3-4.) The word “elect,” while it usually refers to believers as chosen by God for salvation, can also be used to refer to the ordained clergy. The second-century church father Clement of Alexandria does this repeatedly in his Stromata book 6, chapter 13. John’s use of these terms plus the general tone of the letter with its pastoral direction as in verse 10 demonstrate that II John was written to a Christian church, not just a family.

    While scholars agree that II John was addressed to a church, most balk at the idea that the “elect lady” was its pastor. They try to get around this by spiritualizing these terms, saying that they are metaphors for the church. This approach ignores the universal Greek practice of naming a letter’s recipient(s) at the beginning. Without an addressee or location, it cannot explain to whom or how the letter was delivered. It also ignores the plain sense of the text. Additionally, its logic is inconsistent because if both the “lady” and the “children” stand for the church, how could the letter be written to “the church and the church?” If so, to which church is it written? No one writes a letter to a symbol but to a real person or group.

    Interestingly, both of the Greek words in II John 1 which are ordinarily translated into English as “elect” and “lady” were also used in the first century as women’s names just as today we might name a girl “grace” or “Missy.” A number of Greek manuscripts of II John 1 use initial capitals for either or both of these words, indicating personal usage.

    In the second century, Clement of Alexandria identified the “elect lady” as a specific individual. He wrote that II John “was written to virgins. It was written to a Babylonian lady by name Electa.” (Clement of Alexandria, Fragments from Cassiodorus IV, 1-2 tr. by William Wilson, Fathers of the Second Century, A. Cleveland Coxe, ed., New York: The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885, vol. 2, p. 576.) Although he does not elaborate, it appears from this statement that Clement had heard of this woman and knew that she was the spiritual leader of virgins. Why he called her Babylonian is a mystery since Babylon had ceased to be a nation many generations earlier. Perhaps she was of Babylonian descent or came from pagan Rome, which Christians often derisively called “Babylon.” Electa may have been the leader of an order of Christian virgins, or Clement may have assumed that her followers were virgins because of the growing emphasis on asceticism in his day, a half-century after the letter was written.

    During the early and medieval periods of church history, it was very common for devout women to dedicate their homes for Christian worship and to attract other similarly minded people to join them. Usually, the converts who came under the pastoral care of such women were household members or women colleagues. In Electa’s case, if Clement is correct, they were dedicated Christian virgins who constituted one of the order of the clergy in the ancient church along with widows.

    This brief letter closes by conveying a greeting from the church of another woman-“the children of your elect sister greet you.” This woman was evidently their pastor since John again uses the term “children” which in his writings means Christians under the care of a spiritual leader. Also, he calls her “elect” which either means ordained or chosen.

    An interesting possibility exists that these two women pastors were natural sisters as well as sisters in the Lord and in His work. We know from the late third and early fourth century church historian Eusebius that in his later years, the apostle Philip and two of his four daughters who were prophetesses lived at Hierapolis in Asia. A third daughter lived in Ephesus, the city where John preached. Unlike the other apostles who were martyred decades earlier, the apostle John lived to a very old age, possibly over 100 years. Close ties existed between John, the church at Ephesus, and Philip and his daughters. It is possible that after Philip’s death, John wrote his second epistle to one of Philip’s surviving daughters still ministering at Hierapolis (the “elect lady” or “Lady Electa”) and conveyed greetings from her sister’s church at Ephesus. If so, we have in II John evidence that these daughters of Philip established and led Christian communities.

    The fourth-century church historian Eusebius quotes a letter written by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, to Victor, bishop of Rome between 189-198 AD. “For in Asia, also, mighty luminaries have fallen asleep, which shall rise again at the last day, at the appearance of our Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall gather again all the saints. Philip, one of the twelve apostles who sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two aged virgin daughters. Another of his daughters, who lived in the Holy Spirit, rests at Ephesus. Moreover, John, that rested on the bosom of our Lord, who was a priest that bore the sacerdotal plate, and martyr and teacher, he also rests at Ephesus.” Quite possibly, the “elect lady” and her “elect sister” of II John are two of these “mighty luminaries” who “lived in the Holy Spirit” and whom Polycrates and Eusebius commemorated. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book III, chapter. xxxi tr. by Christian Frederick Cruse, Grand Rapids, MI; Baker Book House, 1955, p. 116.)

  • Bones

    Oh and Revelation 2 specifically mentions a church ministered by a woman (the Jezebel)…..who the Ebionite writer condemned as practising paganism….ie Pauline christianity.

    18 “And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write:

    The Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet are like burnished bronze, says this:

    19 ‘I know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are greater than [j]at first. 20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. 21 I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality. 22 Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds. 23 And I will kill her children with pestilence, and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds. 24 But I say to you, the rest who are in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not known the deep things of Satan, as they call them—I place no other burden on you. 25 Nevertheless what you have, hold fast until I come. 26 He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations; 27 and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken to pieces, as I also have received authority from My Father; 28 and I will give him the morning star. 29 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’

  • Bones

    Yep….still in Bundy…..

  • KIZMET

    have you been copping the shitty weather too?

  • wit brown

    You have a proclivity for missing the point…

  • wit brown

    Oh …ok…by their fruits and Worldview they will be known…

  • Matthew

    Thanks Bones.

    Paul didn´t have any Gospels, but he certainly was taught the Gospel by the apostles as well as received direct revelation of the Gospel (Galatians 1).

    Scot McKnight´s book “The King Jesus Gospel” explains this in more detail …

  • D.M.S.

    Yes it does.

  • D.M.S.

    The HolySpirit is also GOD.

  • Bones

    So what?

  • Bones

    Matt, Paul had a different gospel to the Twelve.

    Remember the conflict between Paul and Peter and James which was pretty nasty.

    Makes you wonder where Paul got his gospel from and how the Twelve failed.

    Jewish Christianity all but died and wasnt very successful.

  • Bones

    Bloody heat wave atm..

  • Bones

    Thats right, its ignorant on womens anatomy.

  • Matthew

    Check out Scot´s book, then tell me what you think …

  • KIZMET

    The girls told us it was 100% humidity yesterday on the GC. I have to say, I don’t miss the squeachly heat. Know Bundy is just that much ickier when humidity hits. Strange though, when we arrived in here’s Summer, it was 47 with a tad of humidity but it wasn’t that “wet’ heat” we KNOW from Bundy. Here is more DRY heat to us at least.

  • D.M.S.

    I hope you’re not saying that GOD is ignorant.
    From His inerrant words of scripture.

  • waltercarlson

    Not true at all. Women were never priests. “Maybe” this, “maybe” that. Maybe you are all wrong.

  • Apparently!

  • KonCern

    Copy and paste a verse where pharrisees wanted to faithfully and humbly conform and comply with Jesus and the Apostles doctrine…

  • KonCern

    You overlook that Paul confronted Peter for that very reason…read Galatians you will find the rebuke from Paul.
    .

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

    … next sentence?

    Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

    The Bible can’t seem to make up it’s mind about fools….

    1 Corinthians 3:18 If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

  • KonCern

    You are the one who is ignorant.
    Her menstration is correctly call her ” Purification” process. At that time she is unclean and should abstain from sex.
    That’s why the instruction is given. It is a health issue.
    Trust me God knows better than you ..
    She is unclean because God said so.

  • KonCern

    And now?

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Christians like me? I am an atheist.

    As for your claim that “Christ didn’t die for your sense of entitlement and legalism.”, it hasn’t been proven that Christ even existed.

    And going by the Bible story, Christ was resurrected, he didn’t stay dead. Not much of a sacrifice.

    The story boils down to Christ had a really bad Friday & suffered pain but then rose and is spending eternity in bliss in heaven. Not much of a sacrifice.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Feel free to enlighten us.

    How are YOU understanding these passages?

    1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
    35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

  • Elca

    I see…so whose words are you reliant on? The Sister Hood?

  • Elca

    You are not to be taken seriously…I see your comments as ridiculous and Silly.

  • Ron McPherson

    I was always taught that James and Paul actually saw eye-to-eye (Galatians vs James); i.e. got to synthesize the bible into a cohesive whole and all that, even if it requires teaching it all with your fingers crossed behind your back. I gotta say though, that James 2 sure seems to poke a bit at Paul’s theology (not claiming that was even necessarily his intent, but if I’m a first century Jewish Christian having read that, I could walk away with a far different idea about salvation than if I read Paul; and it’s not like James’ listeners had all Paul’s letters at their disposal to refer back, ya know, just to keep things in balance and all). My conservative commentaries maintain that James and Paul agreed on the essence of the gospel, but just presented alternative sides to the same coin so to speak.

    But what about those chaps showing up in Antioch (in Galatians) causing Peter and Barnabas to cave? If they were not James’ proxies, then why would Paul even bother to mention James’ name at all? I know the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 seemed to find a workable solution, but still seems that James couldn’t help but add a few parameters in.

  • apoxbeonyou

    Dude. This is amazing. You should write books.

  • apoxbeonyou

    I assume you meant to type: “You are the one [who is] ignorant”?

    There’s a few other ‘ignorant’ errors in there, and I hate to be ‘that guy’, but you kind of started it.

  • apoxbeonyou

    “conform and comply”

    Sounds like the Borg. ASSIMILATE!!!

  • apoxbeonyou

    Start with facts then, not misogynist opining.

  • Bones

    Extra biblical sources such as Ebionite writings suggest that the conflict with the Twelve and Paul was extremely hostile.

    Even the apologetics of Acts couldnt hide the fact that the Twelve had spies on Paul who apparently lied about him.

  • Bones

    As if anyone would take seriously a clown who thinks a woman can’t lead because she has a vagina.

  • Bones

    Paul also said it was unnatural for men to have long hair.

    Enlighten me on that.

    Of course Paul was writing to the Corinthian church about specific issues.

    You are aware that these are house churches led by the leaders of houses some of whom are women.

    Its not like your catholic cathedral.

    And honestly thats Pauls opinion much the same as his opinion on hairstyles and all Cretans being stupid.

    I take it with a grain of salt.

    Its the pharisee coming out in Paul.

    Why have you exchanged one Law for another.

  • Bones

    Then you’re pretty stupid to be using the bible to advance misogyny.

    Whats that about?

  • Bones

    Lol….women have to be purified from their own bleeding. Its not a health issue at all.

    Backwards villages in Asia still believe that and is why they’re backward. Women are isolated and found dead in the cold because they have their period.

    It must worry you to sit on a bus when a menstruating woman had sat there.

    Your god is not only ignorant on human anatomy but a backwards Bronze Age ape.

  • Bones

    Well the fool here is you.

    Lol an atheist using bible verses.

    What a dickhead.

    Why are you scared of vaginas?

  • Bones

    Paul did confront him and so did the Twelve in Jerusalem with spies and accusations of lies by Luke.

    Sounds like a united bunch.

    Ebionite writings suggest the animosity was extremely hostile.

  • Bones

    Lol…paul was a pharisee and you’re submitting yourself to his version of the Law.

    How bizarre that you people dont get that.

    You take one verse and make a whole doctrine out of it.

  • Ron McPherson

    I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when Paul confronted Peter at Antioch. Paul never told of his reaction : )

  • KonCern

    Male headship is a consistent theme in the Bible OT to NT.
    Paul is affirming male headship.
    Its absurd to say taking one verse to make a whole doctrine.

  • KonCern

    Your god? Then who is your god?

  • Bones

    Not an ignorant deity based on Bronze Age cultural taboos.

  • Bones

    Paul was a pharisee and is turning back to his pharisaic roots.

    Women being property is also a comsistent theme in both Testaments.

    You are aware that story of the bleeding woman told by Mark is a polemic against Jewish purification rituals which oppressed women.

  • Bones

    There are hints in the Ebionite writings which may well be based on tradition.

    They didnt believe Paul’s story at all.

  • Bones

    Acts is essentially an apologetic piece on the ministry of Paul.

  • Bones

    Either your God is ignorant or the writer is.

    Do you have to wipe your seat when you sit on it in case a menstruating woman sat there?

    Neither the bible nor your interpretation is inerrant.

  • Bones

    Yeah i was going to say its amusing to complain about the heat to someone in the UAE.

  • KIZMET

    LOL! The heat is actually different here. It’s HOT, as in reaching up over 50C in Summer, ( the day we arrived it was 55 actually)but it’s a drier heat so tolerable. First of many culture shocks! lol :D It’s cool being here though. Could never call this “home” but, while here, we are taking advantage. Greece ( as example) just being a 4 hour flight away, ya know? :) That’s a Bundy to GC drive! lol

  • KonCern

    You have weird warped ideas…but good for you, they are the popular ones.
    You, like most, are confusing man made a culture with the instructions given by a righteous God.
    And NOWHERE does He instruct abuse of His daughters to be treated like animals or chattels But He does instruct the Headship of His Sons and the submission of His daughters to His Sons.
    “Women being property is also a comsistent theme in both Testaments.” And what verses are you speaking of? This is cultural rhetoric and social activism. Confusing the actions of sinful men with a divine design perspective.
    Are you aware that Prostitution was also a theme in the Bible?

  • KonCern

    So then you are not a Christian…you are an atheist. Hum…i encounter many of your kind on Christian sites.

  • Elca

    That’s your opinion as to the reason she is forbidden from usurping the Authority of men.
    But Paul did not say she can’t do xyz because she has a vagina. That’s your opinion.
    The Bible gave a different reason.

  • Bones

    Lol…..

    No…not atheist…

    But atheistic to Bronze Age idols , yes.

    Your basically another one wants to force ancient tribal taboos onto people.

    I encounter many of your kind on Christian sites.

    Jesus couldnt stand you types either.

  • Bones

    Lol….the weird warped idea that having a d#ck makes you special.

    And yes the Bible is full of ancient patriarchal attitudes towards women. Women were the property of men who could divorce them at will.

    Women were not allowed to divorce men at all.

    Women could be sold into slavery to pay off a parents debts.

    Marrird men could screw single women to their hearts content.

    Anyone who touched a married woman was executed including the woman because the husbands property had been violated.

    A man could submit his bride to a vaginal examination and ececute her if she failed it.

    There was no male equivalent.

    These are all supposed divine commands of the ignorant and backwards god that you follow.

    Fortunately your idol is just a reflection of the values of Bronze Age ignorance and patriarchy.

  • KonCern

    Well, seems we don’t have a basis for furthering a conversation, it is a waste of time…

  • Bones

    Obviously, if you think god only works through those with a d*ck.

    This sort of thinking is actually from the Pharisees.

    You obviously don’t go out much in case you touch a menstruating woman and make you unclean.

  • Bones

    There’s certainly an anti-Paul element in Jewish Christianty.

    “Indeed, when in 160 Bishop Melito of Sardis went to Judea to discover what had become of the legendary Jerusalem Church, to his dismay he found not the descendants of the apostles, but instead a small group of […] Christians, who called themselves the Ebionites or ‘Poor Men’, [who] had their own Gospel of the Ebionites and also a Gospel of the Hebrews, a Gospel of the Twelve Apostles and a Gospel of the Nazarenes. All of these gospels differed significantly from the gospels of the New Testament.”

  • Bones

    What evidence is there that Paul was trained by the Apostles?

    Paul was in conflict with the Apostles who didn’t believe him.

    And define ‘direct revelation’…..

  • Matthew

    Read Galatians 1. Read Scot McKnight. Have a great weekend Bones :-)

  • Ron McPherson

    Interesting

  • Ron McPherson

    It’s interesting that the Bible never makes inerrant claims upon itself and never defines itself as a synthesized whole consisting of 66 different books.

  • Bones

    Read Galatians 2

    11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.[a] 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

  • Chari McCauley

    Yes, yes he should.

  • KonCern

    Except I have a wife for more than 25 years…and I do not have sex with her during her purification process. But I sleep in the same bed and hug her during that same process.
    You are missing the context of the Law, but it does have health benefit which extends to us today.
    I see you are now taking the verses literally…but lack context.

    Back then women did not have all the amenities for proper hygienic care as we do today.
    When my wife sleeps on the bed, she does not mess up the bed with blood. Sometimes I do not even know if she is seeing her period. Because it is done discretely, and so are women in the workplace. They don’t mess up the office chairs with Blood. But it the Blood is shed, then that area is indeed UNCLEAN and MUST be clean.And so it is today…it is NOT healthy.
    However, there is a Spiritual dimension to this purification. But what do you care, you are an Atheist, the natural man won’t understand the Spiritual.

    http://www.womeninthescriptures.com/2016/02/what-does-it-mean-for-woman-to-be.html

  • Ron McPherson

    Bones could get a publishing deal with Lifeway ; )

  • Ron McPherson

    Yeah, it seems that Paul goes out of his way to make it known that he wasn’t dependent upon the apostles.

    Galatians 1 (emphasis mine):
    11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is NOT ACCORDING TO MAN. 12 For I NEITHER RECEIVED IT FROM MAN, NOR WAS I TAUGHT IT, but I RECEIVED IT THROUGH A REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST. 13 For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; 14 and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. 15 But when GOD, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, WAS PLEASED TO REVEAL HIS SON IN ME so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I DID NOT IMMEDIATELY CONSULT WITH FLESH AND BLOOD, 17 NOR DID I GO UP TO JERUSALEM TO THOSE WHO WERE APOSTLES BEFORE ME; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus. 18 Then THREE YEARS LATER I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I DID NOT SEE ANY OF THE OTHER APOSTLES except James, the Lord’s brother.

    Galatians 2 (emphasis mine):
    1 Then after AN INTERVAL OF FOURTEEN YEARS I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I SUBMITTED TO THEM THE GOSPEL WHICH I PREACH among the Gentiles, but I DID SO IN PRIVATE TO THOSE WHO WERE OF REPUTATION, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain. 3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. 5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. 6 But from those who were OF HIGH REPUTATION (what they were makes no difference to me; God SHOWS NO PARTIALITY)—well, THOSE WHO WERE OF REPUTATION CONTRIBUTED NOTHING TO ME.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    I used Bible verses in reply to the Bible verse you quoted, dickhead.

    Did you want to discuss god , Jesus, and Christianity without using the Bible at all?

    OK… you start.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    I’m using the Bible’s on words to show that the new testament itself says women can’t be affirmed as pastors and preachers, despite the article’s title “10 Reasons Christians Should Affirm Women as Pastors & Preachers” .

    Either the author of the article doesn’t know what the new testament actually says about the issue or the author knows what the new testament says about the issue but believes the new testament is just guidelines that can be followed or ignored depending on what the reader wants to do.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “Paul also said it was unnatural for men to have long hair.

    Enlighten me on that.”

    The Bible has clear rules regarding hair & beards. Is that enough enlightenment?

    “Of course Paul was writing to the Corinthian church about specific issues.”

    Leviticus 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

    “You are aware that these are house churches led by the leaders of houses some of whom are women.”

    Sure. And that is in direct opposition to what it says in the new testament.

    “Its not like your catholic cathedral.”

    I don’t have any Catholic cathedrals. Do you?

    “And honestly thats Pauls opinion much the same as his opinion on hairstyles and all Cretans being stupid.”

    And honestly the Bible gives clear instruction on how to have your hair and beard.

    “I take it with a grain of salt.

    Its the pharisee coming out in Paul.”

    I take every story of god, miracles, & angels or demons as myth & fable.

    “Why have you exchanged one Law for another.”

    Who are you asking? If you want to follow the new testament ( which says women can’t speak in church) you are exchanging the law of the old testament for another law.

  • Bones

    Ffs we’ve studied the Bible, have degrees in it and dont accept ignorant twrps telling us how to read it.

    You’re no different to the fundies.

    No wonder they like you.

    And as I’ve pointed out repeatedly Paul is ignored by fundies eg his comments about long hair and all Cretans are stupid.

    Btw many of those books weren’t even written by Paul.

  • Bones

    Which was in reply to your ignorant backwards reading of the Bible, dickhead.

    We read the Bible understanding the context and the agendas in which it was written.

    No it wasnt delivered from the sky like dickheads like you believe.

    Now run along with your vagina hating mates.

    Are you gay?

  • Bones

    “I do not have sex during the purification process…”

    According to the Old Testament you’re unclean for touching your wife derpy.

    Your sad attempt at trying to justify the ignorance of the Old Testament falls flat.

    What a sad pathetic human being you are.

    Nothing spiritual is happening about a woman”s monthly discharge of her unused eggs.

    That you find it disgusting says more about you.

    I’m not an atheist.

    But I am atheistic to Bronze Age idols which commands the killing of gays, taking of slaves and treating women like shit.

    No wonder you like it.

    Btw the story of the bleeding woman in Mark is a direct attack on your type of pharisaical thinking.

    That woman would have been isolated and ostracised from her community for 12 years.

    Just to make you and your pharisee mates happy.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “Which was in reply to your ignorant backwards reading of the Bible, dickhead.”

    I was quoting the Bible directly, dickhead. If what the Bible actually says offends you, blame the unknown writers.

    “We read the Bible understanding the context and the agendas in which it was written”

    How’s that working out for you people? Have you people finally managed to whittle the number of Christian sects down to less than 1000?

    “No it wasnt delivered from the sky like dickheads like you believe.”

    You must have missed the part where I said I was an atheist. Or maybe dickheads like you don’t know what the word atheist means.

    “Now run along with your vagina hating mates.”

    Now you’re just making shit up. Or you have some sort of reading comprehension trouble.

    “Are you gay?”

    Why? You looking for a date? You’re out of luck.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “Ffs we’ve studied the Bible, have degrees in it”

    The argument from authority? That’s a well-known logical fallacy.

    So, what does your study & degree tell you this means :

    “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

    “Btw many of those books weren’t even written by Paul.”

    In fact, it isn’t known for sure who the writers of ANY of the Bible’s books were.

  • Bones

    The argument from those who know what they’re talking about.

    That you read the bible like a sunday schooler is your own problem.

    We’ve already been over this but because you’re obviously quite slow lets go over it again.

    Paul was writing to ONE church about a specific practice.

    Paul was also a pharisee living at a time where women were treated like shit in Jewish culture. The pharisees, priests, pharisees and scribes were male only.

    In fact they were contrasted with the priestesses of paganism.

    It has also been shown that early churches were house churches led by the converted leader of the house – not some designated minister. That came later. And yes Revelation and other books show that women did lead churches.

    Also early chuch writings such as the Acts of Paul and Thecla were suppressed because it advocated women leadership ( hint: it came from somewhere)

    Paul’s opinion is just that, his opinion – not divine opinion. No matter how much you or your kooky mates try to make it.

    We simply dont believe the bs that the Bible is the inerrant word of god.

    Because it isn’t.

  • Bones

    I’m not gay and I dont date dickheads.

    Yeah any tool can quite the Bible.

    We get it all the time from morons who justify their hatred of whoever.

    That you wish to agree with fundy vagina hating mates is your problem.

    And no I dont go to a church and couldnt give a f# ck about it so you can stick that piece of your bs argument up your arse.

    Actually it shows how many different interpretations there are of what the bible ‘clearly’ says.

    Btw I’ve said repeatedly that the Bible was written by people with specific agendas and they werent relaying divine truth but ancient societal taboos and concerns.

    Thats obviously too hard for you to understand.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “We get it all the time from morons who justify their hatred of whoever.

    That you wish to agree with fundy vagina hating mates is your problem.”

    Actually,what I hate are hypocrites. An example of a hypocrite is the author of this article. They are obviously Christian, they are saying Christians should affirm women as pastors and preachers, and the new testament ( a book the Christians take as sacred) specifically says that is wrong.

    “And no I dont go to a church and couldnt give a f# ck about it so you can stick that piece of your bs argument up your arse.”

    You seem to like using the term vagina hating, you ask if I’m gay,and now you talk about having me shove something up my ass. Project much? Sure sounds like you’re trying to come out of the closet.

    “Actually it shows how many different interpretations there are of what the bible ‘clearly’ says.”

    Actually,it shows that the Bible doesn’t say anything clearly. For Christians it has become a “pick your own adventure” story, where they pick & choose which parts of the so-called “inspired word of god” they should follow and which they can ignore. Bot surprisingly,they determined & decided that the parts they agree with are meant to be followed and the parts they dob’t like can be dismissed.

    “Btw I’ve said repeatedly that the Bible was written by people with specific agendas and they werent relaying divine truth but ancient societal taboos and concerns.”

    I say it’s a book of fables and myths,and will remain so until someone presents proof for the miracles described in the Bible.

    That’s obviously too hard for you to understand.

  • JD

    As a woman you need to shut up and sit down for a man is teaching you.

  • JD

    Never trust a superstitious mythology that treats its women as second-class humans.

  • JD

    Clearly he believes that since he has a d!ck that he’s better than women.

  • Matamoros

    Says a fake news reporter

  • Matamoros

    You can differ all you want, women are not suited for, nor permitted by God to be pastor’s of a Christian church. Now if you want something other than that, just be honest and call it something else and go for it.

  • Matamoros

    Interesting argument. Do you actually believe that? I prefer Gods’ word.

  • Matamoros

    No, I win you lose. You are too stupid to know what basic Christianity is. Go sit in the corner until you decide to be honest.

  • Matamoros

    Women were created inferior to man, read St. Thomas Aquinas. God says it, read Eve’s curse. By the way, you might want to look at why Adam was punished – “…because you listened to your wife…”

  • Matamoros

    Still projecting because all those women won’t give you any, huh Bones. Gamma is as gamma does.

  • Matamoros

    Persuasiveness needs facts? Persuasiveness is only the art of subtlety, of hornswoggling the masses.

    At the root of it I have natural law, Church law, divine law, and more on my side. Those are facts enough. On their side they have only feel good b.s. that runs contrary to everything in reality. So I win, they lose.

  • KIZMET

    Having read the bible back to front and in multi-languages, please point out to me ANYWHERE this God does not permit this to happen?

  • Ron McPherson

    “At the root of it I have natural law, Church law, divine law, and more on my side. Those are facts enough.”

    That sounds kinda similar to the arguments used to justify American slavery pre 20th century.

  • Ron McPherson

    Did some girl beat you up in 5th grade or something?

  • D.M.S.

    I’m not a woman…

  • Bones

    I’m married dude. I get heaps.

    It must be frustrated not being able to get any hey snowflake.

    You better find a safe place where there’s no scary feminists

  • Bones

    St Thomas Aquines was a f##kwit.

    He also said burning heretics was a good thing.

    So much for the ‘Good’ Doctor.

    Lol its fricking hilarious that people are judged over fictional stories.

  • Bones

    No, you lost when your church raped kids.

    If they didnt have such an issue with vaginas and worship penises that wouldnt happen.

    How many dioceses are bankrupt uin the US now because blokes liked putting their d##ks in kids?

    13.

  • Bones

    Lol….i prefer reason and education over superstition and ignorance.

  • Bones

    Except he has a tiny one….

  • Bones

    “Actually,what I hate are hypocrites. An example of a hypocrite is the author of this article. They are obviously Christian, they are saying Christians should affirm women as pastors and preachers, and the new testament ( a book the Christians take as sacred) specifically says that is wrong.”

    You mean the hypocrite atheist siding with fundamentalists and using the bible to justify his own hatred of women and vaginas.

    The New Testament mentions in one part of one book about an issue Paul gave his opinion on.

    Revelation makes it specifically clear that the Church of Thyatira had a woman pastor.

    And other women in the New Testament who were leaders of their house eg Lydia would have been leaders of their house church.

    In fat Junias was a female Apostle.

    “Actually,it shows that the Bible doesn’t say anything clearly. For Christians it has become a “pick your own adventure” story, where they pick & choose which parts of the so-called “inspired word of god” they should follow and which they can ignore. Bot surprisingly,they determined & decided that the parts they agree with are meant to be followed and the parts they dob’t like can be dismissed.”

    Actually it’s people like you who pick and choose. Who grab one verse and ignore everything else including context and author’s intent to push their own agenda.

    “I say it’s a book of fables and myths,and will remain so until someone presents proof for the miracles described in the Bible.”

    Then stop using it to justify your own misogyny.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “You mean the hypocrite atheist siding with fundamentalists and using the bible to justify his own hatred of women and vaginas.”

    Actually, I don’t care who plays the part of the con man in the church ( aka: the pastor/preacher). I just lioke pointing out the hypocrisy of those people that say the Bible is the word of god but then start saying ” oh, but not those words… or those words… or those words… or those other words. Oh, and these words here…”

    “The New Testament mentions in one part of one book about an issue Paul gave his opinion on.”

    If they want to start stating that some of the so-called word of god isn’t the word of god, they should remove those sections from the Bible and publish them in a separate book.

    “Revelation makes it specifically clear that … ”

    So what? Unless claims in the Bible can be proven to have happened, they can be considered fable. Spider-man comics make it specifically clear that he got his powers after being bitten by a radioactive spider.

    “Actually it’s people like you who pick and choose. Who grab one verse and ignore everything else including context and author’s intent to push their own agenda.”

    Oh, enlighten us.

    What do these passages mean:

    However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.

    When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

    And what is the context where owning another human being as your property is moral?

    “Then stop using it to justify your own misogyny.”

    I am actually using it to point out the hypocrisy of those who claim the Bible is the word of god.

  • Ron McPherson

    Didn’t Aquinas abruptly stop writing a year or so before his death, considering his writings to be of little value at that point? I guess Mata didn’t read that far

  • Bones

    According to Mata women’s complications in childbirth were because of Eve…….

    I never really got the love affair Catholics have with Aquinas. He’d gladly see us burn at the stake.

  • Bones

    Paul gave his opinion…just like the writer of Titus gave his opinion on Cretans….

    Have you ever been to Crete?

    Do you think a whole island’s population are liars in perpetuity?

    That’s how stupid you people are.

  • Bones

    “I am actually using it to point out the hypocrisy of those who claim the Bible is the word of god.”

    You see that’s your mates…who you were happy to agree with.

    Most of us here acknowledge the flaws of the Bible for what it is.

    The thoughts of humans over 2000 years ago.

    Not the word of God at all.

  • Ron McPherson

    If Mata was married to my wife she’d end up beating the hell out of him

  • Ron McPherson

    It’s funny how some of the early theologians are revered by conservatives. If they’d really study up on some of the things they actually taught and believed, progressives in comparison would suddenly be considered by them to be eligible for sainthood. I remember last year a fundie was ripping others over their less than conservative views of the Bible. He trotted out Luther even in defense of his position. I guess nobody ever told him that Luther was in favor of eliminating certain NT books from the canon.

  • Ron McPherson

    Are you gonna break it to DMS, or should I, that he and an atheist read the Bible the same way?

  • Matamoros

    Then you should learn some.

  • Matamoros

    What a non-sequitur argument. You are really intellectually challenged.

  • Matamoros

    Typical SJW nitwit are you. Sit in corner why don’t you.

  • Matamoros

    Yeah, I bet. Hah, hah. That’s a good one. Bet she carries your balls around for you.

  • Matamoros

    No girly boy, but I’ll bet one did to you. What a pussy. Give it up and get real. You are a typical SJW twat.

  • Matamoros

    Nothing like no-sequitur arguments when you have nothing on your side, hey. Typical SJW

  • Matamoros

    You must be reading with blinders on. 1 Timothy 2:11-13 – .…11A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, and then Eve.…

    1 Corinthians 14:34, Titus 2:5, and others. Look them up yourself.

  • KIZMET

    Again I requested you show me where “God” made the point, rather than clearly misogynistic men, adding their pathetic 2 cents worth.

  • Bones

    Lol…..says the bloke who uses ignorant ancient Bronze Age myths…..

  • Bones

    Lol….blokes raping kids isn’t a non-sequitur argument, dickhead.

    Your child would be far safer with a woman priest.

  • Bones

    Typical RWNJ. Comes in and shits in the corner and tells everyone how much better he is.

    Lol using Aquinas in the 21st century, moron.

  • Bones

    Lol……My balls are huge unlike tiny little sacks like yours who has to try and prove he’s a man to make up for it.

    No wonder women aren’t interested in vindictive misogynist pricks like you.

  • Bones

    For starters Timothy nor Titus weren’t written by Paul. Titus and 1 Timothy were second century documents.

    Secondly…they were written to specific churches about specific issues. Revelation mentions the church in THyatira being led by a woman. Early churches were house churches -led by the leader of the house. There were no priests until later when the apostolic offices were based on the Jewish priesthood.

    Thirdly, We don’t care about Paul’s opinion. He wasn’t God.

    Fourthly, you’re a dickhead.

  • Bones

    Lol….someone’s still in infant school.

    Vagina’s aren’t that scary mate.

  • Bones

    Yeah the Pharisees said the same……

    You lose….always….

  • Bones

    Lol….the Pharisees had the Law…you have church Law….

    Anyone see the difference?

    Catholic RWNJs are just as f###ed in the head.

  • Bones

    Lol…it’s good having Matamoron here.

    It actually shows the misogyny of all these types who think women are inferior.

    He’s just more upfront and honest about it.

  • Bones

    Btw Elaine Pagels work on Revelation is one of the best around.

    You’d probably learn from it if you weren’t scared of her.

  • Ron McPherson

    Notice of course that you didn’t refute it

  • Ron McPherson

    Says the guy hiding behind a keyboard using a fake name to disrespect women

  • Matamoros

    Poor boy. I can’t help it if women think you’re creepy and refuse you. And all your white knighting isn’t going to get you any either.

  • Matamoros

    You are really are uneducated. You don’t refute non-sequiturs, you point them out – they care lying arguments. Go find a real school and take some courses.

  • Matamoros

    Bones, I actually looked her and the book up. Just more fake theology for thrill seekers who like to mix gnosticism and Christianity.

    If you want real truth, erudition and theology real Kenneth Gentry, especially regarding Revelation. But wait, I’ll give you his work boiled down, read Brian Godawa’s “End Times Bible Prophecy: It’s Not What They Told You”.

    https://www.amazon.com/End-Times-Bible-Prophecy-What-ebook/dp/B06W5BRMPV

  • Matamoros

    The fact that you don’t shows you are uneducated. You should go to a real school if you want to study theology. I gotta give it to you that you keep trying, but you just aren’t making it.

    Short explanation: God gave the Jews the Law for the light of mankind. When they failed at their mission, Christ founded the Catholic upon the righteous remnant of Israel. The Law bound Israelites, Canon Law governs the operation of the Catholic Church and the Faithful. Too difficult for you?

  • Matamoros

    You should be a comedian.

  • Matamoros

    Bones let me put it to you this way. Vaginas are made to be used, not worshipped.

  • Matamoros

    Bones, you gotta let go all that fake theology. Its bad for your soul

  • Matamoros

    Says the shriveled SJW ))))

  • Matamoros

    The point is that you aren’t a Christian. You, are a poseur pretending to be Christian while spouting b.s.

  • Matamoros

    You are clearly a ditsy female that can’t find her butt with both hands. Gave you the refs, but in typical SJW fashion you show you don’t recognize any – because as Jesus said, “The truth is not in you.”

  • Ron McPherson

    Um, nobody is falling for your act lol

  • Ron McPherson

    You mean like a Thomas Aquinas course?

  • Ron McPherson

    So you consider women to be inferior to you, call Kiz here “a ditsy female that can’t find her butt with both hands,” only to then invoke the name of Jesus as if you have truth. How warped is that?

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    That is simply not true. In the century after Christ, Christian tradition and scholarship and the latter writings dubiously giving Paul authorship are a misogynist reaction to women leaders and ministers and prophets in the early Church

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    WOW! Thanks for so much incredibly researched information!!!

  • D.M.S.

    As far as I’m concerned you and bones are atheist.

  • Ron McPherson

    Oh great. You’re now like the 4 millionth fundie coming onto this blog trying to spiritually bully others (btw it never works on here) with your self appointed superiority by telling people they’re not Christian because they don’t look down on others like you do. How freakin screwed up is that? Do you think the rest of us here haven’t heard this script of yours a zillion times already? Go find another playground.

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    Sorry, lol. Your “Research” is egregiously fallacious!
    And…my moniker is ironic due to the unholy political takeover of my religion!

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    It is not too late to feed the hungry, cloth those that need it and especially love all, even our enemies.
    And…the Law and the prophets…according to Jesus, this is His Golden Rule.
    The skimming done on Paul is intentionally done because the neo-political (and perverted) “Christianity” worship a Golden Calf rather than God.

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    The moniker is ironic.
    Just what are the names of Paul’s writings. Romans, Timothy, Titus…!!!

  • Ron McPherson

    Um, you merely claiming a non-sequitur doesn’t make it so. You should have learned that from an earlier post

  • D.M.S.

    LIAR….

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    So you do not pay attention to i formation you haven’t read but believe to be in opposition to your already made opinion.
    I am surprised you got through the Bible!!!

  • D.M.S.

    Great, fiction….

  • D.M.S.

    LIAR….

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    How about Romans 16!

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    So your truth is not God, but hatred and name-calling?!

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    Except the very little you use from the Bible is based on incorrect interpretation based on information wrongly even attributed to Paul!

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    This alternative “Fact” person is, sadly, spirituality and intellectually weighed down with fear.
    Great arguments and information btw! However, in an alt-fact cultural, erudition is ignored because some just don’t like it! Lol
    God Bless!

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    Misogynists really don’t like Romans 16!

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    Sorry, with all DUE respect, there obviously are reasons you fear women so much. I am sorry that someone hurt you so.

  • The world’s religions are what they are but not lesser because they do not let women preach in general. If you want to know which religions treat women as second class citizens just look at Islam.

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    Your alt-fact, neo-politics have perverted my religion and could very well distroy Christianity!

  • Timothy and Titus are not churches.

  • D.M.S.

    Don’t waste your breath ( so to speak ) he and all of his colleagues believe all of the rest of the world interprets scripture wrong.
    They consider if anyone follows anything from Paul’s letters in the bible that they are ‘ Paulians ‘ NOT Christians. They’re so lost the only ones that can find them are GOD.
    There master is Satan and no one else.
    I’ve been in a discussion about our Lord Christ Jesus with these Formerly Fundies for the past 5.+ months.

  • Matamoros

    In other words we are the Christian, you all are the fake Christians, i.e. Satan’s brood, trying to transform him into an angel of light. We Christians are having none of you and your father’s lies.

  • Matamoros

    Only a gamma could come up with that – you know, gammas that women hate, refuse to let near them, but kiss their feet, not to mention their asses. Own it, its you.

  • Matamoros

    Correct interpretation, hah! You change every verse in the bible to buttress your lies and innuendo. SJW you are going to hell.

    You have now been informed, so you have no excuse. Get with real Christianity, or at least be honest enough to leave it.

  • Matamoros

    God hates YOU and your evil, trying to make evil good and turn the Gospel into a lie.

  • Matamoros

    Oooh, a whole chapter, wow! Romans 15 thanks the women for their staunchness of faith who washed the clothes, cooked the meals, mended the clothes, and made life comfortable for the Apostle. Nothing more, nothing less. For their service they are honored, just like Martha with Jesus. Luke 10:38-42

    You try to turn them into some kind of priest or bishop or apostle, which they never were. The word “deacon” is properly translated “ministry”, as in “to minister”. She was over a small group of female religious, kind of like a mother superior – but with no authority or role over a man.

    Tough luck SatanisDemocrat. You can lie and obscure, but the truth will out.

  • Matamoros

    Look, if you don’t know what a non-sequitur argument is, I’ll try and make it simple for you. For ex.: Look at the empire state building what a masterful piece of architecture. Yes, but the building next to it fell down.

    That is a non-sequitur argument – meaning “it does not follow” from the premise expressed. Now you know. When you see someone switch the subject they are engaged in word games; and their argument is childish and nonsensical.

  • Matamoros

    Your moniker is a misnomer – SatanisDemocrat would be true.

  • Matamoros

    Ol’ Ron the hater loves to hate and pervert Christianity. Of course he must change the words and meanings, otherwise he would be exposed for the devil worshipper he is. God HATES calling evil good, as you do, so He hates you too.

    Of course you can repent and do penance, and become a real Christian. But I don’t think God’s grace is in you, so best of luck with your lies.

    Run off now, your mommy’s calling. Remember, if you can’t run with the big dogs stay off the porch.

  • Matamoros

    Truth is true, Jesus is truth, so it is coherent. You need to man up and get the Faith.

  • Matamoros

    Keep telling yourself that while people around you snicker.

  • Matamoros

    Poor boy. Read where I gave the definition and example. Wonder at the division of truth and lie, pray for grace.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    Excellent rebuttal. I found it particularly convincing how you addressed the Greek of the text, the meaning of the various verbs and sentence structure and the context in which the verses concerned were written. A very carefully thought out and persuasive case.

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    God bless!

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    The word used for deacon is the same that is used in other attributed Pauline writings.

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    Bless your heart.

  • Ron McPherson

    No, it’s your failure to see the connection being made thats the problem lol

  • Ron McPherson

    Every time you post you bring reproach upon the faith. Calling me devil worshiper tells me all I need to know. You came on here to bully and it’s not working. The worst part is you invoke the name of Christ the risen Savior and Lord, the prince of peace, to do it, in spilling your hate. We’ve seen it a thousand times from types like you.

  • Ron McPherson

    Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven

  • Ron McPherson

    Uh huh, based of course on the voluminous amount of support you’re receiving from others so far LOL!

  • Ron McPherson

    Yeah we all know what non-sequitur is. It’s just that you don’t know when to use it

  • Ron McPherson

    LOLOL! Get ready to be called a minion of Satan

  • Ron McPherson

    He just called me a devil worshipper. What he doesn’t get is that we’ve seen a 1001 spiritually arrogant bullies just like him. And all he does is perpetuate the stereotype with ad hominems. His types are SO predictable

  • Ron McPherson

    Speaking of the Gospel, have you ever actually read any of them?

  • Ron McPherson

    You just ooze Jesus lol

  • Ron McPherson

    I’m continually amazed how people like him come on here thinking they’re representing Christianity.

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    AMEN! These people are waging the real war on Christianity!

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    Absolutely! Instead of seeing difference of opinion as a way to learn, their egregious fear is distroying us!

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    God loves me and He loves you as well.

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    It is so incredible that contrary to everyone else that has interpreted, read and studied the Bible for the past two millennium, you are solely chosen to be the only one who conpletely understands it!

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    ROFLMAO!

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    That pesking Gospel and Jesus’ message of love! It gets in their way! Lol

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    So quote the Gospel!

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    Lol

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    Maybe he is hallucinating!

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    Contrary to small men, real men don’t fear women!

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    Sorry, but Jesus tore down double-standards!

  • D.M.S.

    You’re still a LIAR…,

  • JD

    Thank you for proving my point.

  • Bones

    You’re right .

    Most of the bible is fiction.

  • Bones

    Lol…and you’re a dickhead who has huge issues with women.

    No wonder you attend a church which worships the penis god.

  • Bones

    Poor matamoron cant get any and has to try be a man to make up for his tiny Manhood.

    Well with that attitude I’m not surprised.

    Women arent interested in blokes who want to shit all over them.

  • Ron McPherson

    How bizarre is it that Mata claims to know what true Christianity is while also telling people that God hates them; oh and accusing those he doesn’t know of being devil worshippers.

  • Ron McPherson

    You don’t “get the faith” by “manning up.” Quite the contrary. According to Jesus, one becomes converted by becoming as a little child

  • Ron McPherson

    I often wonder that the biggest threat to authentic Christianity are other professing Christians

  • Not really. Christianity has been around for 2000 years with no end in sight.

  • Bones

    A Catholic accusing others of fake theology……

    Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha

    This is the original version of let’s make up shit as we go along to consolidate our penis power
    eg
    The whole concept of priests…..wtf? Because Jesus said…..
    Women can’t be priests? Because Jesus said…..
    Priests can’t marry? Because Jesus said…..
    Relics anyone? I have a couple of pieces of Jesus’s foreskin for sale….Jesus said…
    Indulgences? Hey, if you’re rich enough you can buy your way into heaven…Jesus said…
    Execution of heretics? Ooh heretics are dangerous and a challenge to our penis authority….Better burn them hey Tommy Aquinas. Tommy Aquinas – “Yeah da heretics are worse dan murderers….and Jesus said”.
    Gays are evil? Because Jesus said…..
    Papal infallibilty,,,,Bahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha Where do you start with that one – the Borgias? Because Jesus said….
    Confession – For God’s sake don’t tell the police that someone is raping kids…Because Jesus said…..

    You’re probably wearing this on your balls to stop yourself thinking about penises….

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/55bcc7176ec4273ef8deeac094de1d728fad523c3d6362f926b1af0c07536cc8.jpg

    Because Jesus said……

    Genocide anyone???? Because Jesus said….What a way to honour Christ the Saviour and the Twelve Disciples….

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1535ec213b748f66d892765ec9c45035f3ee32afbce466d9f293e42906a0bdfb.jpg

    Choosing Catholicism is bad for your soul……

  • Bones

    Lol….for you, vaginas are made to be avoided are an the symbol of exclusivity.

    Women can fight for your country and even lead your armies but can’t lead in your church…..

    But hey you’re the ultimate Red Pill warrior.

  • Bones

    Lol….Because Jesus wanted to establish a new Law based on religious exclusivism.

    FMd you people don’t get it.

  • Bones

    Well moron, you’ve exchanged one Law that of the Pharisees, for another Law of discrimination which is NOT based on Christ at all but the whims of whoever is the leader of your cult.

    Christ – a Jew – did not find the Catholic Church…the Catholic Church established its base by destroying those who weren’t considered Catholic.

    Canon Law only applies to inbreds…not the rest of us, so you can take your cult and f*** off.

    Too difficult for you?

  • Bones

    Lol…..Considering I’m reading her book, I can tell you’re just talking shit.

    Which is the way you work.

    Now run along, you’re no different to your fundy mates…..

  • D.M.S.

    Lol…. I’ll keep praying for your salvation.
    Dry bones.

  • Bones

    You’re the one who said it’s fiction.

    As usual your prayers are meaningless and worthless.

  • D.M.S.

    LIAR…

  • D.M.S.

    I didn’t say that and you know it.
    I’m sure you’ll come out with another lie soon.

  • Bones

    I wrote down what the New Tsetament says in its referral to women. You said it’s fiction.

  • Bones

    The only LIAR here is you.

    The hater of others who aren’t like you.

  • Bones

    And you’re a MORON!

  • Bones

    But you are an IDIOT!

  • D.M.S.

    Your interpretation of scripture is very sad at best.
    Good bye cruel world.

  • Bones

    You mean your interpretation of the cruel sadistic God who hates humanity.

    Sounds like you’re about to top yourself.

    That’s what that sort of thinking leads to.

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    YEP!

  • D.M.S.

    You’ve made up your own God.
    You and your colleagues don’t like the real GOD/JESUS.
    I truly hope that all of you come to your senses someday soon.

  • D.M.S.

    God doesn’t Hate humanity.
    So you’re psychiatrist now by that last statement, lol.

  • Bones

    No, your Jesus is nothing like the Jesus of the gospels.

    Your God would hunt the prodigal down and torture him mercilessly for not returning home.

    It takes a tragedy for idiots like you to come to your senses.

    Someone close to you has to die before you start to question your cultlike thinking.

  • D.M.S.

    Women are not inferior.
    They’re not to have authority over men in their Christian congregation only.

  • D.M.S.

    No your Jesus is nothing like the Jesus of our Christian bible.
    Gospels ( lol ) what bible are you reading: the King Corey Gospels only bible, KCGB.
    Is your mothership going to take you aliens back home soon?
    You people remind me of reruns of the twilight zone.
    woohoo you’re really lost in space.

  • Bones

    Your god hates humanity.

    It hates anyone not like you.

    That’s why you have to resort to threats.

  • Bones

    Women cannot have authority over men because they do not have a penis…they can serve in your armies, your police force, even be killed saving lives in 9/11…but not your church….

    Your church can f***off with the inbred Catholics and Muslims.

  • Bones

    King James VI (or I) was a paedophile and homosexual rapist. No wonder you love the King James Bible.

    Your Jesus would be at home with the Pharisees hating gay people and killing sinners.

    There really isn’t any difference. In fact, his whole life and death was pointless according to you.

  • D.M.S.

    Threats? lol, you’ve got a lot of nerve.

  • KIZMET

    Well, aren’t YOU just a “delight”. Why is it that people like you have to resort to such comment as you have made above when you’re feeling “fwustrated” . aww diddums.

    Again, I asked you where GOD stated any of which you refer. Unless you are making the claim that some self-assumed apostle Paul; made so by his musings of “visions” of post-death Jesus of Nazareth by decades and subsequent writings OF what he was told in “said” visions, actually constitutes as GOD’s actual thoughts?

    So a question, is PAUL your GOD?

    I also realise full well that this exclusion of being able to speak in church, only really came about due to Tertullian’s views. NO prior or even contemporary to Tertullian even in reference to assumed Pauling writings ever made the case of “silence for women”. ( actually come to think of it, no other apologist back then actually referenced Pauline epistles at all….hmmm curious)

    So a question, is TERTULLIAN YOUR GOD?

    The irony is, you have the audacity to quote 6 words from the entire works ( and even misquoted it to boot… it’s WORD and not TRUTH)to somehow validate your position to rant on at me as you did in your “reply” to me?

    You’re funny! lol

    So again, if you can show me where the God of the OT, OR ANY of the writings of the Disciples…you know the ones who actually supposedly KNEW, walked and talked IN PERSON ( not just bubble thought visions
    aka Paul) with Jesus of Nazareth, wrote ANYTHING about women not being able to be preachers, pastors, rabbi’s, reverends…et al, I would LOVE to see it.

    Got anything?

  • D.M.S.

    You are one very sick twisted human being. I truly do feel sorry for you.

  • Bones

    Come on, threaten to send me to hell like your other loving mate did….

    Btw I must have scared him off.

    Even he wasn’t low enough to write that a 13 year old was going to be tortured forever because she’s gay.

    That takes a special type of despicable lowlife….

    Like you.

  • Bones

    Lol….look over there….

  • D.M.S.

    I didn’t write scripture. But I try to follow it.
    It’s obvious that you and your family doesn’t. You and them have decided to defy God/Jesus and flaunt your sins anyway.
    And then try to tell the world that God/Jesus is fine with you living in and professing sin for the rest of your life.
    The God/Jesus that I know from the bible doesn’t allow sin to rule our lives.
    When we Christians are born again.
    That means that were to try to turn away from our old sinful life.
    All homosexual sexual relations are sins unto God/Jesus.
    That’s the scripture that I believe.
    You and your colleagues have made up your own God/Jesus.
    And He isn’t from scripture.

  • Bones

    King James VI was a very sick and twisted human being…..

    No wonder you like him.

    Why do you feel sorry for me when all I do is recount your own beliefs?

    Your Jesus hates gays just like the pharisees. Your Jesus hates sinners so much it will torture them forever….In fact not even the Pharisees did that. The Nazis didn’t do it either. They just tortured gay people for a couple of years then executed them. Your Jesus is going to be the eternal Kommandant of Auschwitz.

    We all feel sorry for you and your need for attention, you little attention whore.

  • D.M.S.

    Your cult is chewing way to much peyote. You’re not making any sense at all.

  • Bones

    No, you don’t try to follow it.

    You make stupid comments you can’t support then threaten anyone who points out your stupidity.

    Your hatred of gays and your attempts at justifying don’t wash with those who have studied the Bible for decades. Your hatred is so intense you would love to see my little girl burn. All because you hate gay people.

    It would make you feel good.

    What a hideous, pathetic human being you are.

    And you’re here because you crave attention, like the troll you are.

    A sad individual with no life and has to get attention on line.

  • D.M.S.

    Yes women can do all of those things.
    But scripture forbids women to have authority over men in a congregation of Christian churches.
    If you don’t like it take it up with the Lord.

  • Bones

    Lol….I don’t go to any church.

    I don’t need to listen to people telling me what they believe. I do my own study.

    Your cult however is dangerous. And the fact that you worship a book authorised by a paedophile rapist says a lot about you.

    What part of the English language doesn’t make sense to you.

    You don’t need to act dumb.

    You ARE dumb.

  • Bones

    Welcome to Evangelicalism…..

  • Bones

    This guy’s OD’d on the Red Pill…..

  • D.M.S.

    Just trying to help people to know our Lord Christ Jesus is all I’m doing.
    But some of them don’t want any help.
    They want to be hateful towards people that want to help them turn away from their sins.
    Ill keep praying for you…

  • Bones

    You mean like Paul said the Junias was an Apostle…..

    Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

    Maybe Paul was a lefty Democrat sjw….

    Or maybe Paul was telling an Irish joke.

    Why was the Irishman standing in the middle of the paddock?

    He wanted to be outstanding in his field.

    Seem the only one here obscuring and lying is the Catholic Red Piller….you need a safe place mate?

  • Bones

    Jesus was a lefty Democrat cuck….

  • Bones

    Lol…..

  • Bones

    Lol….making nice new friends here aren’t we.

    You won’t like him.

    He’s Catholic.

  • Bones

    Lol…thanks for pointing out why we have nothing to do with your religion, Matamoron.

    A religion which exchanged one Law for another, from Jewish Pharisees to Christian Pharisees.

    You really miss the Middle Ages when you could kill us, don’t you.

    Where are the safe places for people like Matamoron?

  • D.M.S.

    I already figured that out.

  • Bones

    The Lord had nothing to do with it.

    It was written by Paul.

    When did he become the Lord?

    You are aware that you’re just being legalistic like the Pharisees.

    Btw I quite enjoy women preachers.

    They tend to be more empathetic than blokes.

  • Bones

    I like your moniker and your avatar is smoking….

  • D.M.S.

    You and your colleagues have been trying to get me accept the KJV 1611 from the beginning of this discussion.
    Was there a reason for that?
    The NASB, NIV and the ESV are the best translation today, taken directly from the Greek translation.
    I have NIV and NKJV at my disposal
    Both are Thompson chain reference bibles :-)

  • Bones

    Here’I’ll type it slower seeing you’re so thick.

    No you belong to a cult.

    I am my own man.

    i don’t have anyone telling me what to believe.

    King James VI was a paedophile, gay rapist.

    And you hate gays and sinners like the pharisees…in fact more.

    Which part do you not undertsand.

  • D.M.S.

    I don’t like King James.
    I want the best translations of scripture I can get, is all.

  • Bones

    Of course.

    Fundies hate other fundies.

  • Bones

    If you’re accusing someone of being a LIAR then I’m assuming they’re telling the truth.

  • D.M.S.

    You’ve chosen to enjoy your sins.
    And you don’t like God/Jesus that condemns sin.
    That’s your choice.
    And like I’ve stated many times before our choices have consequences.

  • Elca

    You can’t compare the bible with her book…i can assure you her views are antithetical to the bible.
    Feminism and egalitarianism are antithetical to the bible which is a patriarchal book by design.
    Did you listen to Dr. Kassian?

  • Ron McPherson

    LOLOL!!

  • KIZMET

    What gets me more than anything is, so many Christians seem to discard that it was a WOMAN who was this God’s ultimate vessel, FOR HIS WORD,.

    Again ex Minister here but really the ACTION assumed of Mary to actually Birth THE ASSUMED “WORD” ITSELF IN HUMAN FORM?

    Sort of makes any blokes in frocks a little lesser and really irrelevant in the whole scheme of things. She had ALL any bloke could ever want all within her. Jealous much guys? :D

  • D.M.S.

    The Lord has everything to do with it. We’re living in the end times.
    You’ve been brainwashed by our very liberal society. Society will hate Christianity as all of you people do.

  • Ron McPherson

    He may have joined Mata’s team. You know, the enemy of my enemy is now my friend

  • Ron McPherson

    LOLOL!!! I’m dying!!!!

  • Elca

    You are an atheist… your job is easy. Deny the God of creation and His written Word. How hard do you think it is to criticize?
    Any nut can do that…

  • Bones

    I’m not an arheist.

    I dont accept bs

    You cant even articulate a response.

  • Bones

    Nope. All bs. It was written by Paul not god. Even then Paul didnt write the Pastorals

    We arent in any end times beyond what we ourselves do to the planet.

  • Bones

    And your god will torture me for that.

    You enjoy sinning thats why you hang around here and lie about and threaten posters.

    It gives you a kick. And gives you the attention an attention whore like yourself craves.

  • Bones

    Lol thats not what you posted before.

    See how you continually lie.

    Theres something clearly wrong with you.

  • Bones

    Wtf are you talking about. You’re lying again. It was you that said you only used the KJV.

    What a colossal liar you are

    They just showed you for the ignorant clutz you are.

  • D.M.S.

    All I want is all of you to Ask Christ Jesus into your lives as your Lord and Savior.
    So all of you may realize the sacrifice that He made for all of humanity on the cross.

  • Elca

    ” I’m not an arheist” hum…I did not say this…check your spelling before you yap about who can’t articulate a response.

  • Bones

    Your helping them in showing that your god is a hateful merkin followed by someone who likes to lie and threaten people.

    You threaten people when you make the most stupid comments which you cant back up. So you threaten them and insult them to make up for your own inadequacy.

    Well done

    Good witness that. And its clearly an issue for you. You are unable to take responsibility for what you write. And so you see all criticism as a criticism of god because thats how you’ve protected yourself.

    As I’ve said there is something wrong with you.

    I’d say your definitely autistic given the compulsive behaviours you display.

    Its classic autism.

    As for your prayers.

    Given they aren’t working for you, why bother?

    Its just more of your lies and sanctimonious bs.

    You dont get that do you.

    Your prayers arent working for you as you continually lie and insult and threaten others when its a problem with you.

  • Bones

    I’m in the dark on my phone.

    Let me say again I’m not an atheist and I don’t accept Bronze Age thinking.
    Once again you have nothing but Paul said as some sort of stupid justification as to why women cant preach.

    They can fight for you and save your life but they cant preach because some arse was raised in a patriarchal culture said something once.

    Says a lot about how stupid your religion is.

  • KonCern

    Give an example from the Scriptures ( not your opinion) where tearing down this ” double-standards) means to tearing down of ” Male Headship”…
    Keep in mind, Jesus appointed and ordained 12+1 Apostles and ALL were men.
    Also, keep in mind that Jesus did place His mother into the care of a man.
    This is an endorsement of Male Headship…

  • Bones

    The thing is though you have serious issues.

    You continually lie, threaten posters for disagreeing with you and then have the gall to pray for the..
    Imean if you think sending my kid to hell is what your religion teaches then you can f### off.

    Its also clear that you have no job nor relationships which isnt surprising given your behaviour on here.
    You really arent any good for anything.

    Thats why you have a compulsive obsession with here.

    Once again its a clear example of some form of autism.

    I see it with kids who are unable to respond appropriately.

    Really i feel sorry for you because this is your life.

    How sad.

  • Ron McPherson

    The “closed canon” of scripture as you define it was never defined in any book of the Bible. That determination was made by man. If you want to worship it as God, that’s your prerogative but at least be honest enough to acknowledge your definition of the canon as determined by man

  • D.M.S.

    You’re probably dumb enough to believe in global warming, too.

  • Ron McPherson

    I was always taught that God never sends anyone to hell; ie that people send themselves there. Like people make a purposeful decision to submit to unending agonizing torture. Yeah right. Even when I was imbedded in conservative evangelicalism I knew that didn’t make sense. But I suppose that kind of view somehow allows people to rationalize away their image of God. When something like an Anne Frank scenario would be trotted out, the default response would be not reaching the elusive age of accountability thing. So what happened to Anne Frank’s sister then, since she was older than 12. It’s like you literally have to invent things the Bible never says. Like God will have mercy on kids under 12 or whatever, but then all bets are off after that. And the same people who teach this sort of thing also claim that they live according to the Bible. No one. And I repeat NO ONE, lives according to the whole Bible. And I finally grew just so exhausted over the hypocrisy of it that I could stand it no longer.

  • Ron McPherson

    See there Bones? You’re an atheist because you believe differently. That’s the kind of mind control manure that keeps people in line. Don’t question, don’t think outta the box, swallow everything that conforms. Just yesterday Mata accused me of being a devil worshipper. Step out of the box and you’re an atheist going to hell. It’s that fear control sh*t that keeps people in line.

  • D.M.S.

    God hates sin…its rather obvious throughout scripture.
    But you have no idea what sin is, do you?

  • D.M.S.

    Everyone of you that I’ve dealt with in the past few months,Live for 2nd Peter 2, all of you are false teachers.
    None of you are children of the one true God/Jesus.

  • D.M.S.

    And you continually LIE.
    Your god is satan and all of you are to blind to see him. Satan has convinced all of you that your sins are NOT Sins.
    I pity every one of you.

  • KonCern

    and real women don’t want to be and do like men. contrary to the feminist, they would rather be real feminine women.

  • D.M.S.

    No. I pray for them just like I pray for all of you. There are few catholics that actually are Christians, believe it or not.

  • Elca

    “…some sort of stupid justification as to why women cant preach.” I have never said a woman can’t preach. I have always made the distinction between being in a position of authority and presenting God’s word. I have cited Mary as bring a word from Jesus for His Brethren, Yet Mary was NOT chosen or Ordained by Jesus Christ to be an Apostle or Elder / Pastor in His Church.
    He appointed and ordained ALL MEN.
    It is hard to debate an atheist…normally I don’t because their task is very simple. Just reject the Word of God and tear down any structure and belief that contradicts theirs…

  • Elca

    I understand your confusion. But if we believe that we can add and take away as time and culture changes, then we do not have an unchanging Faith given by an Unchanging God.
    Jude encouraged us to “…earnestly contend for the Faith ONCE given.” Jude 3.
    We are told not to add or take away…[ Revelation 22:18-19] therefore it is closed.
    Which words and ideas do you which to have added? Egalitarianism? what about male Chauvinism? That too? But Not Racism? Can you see the chaotic nature of your point of view?

  • Ron McPherson

    I’ll try and spell this out even more clearly. It’s YOUR OPINION vs MY OPINION. That’s what I’m trying to get you to see. If you want to live as if every single word from the bible is actually the very words of God himself then that’s your prerogative. But be honest enough to also admit that that is a view not expressed in any book of any biblical writing.

    The “closed canon” is a man made construct, because the Bible never defines itself that way, nor does it expressly state which books are to be canonized and which are not. The early church used multiple manuscripts as authoritative, even those that ultimately were not canonized by men in the third century. The volume you hold in your hands (the Bible) was compiled by man. That doesn’t mean that it’s of no value. But you cannot find one piece of writing where God shows which books precisely should be canonized and which should not. It didn’t fall out of the sky intact in one single volume at the beginning of time. That should be indisputable to anyone with even a superficial understanding of church history. The bit about adding to and taking away in Revelation relates to that specific book. That should be clear enough. The writer of Revelation was not glaring at the other 65 books while penning his words.

    Protestants think Catholics are guilty by including apocryphal writings. Catholics think Protestants are guilty by not including them. Meanwhile, God never said one way or another. Further, if you believe every biblical writer somehow shed his own imperfections and became godlike every time he took up his pen to write (well only when he wrote the portions that made it to the canon I suppose, whichever version you use), then that’s your prerogative as well. However, I take great exception to anyone believing this, all while also claiming that those who don’t believe as they do must, by extension, either not take the Bible seriously enough or somehow be confused lol. I guess the poor NT saints in the early church were out of luck then. All they had was the Holy Spirit. They didn’t walk around with leather covered parchments.

    Folks who elevate the Bible to the same level as God himself are always faced with a dilemma if they’re honest. Because portions that seem to conflict with one another must somehow be explained away, or downright manipulated, so that all the 66 books somehow be synthesized. Otherwise their image of God becomes fragile and inconsistent; even contradictory due to equating God with a book that at times should be viewed with complexity in the context within which it was written.

    By the way, you’re not relating anything that either I haven’t taught myself or heard a thousand times before. I spent so much of my life in deep bible study that, in retrospect, I fear I had turned it into almost an idol. Why? Because I had come perilously close to worshipping a book rather than God himself. Thank God it finally dawned on me that the two in my mind had morphed into one. And when that happens, look out! Because any pushback one receives from another with respect to biblical interpretation, by extension, becomes an attack on God? Why? Because they can’t see the difference. Here’s how it works to them: God=Bible, Bible=my interpretation; thus, my interpretation=God. See the problem?

    Can the Bible be useful, comforting and instructive? Absolutely yes. But when we elevate every single word of every single book to godlike status (particularly when that book was written by man, determined by man, and assembled by man), then just understand that your faith is ultimately resting on man to have gotten it 100% right.

  • R/R 2016

    “I wrote down what the New [Testament] says…”

    No. You copied and pasted what a Google Books preview of God’s Gals says and passed it off as your own.

  • Ron McPherson

    “…they would rather be real feminine women.”

    You and Mata make a great team

  • Ron McPherson

    “…keep in mind that Jesus did place His mother into the care of a man. This is an endorsement of Male Headship.”

    Ok now I’ve heard it all.

  • D.M.S.

    You should be a comedian too.
    You’re right I don’t have a job I was able to retire early in life.
    The military is a great teacher.
    But if you and your family choose to refuse to turn away from the Lord Gods sins. You’ll be condemned by God just like everyone else is for living a chosen sinfilled life.

  • KonCern

    Really? that’s good…

  • Robertmark Carlson

    AGREE COMPLETELY!!! God entrusted woman with every “next” generation… forever. Yes- we’re both necessary to procreate but it strikes me (it struck me when I was quite young actually) how it was into the hands of women the Creator gave the gift (…or was it the responsibility?….) of both gestating and ultimately raising our species from a fertilized egg to life incapable of caring for itself- until it is capable. Was it the male… the magnificent, powerful, all-dominating male who was charged with either child-bearing or child-rearing? No. Whatever it was that began this whole thing- this universe… maybe multiverse… we live in did NOT see fit to entrust the next ones to the males. No. It’s always been disgusting to me how most, not all, but most of the world’s major religions do not recognize the inherent divinity of the female.

    In nature it is the female who is the most ferocious- especially when she has young. The female will defend unto death her young. The male, knowing he can sire more young if he lives, will not fight to the death for his young. It is the female who is to be most feared while with her young. Female house pets will become protective of pregnant humans when the human is coming close to term. It is also from the female’s body life-giving sustenance is produced for her young in the form of milk.

    All signs are present in nature -we even call it “Mother” Nature- for the entire world to see the divinity- the natural, beautiful, powerful divinity of the female.

    But today’s world is run by ambitious Type-A men who are either blind to it, take it for granted, or (and this is my guess) are internally fearful of what might happen if too much power trades hands so I doubt you’ll see too much change. Men wrote the Bible and when they did they made sure to keep the Creator a “Father” God.

    The truth about the Creator is this: our simple minds want to assign a gender as that’s how our pitifully small minds work. Male and Female are in perfect symmetry as that’s how it seems to have been created- equally divine.

  • Ron McPherson

    To take it a step further, a case could even be made that God actually went out of his way so as NOT to involve a man at all if you think about it; ie with respect to the immaculate conception, a man was the only thing NOT involved. The miracle of birth? Check. An earthly mother bearing a son? Check. An earthly father needed to complete the transaction? Nope

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    Femininity is absolutely consistent with true feminism!

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    I listen, read and pray with contemplation to many theologians, pasters, etc. of whom i egregiously disagree.
    Additionally, the patriarchy in the Bible is absolutely contextually relevant, however it is not literally sacred. Unless one has an idea of it’s historical and other context, the differences in language problems and interpretation of ancient forms of Biblically used languages, the Bible can be used to justify horrible ideas-anti-female attitudes are one.

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    That doesn’t justify the egregious damage of which I commented

  • Bones

    Its easy to pick you people.

    No job, no family, no relationships so you try to get attention online.

    Your whole worldview has made you uselss as a human being and a Christian.

  • Bones

    Sure I copy and pasted it.

    This isnt uni….

    But you cant refute any of it.

  • Bones

    “He appointed and ordained ALL MEN.”

    Your posts continue to plummet to new depths of stupidity.

    You must be a mormon, sorry moron, to believe that crap.

  • Bones

    Yes…i pray for you = i hope you become more like me because you ain’t worth shit.

    A shame your prayers dont work for you.

  • Bones

    Another rant and more threats to gain attention.

    You have serious issues which need dealing with and posting online isnt helping.

    Its like you’ve created a fantasy world because you have no reality.

  • Bones

    This is from a clown who thinks god put hitler in power.

    Spare me the bs and seek help.

  • Bones

    God hates your sin most of all.

    Although weirdly because of your condition he would have mercy on you.

  • Bones

    Well i am an atheist to their type of god.

    It isn’t real.

    And when your religion relies on fear and threats you know it has nothing left to offer.

  • D.M.S.

    i guess you’re not a sinner then, right?

  • Bones

    Yeah the idea that people send themselves to hell is the most appalling apolegetics out.

  • Bones

    You’re the dumb one who thinks God appointed Hitler.

  • D.M.S.

    Everyone that’s going to go to hell. Has chosen to go there, because they won’t turn away from there sin(s). And or won’t accept Christ Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

  • Bones

    Lol….That’s a question you need to ask yourself considering you condemn everyone else.

    Over here we say you think your shit doesn’t stink.”

    But then I don’t believe in a god who’s obsessed with sin.

  • Bones

    No one has chosen to be tortured forever. That’s plain dishonest stupid apologetic rubbish to excuse a god who tortures people.

    Let’s apply that il(logic).

    Jews chose to go to Death Camps and be tortured. They just had to stop being Jewish.

    You are aware that most humans are more moral than the evil Kommandant god you’ve created.

    Genocide is after all a sin.

    So is torture.

    I mean we’re appalled by people who torture animals.

    Yet for you, a god who tortures people is par for the course.

    I mean we actually try to free people from such totalitarian governments.

    Apparently his god of yours doesn’t.

    Like I said, you have no life, all you do is sit on the internet waiting for people to condemn.

    What a pathetic life you have.

    Why don’t you do something actually useful with your life, instead of harassing strangers?

  • Bones

    “I don’t like King James. ”

    Yet a day ago you posted you posted….

    “I send over 500+ Spanish KJV bibles to South America every year.”

    Then 8 days ago

    “I could care less. My KJV will do just fine.”

    You are without doubt one of the biggest unabashed dishonest liars on the internet.

    You really have no shame and i think you’re incapable of it.

    Most sociopaths are.

    But given your condition it’s to be expected.

    This online fantasy is your life.

  • Bones

    Well what do you expect when people don’t believe the Magnificat……

    ” He has filled the hungry with good things and the rich he has sent away empty”

    Commie leftist bitch…..

  • D.M.S.

    I didn’t press the N in NKJV will do just fine. People make mistakes.

  • D.M.S.

    Yes they do. From either pride or ignorance and or both.
    Or they don’t believe it at all.

  • Bones

    Lol….that’s not a mistake. It was specifically in relation to whether you use the KJV.

    You responded to….

    “Okay, then. No Hebrew, no Greek. Let’s read along in the good-ol’ KJV (1769 version, since I doubt you’ve ever even clapped eyes on a 1611 — it reads quite differently).”

    And prior to that

    “But do you believe that the King James Version is the only perfect version of the Word of God? Yes or No?”

    DMS “Yes”

    Your lies have caught up with you.

    I look forward to your threats after your lying has been caught out.

  • Bones

    Then your god will torture you for your continual lies…..

  • JD

    “Just trying to help people to know our Lord Christ Jesus is all I’m doing”

    Your ‘lord’ hates gays. No one needs a hateful and petty deity as yours

  • JD

    AND he believes bats are birds cuz the bible days so…

  • Bones

    Classic cultic thinking which denies facts and evidence.

    The guy definitely has issues.

  • Bones

    I think he’s a mormon (moron).

    He believes all men are ordained by God.

  • Bones

    Enjoying life, away from sad sacks like you….

  • KIZMET

    erm… excuse me?

  • Bones

    Kizzie it’s much more important to believe men have dominion over women than what the Mother of God actually said about the rich and the poor.
    .
    In these days of rampant capitalism, right wing Christians teach rich and greed are good, socialism is bad, and side with the patriarchal pharisees against equality.

  • KIZMET

    As it read, I thought you were referring to me as being a commie bitch? lol

    Or were you in your sarcasm calling me that from THEIR angle?

    If that’s the case, then I agree.

    You saw when some clearly RWC claimed that I am supposedly some DITZ, ironically when I asked them 3 times, the most simple question EVER and they couldn’t even answer it, so resorted to personal attack.

  • R/R 2016

    “Sure I [copied] and pasted it.”

    Thanks for stating the obvious.

    “But you [can’t] refute any of it.”

    I have no qualms with the content. It’s been said before (and better) elsewhere.

  • Ron, on a more serious note, Yes! Yes that women and men should obey the rules of their church concerning conduct at services and sponsored events. Paul had rules which he expressed in 1 Timothy. if a person doesn’t like the rules of their church then they can lobby for change or leave. It’s very simple. In some cases lobbying will be futile like getting the Catholic church to condone abortion which is baby killing. In some cases it may foment change as their are some women pastors in certain churches.

  • JD, rules are in place for a reason. Churches have rules. If some don’t like the rules they can lobby for change or leave. If you feel that attendance in church makes someone a second class citizen then why attend? There are churches that have women pastors.

  • D.M.S.

    God/Jesus hates sin.
    Not any certain kinds of people.

  • D.M.S.

    People makes mistakes. I’ve learned a lot in the last few days. The NASB and the NIV are very good translations,also.
    Thank you for helping me realize those mistakes.
    Do you make mistakes?

  • Bones

    Sarcasm kizzie.

    Mary is the commie bitch for filling the poor with good things and leaving the rich empty..its supposed to be the other way around.

    And that clown who felt threatened by you by being a woman is obviously single for a reason.

  • Bones

    Lol….its not a mistake….

    You were adamant about using the KJV until it was pointed that King James was a paedo.

    You even had the complete dishonesty to claim that we were forcing you to read the kjv. After you claimed of course that it was the bible you use and you sent several hundred to south america.

    You lie.

    All the time.

    What does your god do to liars?

    And now you’re trying to wriggle out of it.

    Well you won’t.

    Its obviously a pathological condition for you.

  • Bones

    Especially YOUR sin.

    God hates your lies.

    And will torture you for it forever.

  • TS (unami)

    Yes, that’s not the part I was referring to…
    I meant his insistence that Paul’s prescription to a *particular* church in his day about *their particular problems* somehow applies to us now universally. That’s what he’s confused about — the ROLE of men and women in church life and parish leadership.

  • TS (unami)

    Well, that would explain it, I suppose. Strange how people will cling ever tightly to power when they feel threatened. Which is really odd, because a leader or a teacher should be chosen for their ability and experience, rather than just their gender. {shrug}

  • Phil, let’s look back at Ben’s blog for a moment. When Ben said a few verses from Paul he was referring to 1 Timothy. The context prior to the comments is that Paul declaring his purpose and mission of preaching to the Gentiles. His ministry encompassed many churches in that effort. His comments were about the attitude men should have when they pray and the modest appearance of the women in reverence to God. And then he added that he did not allow women to preach. That is the position of most religions today.

    Ben says Paul was not writing a “general manifesto.” But I read that his statement covers all the churches he ministered to and I would argue to all the New Testament churches.

    But that is not the only question that Ben poses. He asks if Paul’s stricture was for “all times and circumstances”? He then argues that compared to verses and cultural context it cannot be so. Then comes non-biblical human reasoning. My opinion is that this line of argument fails. If hermeneutics demands that all statements be qualified with complete descriptive narratives like “for now and forever” then perhaps that is a problem?

    In respect to your last 26 paragraph answer few comments:
    The Preterist movement is the Preterist movement and I don’t speak for it. 2 Tim. 2:17-18 speaks for itself.
    I don’t insist on interpreting the bible as transhistorical.
    Most assuredly Revelation contains prophecy throughout history to the return of Christ.
    Obama is the more likely Beast. He wants to be President of the World. But then, politics is not your strong suite.
    I doubt anyone is reading through this tedious exposition except the challenged one form Australia. If they are then God bless them.

  • D.M.S.

    King James social life has nothing to do with it.
    It’s called his ‘ version ‘ he didn’t write the bible. His biblical scholars did.
    Our God/Jesus forgives liars and all sins when we Christians repent of such things.
    What does your god do?
    And I will keep sending 100’s of bibles to South America as long as I can.
    It obvious that you don’t adhere in any way to Mathew 10:32-39.
    Martin Luther wasn’t perfect either. He was anti-Semitic.
    Peace.

  • D.M.S.

    You don’t know God/Jesus at all do you?
    God/Jesus is a forgiving GOD.
    He forgave Israel for their sins for over 450 years.
    God/Jesus told Peter that we’re to forgive others 70 times 7.
    Mathew 18:22.
    I have forgiven you for all the things that you’ve said and thought against me.
    Peace.

  • JD

    Gay people are born gay. They will be gay. God hates gays being gay. But since guys cannot help but be gay that means God hates gays.

    If you cannot comprehend that then you, your religion and it’s petty deities are idiotic and asinine.

  • JD

    Rules based on paranoid superstitious taboos are asinine and unintelligent.

  • JD

    “God/Jesus hates sin. 
    Not any certain kinds of people.”

    BS.

    Your deity repeatedly wiped out entire peoples in the bible. Your deity created the concept of whole-scale genocide for crying out loud. Christians throughout history have used the bible to justify just whole scale genocide against native people across this globe.

    Your religion is of fear, paranoia, hatred and ignorance.

  • JD

    Interesting little tidbit: It was considered that Mary was the first person born without sin and thus was capable of being impregnated and birthing a demigod.

  • JD

    I am actually surprised you admitted you were wrong and actually learn something new.

    I’ll be more impressed when you pick up a science book and finally comprehend that bats are mammals and not birds, and that being LGBTIQ is perfectly normal.

    Free your mind.

  • And yet Christian religions have been around for 2000 years while you and your views are ephemeral.

  • KonCern

    Hum…you seem bitter.

  • KonCern

    Many will disagree….

  • Ron McPherson

    Hmm. Wasn’t aware of that

  • JD

    Many religions have been around for thousands of years, some older than Christianity such as Judaism. Your point is…?

  • Elca

    Unless your source is your own feebled brain this is a Biblical Fact that Jesus appointed and ordained ALL MEN to be Apostles with the authority to lay a foundation of doctrine for ALL to follow.
    It is easy to criticize, but demonstrate where the statement is false, now that takes effort.

  • Elca

    Many erroneously used the bible to justify White Institutionalized Evil Slavery.
    There is no instruction that allow for Abuse of a wife or woman.
    What are you speaking up ” horrible ideas… “?

  • D.M.S.

    Your last paragraph will ‘ NEVER ‘ happen with me.
    I beleive 100% that bats are birds, and science has never had the rite to change that interpretation and never will.
    And that being LGBTIQ will ‘ NEVER ‘ be normal in the context of a sexual nature. As a Christian we are to never enter into a sinful sexual relationship. Which all LGBTIQ sexual relation are a sin unto God/Jesus.

  • Jesusisdemocrat

    Not sure how your reply addresses my comment. Also, only “…white…slavery”?!!

  • D.M.S.

    Yes, and everyone of them were because of sin. God/Jesus will give everyone time to ask forgiveness of said sins, but eventually there will be consequences for not conforming to His will.

  • Ron McPherson

    Jesus ensured the care of his mother to John because he trusted him to care for her as if she was his own mother. He told Mary, “here is your son;” to John he said, “here is your mother.” I can’t figure how anyone can come away from that story thinking it’s an endorsement of “Male Headship”. If on my dying breath I ask my best friend to care for my mother once I’m gone, sending a message about male headship isn’t on my radar.

  • D.M.S.

    No gays are not born gay and they never have.
    And all of you better hope that, that your science never finds a gay gene.
    If they ever do abortions will be even more frequent.

  • D.M.S.

    God hates sin(s). Not any certain kinds of people.

  • D.M.S.

    I happen to enjoy my life, more now that the HolySpirit is with me always:-)

  • D.M.S.

    Lol…Mary also had sin.

  • JD

    Nope. As the mythology goes she was born sin free which is why god chose her.

  • JD

    Gay people are born gay. They will be gay. God hates gays being gay. But since guys cannot help but be gay that means your god hates gays.

    If you cannot comprehend that then you, your religion and it’s petty deities are idiotic and asinine.

    Reread repeatedly until it finally clicks through your thick skull.

  • JD

    Gay people are born gay. They will be gay. God hates gays being gay. But since guys cannot help but be gay that means your god hates gays.

    If you cannot comprehend that then you, your religion and it’s petty deities are idiotic and asinine.

    Reread repeatedly until it finally clicks through your thick skull.

  • JD

    So you Lied.

    Your god does hate certian kinds of people. Hates them so much as to kill them all.

    You are officially insane. Get help.

    Now.

  • JD

    You are officially insane.

    Get help.

  • D.M.S.

    She wasn’t born sin free.
    Any more than people are born gay. Which people are NOT born gay.

  • D.M.S.

    Gay people are NOT Born Gay,
    They NEVER have been born gay.
    And they NEVER will be born gay.
    Maybe someday that may sink into your insane mind.

  • JD

    Gay people are born gay. They will be gay. God hates gays being gay. But since guys cannot help but be gay that means your god hates gays.

    If you cannot comprehend that then you, your religion and it’s petty deities are idiotic and asinine.

    Reread repeatedly until it finally clicks through your thick skull.

  • JD

    Gay people are born gay. They will be gay. God hates gays being gay. But since guys cannot help but be gay that means your god hates gays.

    If you cannot comprehend that then you, your religion and it’s petty deities are idiotic and asinine.

    Reread repeatedly until it finally clicks through your thick skull.

  • D.M.S.

    The same goes for my answer to you. Keep reading repeatedly until it sinks into your thick skull.
    Gays are NOT and NEVER have been born Gay.

  • JD

    Says the one who believes bats are birds and voices that say to kill your kid.

  • Bones

    King James commissioned the Bible hence why his name is on it.

    Seems you’re still trying to justify your own sin.

    Make up your mind.

    Lol at Spanish bibles based on 17th century English.

  • Bones

    Yeah and of you go threatening others again because of your own insecurity.

    That might work at school where you can bully people but not with adults.

    Your lies have caught you out.

  • Bones

    Lol….says the hater of women.

  • Bones

    Not according to Paul in Romans 16:7.

    “7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.”

    The apostles were also all Jewish and from the Middle East.

    Yet you never here how only Middle Eastern Jews can preach.

    Your mormon (moron) teaching is complete stupidity.

  • Bones

    You enjoy harassing strangers on the internet.

    And hanging around people who cant stand you.

    How sad.

    But thats part of your mental issues.

  • D.M.S.

    So do you.
    You’re lost to the World.
    1 John 2:15-17.

  • D.M.S.

    King James was the king at the time.
    Had it been put together by King Henry the eighth, it would of been called the
    ‘ King Henry ‘ bible.
    If a bible was put together today under the authority of Queen Elizabeth.
    With how the world is today, it would be called the
    ‘ Queen Elizabeth ‘ bible.
    You’re quite naive really on how a realm works.

  • Bones

    No. I rarely go to conservative websites.

    You however do because of its part of your need for attention.

    Its part of your autism.

    Its why you have no job and no relationships.

    You are essentially living your life on line because your real life is such a failure.

    What a sad waste of existence.

  • Bones

    Yes, it’s named after a paedophile.

    But then you said you didn’t like it.

    Now you’re lying again.

  • Bones

    Like your god, we haven’t forgiven you.

    Because you continue to live and revel in your sin, which is aimed squarely at abusing people on here.

    We understand it though because of your problems.

    This is your only way of getting attention.

  • Daniel Fisher

    It’s too bad Jesus never had a chance to read this…. perhaps he wouldn’t have been so sexist as to only choose 12 men for his designated apostles.

  • Elca

    Same old nonsense…Junias nor Andronicus set forth doctrine for any to follow. But your task is easy, just reject the Written Word. How difficult do you think it is to pull down?

  • Bones

    Under any interpretation bats aren’t birds….

    Birds lay eggs and have feathers and have to find food for their young. They also have a beak and no teeth.

    Bats have live young and have fur and produce milk to feed their young. They also have a jaw bone and sharp teeth.

    Also the bones in a bat’s wing resembles more the human hand than a bird’s wing.

    Oh and bats have hands and fingers.

    Birds don’t.

    The only similarities between bats and birds is they fly. Though bats are better fliers and more maneuverable.

  • Elca

    You said, “…the Bible can be used to justify horrible ideas-anti-female attitudes are one.” I am agree that it was also used to justify American Slavery and White Supremacy. But both were wrong the Bible does not instructs nor endorse abuse of any kind nor does it endorse American style Slavery.
    The Bible does record abuse, but does not instruct abuse of any kind.

  • Bones

    It was pretty easy to pull down actually…..That’s the corruption that comes with patriarchal power systems such as the Pharisees.

    Interesting that you neglect Paul when it doesn’t suit your complete crap about ALL MEN being apostles.

  • KonCern

    Yea, many people also say God hates women and Paul also hates women and is a male chauvinist and a bigot. So what’s new?

  • Bones

    Lol…….Is killing people a form of abuse?

    It’s ok to beat your slave so long as they recover in time. (Exodus 21:20-21)
    In fact you can even have sex slaves. (Numbers 31:18)

    What about making your wife-to-be submit to a vaginal inspection to see if she’s a virgin – then killing her (Blokes are free of course, and a girl’s hymen can be ruptured by all sorts of means)? (Deuteronomy 22)

  • KonCern

    ” I can’t figure how anyone can come away from that story thinking it’s an endorsement of “Male Headship” If you read the text properly you will find that John took her to his own house. It wasn’t Mary taking her new son to her own house. It was the Tradition of the day as outlined in the OT for men to take care of women the widow and the fatherless. This is what was done and was instructed. Call it an accident or meaningless, this Action was in line with a Patriarchal framework from Genesis and following…
    If Jesus did the reverse and go against Tradition, you will be using this same example to support your view that Jesus was against “Patriarchy “…

  • Bones

    He considered his work as ‘straw’ and never finished it.

    Btw it was Aquinas who convinced the Church that witches had power leading to the witch hunts in the Middle Ages. Prior to Aquinas, the Church believed witches were simply deluded. The fifteenth century witch-hunter’s manual, the Malleus Maleficarum, begins with an Aquinas quotation and then includes over a hundred more.

  • Bones

    Paul was a pharisee.

    We know what the pharisees thought of women. eg

    “One is not so much as to greet a woman.” (Talmud bBerakhoth 43b).

    “It is forbidden for dogs, women or palm trees to pass between two men, nor may others walk between dogs, women or palm trees (Pesahim 111a). Gentile women were considered even lower than a Jewish woman as she was designated an animal (Kerithoth 6b and Berakoth 58a). Women were to be shunned in public social contact. From the Mishna tractate Abot, 1,5: “Engage not in too much conversation with women. They said this with regard to one’s own wife. How much more does the rule apply to another man’s wife? As long as a man engages in too much conversation with women, he causes evil to himself, for he goes idle from the study of the Torah, so that his end will be that he will inherit gehenna.” Imagine living with this kind of attitude of fear of damnation for a conversation.

    The women did not have the right to be public witnesses in court cases. “Though the woman is subject to the commandments, she is disqualified from giving evidence” (Baba Kamma 88a). The Jewish historian, Josephus, records the attitude toward women of his time in Antiquities 4,219: “Let not the testimony of women be admitted because of the levity and boldness of their sex.

    “An unmarried man must not be a teacher of children, nor may a woman be a teacher of children”(Mishna Kiddushin 4,13).Women were not allowed to be taught the Torah publicly despite that it was allowed in the Old Testament period (Josh. 8:35; Neh. 8:2-3). Restrictions applied to any public reading of Scripture in the Synagogue (Megillot 73a) and they were unable to pronounce the benediction after a meal in the home (Mishna Bereshit 7:2). Women were restricted from orally communicating the Torah to others, even to children. From the tractate Sota, 10a: “May the words of Torah be burned, than that they should be handed over to women.” In Sota 21b it is written, “Rabbi Eliezer says: Whoever teaches his daughter Torah teaches her obscenity.” Women were not allowed to be educated in the same schools as men. They could not learn the Torah by themselves nor along with the men. This was practiced in the Second Temple period of Jesus’ time and in synagogues afterwards; they were separated from men in the service. This practice is continued today among Orthodox Jews. Although today in most areas of Judaism (the reform side) much of this has changed considerably.

    And Pharisees taught on women covering their heads. It wasn’t an original teaching by Paul at all…..

    In Mishnaic times, however, it was regarded as an inviolable Jewish custom (“dat Yehudit”) that women should not be seen in the streets with uncovered hair (Ket. vii. 6); and the infringement of that rule by a married woman was deemed sufficient ground for divorce, a view stated also in Roman law (Marquardt and Mommsen, “Handbuch der Römischen Alterthümer,” vii., part 2, pp. 554 et seq.). Accordingly, the Mosaic law (Num. v. 18) mentioned above is taken by the Septuagint and the Rabbis to mean “the priest shall uncover the woman’s head”; and, consequently, R. Ishmael derives from it the law forbidding the daughters of Israel to walk abroad with uncovered hair (Ket. 72a; Sifre, Num. 11). The great importance of the traditional custom may be inferred from the following story, related in Num. R. xviii. 20:

    “On, the son of Peleth, companion of Korah, was saved through the device of his wife, who, having made him so drunk that he fell asleep, sat with her daughter in front of the tent, both having their hair uncovered. When On’s companions came to call for him, and saw the women in such an attitude, they turned away; for no one would enter a house where this Jewish custom was so openly disregarded.”

    The distinction of Ḳamḥit, who saw seven of her sons made high priests, and two officiate on one and the same day, one of them being Simon ben Ḳamḥit, mentioned by Josephus (“Ant.” xviii. 2, § 2) as”Simon, the son of Camithus,” is ascribed by the Rabbis to the fact that even the ceiling of her house had not seen the hair of her head (Yer. Meg. i. 72a).

    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7432-head-covering-of

    And Greek men offered sacrifices with uncovered heads.

    Seems Paul is getting his information from his Greek and Jewish culture….not God.

    So Paul’s whole background is one of misogyny.

    It’s no surprise that he turned to his Pharisee roots.

  • Ron McPherson

    Obviously biblical culture consisted of a “Patriarchal framework.” No one disputes that. So how else was Jesus to ensure the care of his mother outside of that framework? The fact of the matter is that we can’t conclude one way or another from Jesus’ action here with respect to “Male headship.” It’s a gigantic exegetical leap though to conclude that his actions while on the cross were an ENDORSEMENT of “Male headship.”

  • D.M.S.
  • apoxbeonyou

    I’m a reporter?!

  • apoxbeonyou

    It wasn’t part of the culture at the time. He didn’t know.

  • Daniel Fisher

    Precisely the point…. if Jesus had the chance to read this, or had otherwise been exposed to more enlightened ideas than his own, perhaps he would have acted differently. But as it was, he was sadly ignorant as to the immorality of his behavior.

  • Bones

    I know you’re a liar who has nothing better to do with his life than threaten strangers on the internet.

    Your obsession with condemning people who call out your bs is why you’re on here.

    It’s part of your compulsive behaviour.

    You compulsively lie.

    You compulsively threaten and intimidate people for disagreeing with you and codemn them to hell.

    You compulsively believe that your sins dont matter. Thats why you attack others.

    When in reality you just bury yourself deeper in sin.

    See, sin does nothing to god. But it hurts us and each other. Its actually something we need healing for, not judgement.

    Its all part of your need for attention.

    And why you’re no good for anything. It shows in your inability to develop relationships and have a job.

    Because you’re so wrapped up in hurting others and yourself.

    That’s YOUR sin.

    And that’s the sinful lifestyle YOU CHOSE to live.

    See the god i see in jesus isnt going to send you to hell for your sins.

    He has pity on you that you are the way you are.

  • D.M.S.

    I’ve gone fishing at other ponds. I may return to yours, but I doubt it. All I caught at your pond were slugs.
    Bye.

  • Bones

    As I thought.

    You go from site to site looking for attention and meaning.

    What a sad pathetic individual.

  • D.M.S.

    I’m spreading the Lords love and truth where ever I go.
    Praise the Lord.

  • Bones

    No, you aren’t.

    You’re an obsessive compulsive liar who spends most of his time on here condemning and threatening others when his lies are pointed out.

  • apoxbeonyou

    LOL ok.

  • Serene Erby

    This is something that all religions face-how does the religion change with time, what does it change, what does it keep? Buddhism, Islam, are also dealing with this issue. How does a religion that originated with women subordinate, change to accept that women are equal to men?
    Why I became a Baha’i. a member of the Baha’i Faith. We believe there is only one God, that sent Buddha, Jesus, Moses, etc to humanity, now Baha’u’llah has come.
    hearttoheart.net
    http://www.Bahai.us

  • Bones

    For starters the books of the Bible were written by…..wait for it….men…..

    All of which were Jewish raised in a patriarchal religion which treated women less than dogs.

    Now I’m wondering if Jesus’s disciples were all men…eg

    Who were these?

    John 6

    60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

    66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

    So Jesus had more than 12 disciples…….It seems by that reading that most of his disciples turned away.

    Could some of those have been women or were they all men?

  • Bones

    Btw Books like the Acts of Paul and Thecla were popular in the second century. We have many copies of it and it was widely disseminated and written in Latin, Coptic and Ethiopian and many believed it was a first century creation. Many women followed Thecla’s example into martyrdom.The Ethiopic version conveniently leaves out Thecla’s baptising and preaching.

    It was Tertullian who began the Crusade against it because it viewed women’s ministry in a positive light, specifically women baptising and preaching.

    The prime reason for not including it in the canon was that it had a positive view of women ministry – ie women could baptise and preach.

  • Bones

    Religions evolve or die.

  • Tiny J

    “This user is blocked.”
    Fair warning: Bones is a complete psychopath. At one point he was posting pictures of the dead children on the Ugandan killing fields as an argument for why God can’t exist. When I called him out on it, he started blaming me for using the pictures of dead children that HE posted to advance my own agenda. And that’s just one very small example.

  • Tiny J

    Wait, what? What’s “Anne Frank scenario” and what does it have to do with accountability? And what are you talking about when you say “God will have mercy on kids under 12 or whatever”? What’s that about?

  • Tiny J

    I blocked Bones the first time I had the misfortune of correcting him, but what do you mean about a gay gene increasing abortions? That makes no sense.

  • Tiny J

    Do you understand that you’re having a conversation with a crazy person? Also, do you know where to find the “Block User” button?

  • Tiny J

    “This user is blocked.”

  • Tiny J

    Wait, what?
    Senior Pastors (elders) should be at least 3 man teams. What’s this about a 1 leader church?

  • Ron McPherson

    “Wait, what? What’s “Anne Frank scenario” and what does it have to do with accountability? And what are you talking about when you say “God will have mercy on kids under 12 or whatever”? What’s that about?“

    There is a principle taught (at least in many evangelical circles) called the age of accountability. That those who die without Christ suffer unending torment in hell, except for children. But once that child reaches this mysterious thing called the age of accountability (ie they then become aware of their sin and need for Christ), then they’re subject to the same conditions imposed upon adults. The use of 12 years old was used as an example.

    The use of Anne Frank was to show that had Anne reached this age (whatever time it may have been for her), and had not converted to Christianity, then she would have died in her sins and would be experiencing agonizing torture ever since. If this scenario is true, then she had it better in Hitler’s Auschwitz.

  • D.M.S.

    With some people, not all of them they would abort their baby if they found out if he or she were going to be gay. Like so many today that abort their babies when they find out that they’re , down- syndrome.
    Some may abort if they found out that their child was going to be autistic.

  • KIZMET

    There are female Rabbi’s.

  • KIZMET

    You know what’s interesting? The Tanakh doesn’t have hell as described in Christianity and ironically Ha’satan is like god’s legal council if you will, rather than foe.

    Part of many reasons why Christianity is nonsensical.

    I see you were taught some things, but many denominations of Christianity,claims that sin IS at birth “born into sin”. I suppose they needed SOME MO to offer peeps up “salvation” and also feeding the “christening” industry. It’s lucrative.

  • KIZMET

    Hello Tiny J

    I have been interacting with Bones for 3 years now and I have come to know him very well.

    I would like to read the interaction you two had, in context. Could you please provide a link to the OP in question?

    Thanks. :)

  • Ron McPherson

    The pastor where I go to church won’t even use the word ‘Christian’ because it conjures up so much negativity. And no wonder based on what I see coming from the religious right.

  • KIZMET

    Hi Ron, :)

    I have seen to which you refer and if you’re in the US, know such claptrap is not only there.

    It’s just like SOME Christian denominations, want to FEAR people into belief?

    I would be interested in knowing which church ( not exact location, just a broad knowledge) you attend? I would just like to know because even though I no longer have any style of affiliation with Churches, I know a lot of people who do, who are jaded by their current teachings, but still want to be involved in a Church lifestyle.

    Also I apologise for not replying to your previous comment to me, but I have just flown across the world and playing catch up from top of notifications, down.

  • Ron McPherson

    Hi Kiz
    I go to an interdenominational church (probably the largest church in east TN) with a contemporary style of worship. I would describe it as inclusive evangelical not mired in fundamentalism. While I don’t adhere theologically to everything the church teaches, I do align with what I call the essentials. For me, that’s faith in Christ as risen Lord and Savior and love of God and neighbor. To me, that defines what I believe authentic Christianity to be. We have ‘unbelievers’ who even serve in various capacities so we’re fairly inclusive lol.

  • Bones

    We really need some sort of Universalist church in Australia…..

  • KIZMET

    Perhaps for those who deem they “need” such a place to congregate in their lives. Not my cuppa, but, you know me… what ever floats their boat. I know some very kind people who identify with the “Christ” concept and have a like mindset to that of Ron here.

    PS. I arrived back in AU yesterday morning.:) I am here for 2 weeks. Did NOT miss this humidity! lol

  • KIZMET

    Perhaps you enjoy your life in the self-serving assumption of your “salvation”. It’s an assumption ONLY.

    It amazes me that so many Christians don’t realise that the concept of salvation is the BIGGEST ego trip ever.

  • wit brown

    The idea of “ONE” is Biblical. God always had a “MAN” to lead His people… 3 senior pastors / shepherds in one flock are chaos.
    Even if there is a Leadership, that leadership is led by ONE Man. Not 3 or 6 or 10…that’s not Biblical.

  • D.M.S.

    Numbers 31:18 doesn’t say that, you’re embellishing that. That’s a form of lying, you should be ashamed of yourself bones, you shouldn’t lie.

  • Bones

    “The Bible does record abuse, but does not instruct abuse of any kind.”
    Which Bible are you reading?
    Numbers 31
    17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18 But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.

  • Elca

    It’s easy to be an atheist…why argue with them.

  • Bones

    Where’s the atheist?

    Mind you if people believe the shit you believe I’m not surprised people become atheists.

  • Dean

    Jesus had more than 12 disciples, those are just the ones mentioned in the Gospels, which Jesus didn’t write by the way. So let’s just cut him some slack ok? What did he ever do to you? ;)

  • Dean

    God, why’d you guys stop!? I’m loving it.

  • Bones

    I started to feel sorry for him.

    It’s his way of being noticed and getting attention.

  • Apologies, Big Ben, but the book you profess guides your spirit and faith is a male chauvinist laced read throughout with Paul implicitly implying a woman should keep shut in a church of worship…(1 Corinthians 14:34). I know that ya know that, but still decided to reference it…

  • Though down-votes are always appreciated, they usually serve as poor substitutes for (counter)arguments (or, rather, lack thereof). :-)

  • And you’re arguing that they’re not ? Do their bodies and clothes not get tainted with blood during that time ? Do modern and/or secular women (as opposed to their Bronze Age and/or religious counterparts) not use hygienic items during that specific time period ? Why use said items if they are, as you seem to imply, already clean ?