Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Sanctuary > Deep Waters
Facebook

Notices

Deep Waters 'Deep Calleth Unto Deep ' -The place to go for Ministry discussions. Please keep it civil. Remember to discuss the issues, not each other.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old 04-10-2007, 08:55 AM
ILG's Avatar
ILG ILG is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 11,467
Sheesh, SE, you really like your post. Here ya go!

Quote:
Submission is NOT an ugly word.
Agreed.

Quote:
Saints are to submit themselves to God. James 4:7
Saints are to submit to each other. Eph. 5:21
Saints are to submit ot civil authorities. 1Pet. 2:13
Saints are to submit to those have the rule of them spiritually. Heb. 13:7,17
I would change this to "Christians" unless by saints you mean pastors too.

Quote:
Wives are to submit to their own husbands. Eph.5:22
Agreed.

Quote:
If women are equal in authority then:
Then Christ is NOT the Head of the church BECAUSE the church is subject to Christ as a wife is subject to her husband. Eph.5:23-24
Paul was incorrect in saying it was FIT unto the Lord for wives to submit to their husbands. Col. 3:18
Then evidently the word of God is NOT blaspmemed as Paul declared when women are not obedient to their husbands. Titus 2:5
The example given of godly women in the OT by Peter 1Pet. 3:1-7 is incorrect and thus culture again trumps Biblical precedent.
No argument here as far as the husband/wife relationship is concerned.

Quote:
The FACT is:
God in the curse commanded women that "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE." Gen. 3:16
The rulership of the husband over the wife is a CURSE. Which means that it was not God's plan in the beginning. Christians go back to the original plan as much as possible which is the husband being the head of the wife and not that the man RULES over the woman. True Christian men practice headship not rulership. Rulership is a curse.

Quote:
If this curse has been lifted then do you ladies:
have sorrow in conception and does sorrow accompany child birth???????
If NOT then the man is ruler over women in 2007.
Culture has NOT eliminated the curse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, but a Christian man will try to eliminate this as much as possible for his wife in the same way that he understands that work is his curse and tries to eliminate that by using tools and other things. A Christian woman will help her husband with his work at times and he will try and lift the curse of ruler off of her. Women's lib movements see that men rule over women and hate it and try to lift the curse in the wrong way. The only way to lift the curse to any degree in this life is to live a life submitted to God.

Quote:
Now this question how could I be the ruler in my own house and my wife must Biblically submit to me THEN go to church and me submit to someone else's wife??????????????????????????????????????????
Because the husband is the head of the wife. Men are not the head of women. Big difference or God made a big mistake in appointing Deborah over all those men in the OT.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 04-10-2007, 12:45 PM
Steve Epley's Avatar
Steve Epley Steve Epley is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG View Post
Sheesh, SE, you really like your post. Here ya go!



Agreed.



I would change this to "Christians" unless by saints you mean pastors too.



Agreed.



No argument here as far as the husband/wife relationship is concerned.



The rulership of the husband over the wife is a CURSE. Which means that it was not God's plan in the beginning. Christians go back to the original plan as much as possible which is the husband being the head of the wife and not that the man RULES over the woman. True Christian men practice headship not rulership. Rulership is a curse.



No, but a Christian man will try to eliminate this as much as possible for his wife in the same way that he understands that work is his curse and tries to eliminate that by using tools and other things. A Christian woman will help her husband with his work at times and he will try and lift the curse of ruler off of her. Women's lib movements see that men rule over women and hate it and try to lift the curse in the wrong way. The only way to lift the curse to any degree in this life is to live a life submitted to God.



Because the husband is the head of the wife. Men are not the head of women. Big difference or God made a big mistake in appointing Deborah over all those men in the OT.
Is a person is saint then they must be a Christian?

God said he shall be RULER over thee not me!
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 04-10-2007, 12:46 PM
Steve Epley's Avatar
Steve Epley Steve Epley is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley View Post
Submission is NOT an ugly word.
Saints are to submit themselves to God. James 4:7
Saints are to submit to each other. Eph. 5:21
Saints are to submit ot civil authorities. 1Pet. 2:13
Saints are to submit to those have the rule of them spiritually. Heb. 13:7,17
Wives are to submit to their own husbands. Eph.5:22
If women are equal in authority then:
Then Christ is NOT the Head of the church BECAUSE the church is subject to Christ as a wife is subject to her husband. Eph.5:23-24
Paul was incorrect in saying it was FIT unto the Lord for wives to submit to their husbands. Col. 3:18
Then evidently the word of God is NOT blaspmemed as Paul declared when women are not obedient to their husbands. Titus 2:5
The example given of godly women in the OT by Peter 1Pet. 3:1-7 is incorrect and thus culture again trumps Biblical precedent.
The FACT is:
God in the curse commanded women that "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE." Gen. 3:16
If this curse has been lifted then do you ladies:
have sorrow in conception and does sorrow accompany child birth???????
If NOT then the man is ruler over women in 2007.
Culture has NOT eliminated the curse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now this question how could I be the ruler in my own house and my wife must Biblically submit to me THEN go to church and me submit to someone else's wife??????????????????????????????????????????
Again.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 04-10-2007, 12:55 PM
AGAPE AGAPE is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley View Post
Again.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 04-10-2007, 01:39 PM
Praxeas's Avatar
Praxeas Praxeas is offline
Go Dodgers!


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 45,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On View Post
Thanks, Prax. It's hard to be serious with you when you are wearing a hat made of foil. LOL!
I'm just being prepared
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 04-10-2007, 01:41 PM
Praxeas's Avatar
Praxeas Praxeas is offline
Go Dodgers!


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 45,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG View Post
I would change this to "Christians" unless by saints you mean pastors too.
Pastors aren't saints? lol
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 04-10-2007, 08:56 PM
ILG's Avatar
ILG ILG is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 11,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas View Post
Pastors aren't saints? lol
I thought maybe SE was speaking only of saints, as in those who are not in the ministry. Yes, pastors are saints, but I wasn't sure he was including pastors in what he was saying.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 04-10-2007, 08:57 PM
ILG's Avatar
ILG ILG is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 11,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley View Post
Is a person is saint then they must be a Christian?

God said he shall be RULER over thee not me!
Never said he didn't. God also said that was a curse not a blessing.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 04-10-2007, 11:03 PM
Newman Newman is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas View Post
Notice that Christ is the head of EVERY man...not "Christ is the head of THE man"....Using a definite article might imply a certain amount of uniqueness. Christ is not the head of husbands only, but is head of EVERY man. But then Paul adds a definite article in the remainder of the context..THE man is the head of a woman. It's talking about a specific man in that instance...as opposed to the indefinite. The converse view, which you are espousing perhaps unwittingly, makes me your head...it would make every male your head.

Again Christ is THE head of every man. THE man IS THE head of a woman and God is the head of Christ....even if you disagree with the word man refering to a husband in that relation to the woman you still have a verse that explicitly teaches headship.
In order to understand properly the meaning of "head" as used by the Apostle Paul, it is helpful to determine its meaning within the language spoken by Paul. The authors of such works as A Greek-English Lexicon by Henry G. Liddell and Roberts Scott (Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1968), or Theological Dictionary of the New Testament edited by Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: Wm b. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965, 10 volumes) have thoroughly investigated biblical and contemporary extra-biblical writings and reported that the word 'kephale' [head] was used in secular and religious Greek contemporary to Paul with the meaning of source, origin, sustainer, and not of ruler....

It was much later that the word kephale began to be used as 'authority' under the pressure of Latin usage, as evidenced in the writings of some post apostolic church fathers.

Taken from "Beyond Sex Roles" by Gilbert Bilezikian (1985) page 278
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 04-10-2007, 11:18 PM
Newman Newman is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas View Post
Notice here again how Paul uses the articles
1Co 11:7 For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.

Are you my glory? Notice the play between the definite and indefinite articles? Is EVERY woman the glory of EVERY man or is this speaking of THE woman and THE man...obviously. The definite articles here are important Newman
Many have pondered about this verse and wondered why Paul spoke of only men being the image and glory of God instead of acknowledging that such was the case for women also (Gen 1:26-27).

Yet, Paul did not deny that women were likewise created. Instead, his statement went to the principle issue at hand, which was why women should wear coverings in worship, but men should not. His point was that women were a direct reflection upon man. Their actions were a reflection not only upon themselves, but their fathers, husbands, and brothers as well.

Society well understood that women could make or break their husbands (or whoever had legal authority over them and could bring disgrace upon a family).

This was a view expressed and embellished upon by Jesus ben Sirach, written the second century before Christ:
A daughter keeps her father secretly wakeful,
and worry over her robs him of sleep,
when she is young, lest she do not marry,
or if married, lest she be hated;
while a virgin, lest she be defiled
or become pregnant in her father’s house;
or having a husband, lest she prove unfaithful,
or though married, lest she be barren.
Keep strict watch over a headstrong daughter,
lest she make you a laughing stock of your enemies,
a byword in the city and notorious among the people,
and put you to shame before the great multitude.
Do not look upon any one for beauty,
and do not sit in the midst of women;
for from them comes the moth,
and from them comes wickedness,
Better is the wickedness of man than a woman who does good;
and it is a woman who brings shame and disgrace (Sir. 42:9-14 RSV).

So although women could bring shame to men, the converse was not true. Women were not disgraced by men since they had no real power to control them. When a man messed up, nobody (in that era) blamed it on the women in his household. After all, the man was considered the master of his universe. Thus men’s actions were a reflection upon God; while women’s actions brought the most immediate attention to their husbands, fathers and/or brothers.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
housewife convicted of frying husband Sister Alvear The Newsroom 28 03-26-2007 01:26 PM
Im a technically challenged Duh Head Fonix Tech Talk: with Bit & Byte 1 03-22-2007 06:38 PM
It's Time to Head Down to Splitsville Cotton Mather Fellowship Hall 201 03-15-2007 08:22 PM
Britney Spears Shaves Head Bald CC1 Fellowship Hall 38 02-22-2007 09:36 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by jfrog
- by Salome
- by Amanah

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.