FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: 1 Corth 14:29-36, a closer look. By lilpixieofterror

[Trout]

1 Corth 14:29-36, a closer look.

What is the view of women in the Bible? This seems to be a question that people throughout history and in our modern time want to answer. Was Jesus and Paul really anti women or is there more to it than the ‘plain reading’ of the text? There has been a movement in the past few years to answer these questions; such popular works like Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code try to answer these questions. One example of this is can be found here:

“The Priory believes that Constantine and his male successors successfully converted the world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal Christianity by waging a campaign of propaganda that demonized the sacred feminine, obliterating the goddess from modern religion forever.” (1)

Of course, there were a few religions that did have female dieties (such as the Isis cult), but is there really any evidence that there was full blow 'matriarchal paganism'? No, because after all... groups such as the Mirthia cult were far from 'matriarchal' as well as most of the religions o f that time. So did Christianity really erase these beliefs? No ; however; some of these questions are not answered as easy this, so what I’d like to do is go into one common verse to discover, is Christianity really anti-women or are we just not getting the message that it is telling us? I’m going to go into just one common verse from Paul that is commonly used just to show that Paul (often cited as being the worst of them all) is about as women hating as sugar is sour:

“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” (2)

What I like to look at first is the various views on this verse and tries to develop which one these views would accurately reflect what Paul was teaching really teaching. One commentary {Matthew Henry’s} even goes as far as to say: “Enjoins silence on their women in public assemblies, and to such a degree that they must not ask questions for their own information in the church, but ask their husbands at home.”(3) This does seem to support the idea that Paul was indeed telling women to sit down, shut up, and be obedient, but the question is, is this right way to view this passage or is this simply one person who did not properly understand what Paul said or did he have an agenda of his own? I can not answer wither or not there was some kind of agenda by the author of that commentary without invoking some kind of grand conspiracy theory, but I can answer wither or not this view is the proper way to describe of Paul’s message. I’d like to dispute Matthew Henry’s view on this. I think this passage is telling us something else. So what is it? Well first, I think Paul was quoting the church of Corinth’s position and then refuting it and here is why:

"The first thing we notice is that verse 33b ("as in all the congregations of the saints") probably goes with 33a, and NOT with 34 (so rendered in the NAS). The only other time this kind of argument occurs in Paul is in I Cor 11.16, where it is a CLOSING argument--there too about propriety in worship." (4)

I think this is a important thing to point out because if it’s closing the other paragraph and this is a new one, that means Paul is not saying women around the church should be quiet and never teach. On the contrary, it’s saying something quite different indeed. To back this up, let’s take a look at the verse quoted above to see if it matches up:

"…If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God." (5)

If we keep reading we discover that the topic changes from Property in Worship to the Lords Supper, so it seems that he is correct that the only example we have of Paul doing this is an ending argument, not an opening line for an argument. It appears the proper way to format 1 Corth 14:32-34 is:

"The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the congregations of the saints. Women should remain silent in the churches."

So now that it is established that the early church (at least Paul) was not telling women to sit down and shut up and this was a universal truth, but that the two verses are unrelated to one another which leads to the second point.

"Unless Paul changes the subject of this paragraph THREE TIMES(!)--from universal silence, to asking questions at home, and then back to universal silence--then the 'universal silence' clauses are rather severely restricted in scope, to that of simply disruptive questions by early-learners!" (4)

Which I think is again backed up by the text and let me point out how:

Verse 34 says: Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. So that seems to be about universal silence, but then we find in verse 35: If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. But wait, didn’t he say they should be quiet yet now he is saying they should only speak at home? Quite interesting and then we find in verse 36: Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? What on earth does this mean? Is Paul really saying to sit down and shut up or is there more to it? What if Paul was quoting their position and refuting it? Well, Glenn Miller seems to agree with this and gives quite an elaborate argument on that, but for time sakes, I’ll just quote his conclusion and what Glenn Miller says:

"But even if I am mistaken, the most likely OTHER alternative is that of "we do not have a clue what he meant"...It CANNOT mean 'universal silence in the churches'--for that contradicts MOST of the rest of the passage and the rest of the epistle (not to mention, known Pauline and early church practice). To turn it into a restriction on women from making any audible, articulate sounds in church is so against EVERY SCRAP of data we have--with the "exception" of I Tim 2, which we look at next(!). Exegetically, I just cannot see a strong and textually-consistent case for 'universal silence' from this passage." (4)

Taking all of this in mind, how should we view 1 Corinthians 14? Let me try taking all of these things into mind and showing how it should be read:

"Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the congregations of the saints." (6)

This right here is order of worship; it is Paul telling the people of the church that you should be careful and think about what you are going to say before you say it. After all, what is the point of saying something that nobody will understand? Basically, think before you speak. This leads us to the next set of verses:

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."(7)

This is Paul quoting them after all… wouldn’t a former ‘teacher of the law’ know that the law itself does not say that women should be in submission? In fact the law is far more equalizing than many other societies of the time, for example women could be witnesses in the Law of Moses (8) while in other societies, such as the Greeks, did not allow women to have a education or even allowed married women to leave home, entertain guest, etc. (9) So it sounds to me the data leads up to there being nothing about women hating, but simply the case of us not looking closely at what Paul is trying to tell us, which leads to next set of verses:

"Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored." (10)

In other words, “Guys, why are you telling these women to sit down and keep their mouths shut? If God has something to say though them, why not let them speak? This is not right at all! Listen to them, let them speak, but remember, think before you do it. Take the time to understand before you decide to say anything.” Taking all of this data into mind, this right here is a pretty modern way of saying this, but I think the case has been made of this interpretation of this set of verses. I’d also like to point out these facts about Paul in case you are not convinced with this argument thus far:

1. Some of his first converts were women. An example of this can be found in Acts 16:15, in which a women named lydia was converted and requested Paul and his companion stayed with her.

2. Paul’s mentioning of women along with the men in his greetings and farewells. In Romans we find several women mentioned which are; Phoebe (Romans 16:1), Priscilla (Romans 16:3), Mary (Romans 16:6), Junias (Romans 16:7), Tryphena and Tryphosa (Romans 16:12), Persis (Romans 16:12) and many others. So why would a woman hating man mention so many women and some being in such positions?

3. Verses such as:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (11)

Why would a women hating man make women equal like this if his goal was to turn women into second class citizens?

4. Some other religions of the time were not allowing women to be in god’s service, such as our text book says:

"Women could not be admitted to the god’s service. When the Christian church, which baptized women as well as men…" (12)

I think what the Bible is telling us is a message far different than what the ‘plain reading’ tells us. Paul is not telling women to sit down and shut up, this would go against the rest of his letters; instead we should look carefully at the wording and the message before we pass judgment. What Paul is really saying is that God values his daughters as much as his sons. This is not a commandment of telling women to sit down, shut up, and listen to whatever a man tells you. This is saying think before you speak and to the men…. Well listen to what they have to say, it may be a message from God.

1. Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code, P 123

2. 1 Corinthians 14: 33b-34, NIV

3. http://www.biblestudytools.net/Commentaries/MatthewHenryComplete/mhc-com.cgi?book=1co&chapter=14#1Co14_34

4. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem09.html

5. 1 Corinthians 11:16, NIV

6. 1 Corinthians 14:29-33, NIV

7. 1 Corinthians 14:34, 36, NIV

8. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

9. James L. Garlow/ Peter Jones, Cracking Da Vinchi’s Code, P 62

10. 1 Corinthians 14:36-38, NIV

11. Galatians 4:28, NIV

12. Stephen L. Harris, The New Testament: A Students Introduction, P 58

[lilpixieofterror]

Thanks trout! :blush:

[Trout]

:bump:

[LostSheep]

I read this article yesterday. It's very interesting. I'll have to look into this argument further. :thumb:

[Amazing Rando]

Another possibility suggested by the manuscript evidence itself is that this passage is actually a non-Pauline interpolation (i.e. it may have been added in later, much like the ending of Mark or John 8:1-11 were tacked on to the gospels).

[lilpixieofterror]

Another possibility suggested by the manuscript evidence itself is that this passage is actually a non-Pauline interpolation (i.e. it may have been added in later, much like the ending of Mark or John 8:1-11 were tacked on to the gospels).

I heard you talk about that one on another thread. I might have to add that one in once I've done a bit more reading on it.

[Amazing Rando]

It's by no means certain, but it is a possibility that shouldn't be overlooked. Any good commentary on 1 Corinthians that you can find at your local livrary ought to have more info.

[lilpixieofterror]

It's by no means certain, but it is a possibility that shouldn't be overlooked. Any good commentary on 1 Corinthians that you can find at your local livrary ought to have more info.

I'll have to do that when I get home.

[JonLanceBarker]

:hrm: Interesting...

[Alan3838]

lilpixieofterror ,
I'm a newcomer to Theologyweb and your writing and teaching on this subject is excellent. It's nice to see people that dig in like you did in this.

[lilpixieofterror]

Thank you Alan. :smile:

[John Gardner]

Like many others, I was/am challenged by the idea that the women-in-silence verse in 1 Cor. 14 iwas either (a) a statement of a position which Paul went on to rebut, or (b) an interpolation. I haven't read Glenn Miller's piece on this passage yet (couldn't get in on Google) but I'd like to. Cite, anyone?

But meanwhile, PLEASE let the other shoe (1 Ti 2:12) drop!

1 Ti 2:12 But I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man, but to be in quietness;
1Ti 2:13 for Adam was formed first, then Eve:
1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not deceived; but the woman, having been deceived, was in transgression.
1Ti 2:15 But she shall be preserved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with discretion.

Whatever Paul means here, it can't be either (a) a refutandum, or (b) an interpolation. I don't suggest 1 Tim is a corroboration of the silence-in-ecclesia passage in 1 Cor; the verses in 1 Tim seem to aim at godly good works (v. 9). So that leaves the question, What is Paul saying here?

[John Gardner]

Whoops! I missed the footnote link to Glenn Miller. Cancel my whine about citations please.

[lilpixieofterror]

Whatever Paul means here, it can't be either (a) a refutandum, or (b) an interpolation. I don't suggest 1 Tim is a corroboration of the silence-in-ecclesia passage in 1 Cor; the verses in 1 Tim seem to aim at godly good works (v. 9). So that leaves the question, What is Paul saying here?

Actually, it's a misunderstanding of 1 Timothy 2 all together. Let me demonstrate... learning in silence was a good thing in Paul's day and age.

The women are to "learn in silence." Despite the negative connotations this phrase brings to our ears, in the first century "silence" (hesychia) was a positive attribute. It did not necessarily entail "not speaking," as is evident in Paul's use of the word earlier in the chapter (I Tim 2.2; compare 2 Thess 3.12). Rather, it implied respect or lack of disagreement (as in Acts 11.18; 21.14). As a result, the rabbis and the early church fathers deemed quietness appropriate for rabbinical students, wise persons and even leaders."
Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry, Stanley Grenz and Denise Kjesbo, P128.

So far it seems that this is a case of us just not understanding the cultural context of the verse, now what does it mean by authority? Well, the issues there is pretty complicated, nobody knows the true meaning of the word Paul uses there (authentein), but from what I see in the article I linked to in my source work, the tradition translation of the word is more along the lines of usurp authority. The fact is, Paul used a rather uncommon word here and he could of easily used the much more common. So if that was his meaning... why didn't he use it?

Personally I see this verse in the same light I see the other verses, people simply apply their modern views to 1st century text and coming up with incorrect translations and interpretations.

[Augustine2004]

Nobody would learn any given subject from someone who doesn't know anything about it.

All Jesus' chosen apostles, including Paul, were males. So, initially, the only ones who knew the most about what Jesus was teaching were males.

I think that is a likely description of what Paul had in mind when he used the word authentein. I don't think it would be a sin to learn from you LPofChristianity, if you really do know everything all there's to know about Christianity and know how to correct me.

[Twinpeak_14]

There is one more thing that should be taken in when reading this passage. It's the historical context of it all. Up until recent times, as in the 1900's some time, churches were segregated by sex. And what was happening in the church of Corinth was that women were standing up and yelling across the church asking their husbands what the preacher meant. Paul was probably addressing that problem of this particular church. It is most likely a statement to the women in that church to keep quiet and not be an interruption to the service. The reason for this is most likely because the women at the time were uneducated and simply did not understand what was being said.

Corinth was a church that had many problems with their women, because the culture of that city had women set up on a pedestal. So whenever Paul addresses women in Corinth it was because they were causing problems that other churches of the time didn't have.

Now I am not trying to say that this is the definitive answer to this question, but it is what makes the most sense to me.

[lilpixieofterror]

Good point Twinpeak! Thanks for the input.

[Genesius]

Hmmm, doesn't really jive for me. I wonder if the men and women usually sat separate in the church meetings at that time.

[Alexander's Mom]

Ok, so they put their uneducated woman-folk on pedestals? Doesn't make sense to pedestal the fairer sex while denying them an education. Maybe Paul wasn't sexist, he was just smart.
Women are more prone to annoyingly over-emotionalize gospel principles. They're weepy. I have to check the tendency in myself. Maybe he just wanted a clear-headed teaching session (what he was accustomed to?) instead of the pink, fuzzy love-fests that church service is now.

[lilpixieofterror]

Ok, so they put their uneducated woman-folk on pedestals? Doesn't make sense to pedestal the fairer sex while denying them an education. Maybe Paul wasn't sexist, he was just smart.
Women are more prone to annoyingly over-emotionalize gospel principles. They're weepy. I have to check the tendency in myself. Maybe he just wanted a clear-headed teaching session (what he was accustomed to?) instead of the pink, fuzzy love-fests that church service is now.

It's unknown rather or not these women were uneducated or if they were over-emotionalizing everything, but it could be possible. There is no way of knowing without actually being there.

[NathanDavid]

Some of you are going to hate me for what I am about to express, but I don't care. The liberals will call me crazy for still believing the Bible, and the conservatives, some of you, might be angered at me because liberals will have access to this post, but here goes:

You liberals are giving women a bad sense of direction. Hannah's prayer made the Bible, as did songs that were sung by Solomon's wife. The New Testament even reiterates that "daughters" will have dreams, visions and prophesy. Why, though, do you encourage women to take roles in the church that are less than prophets' roles, when they are not supposed to? This is truly bad, what you are doing. Prophesying is a strong role, and far greater than teaching or otherwise usurping authority over men. We need the greater of the two, not the lesser. You are encouraging women to compromise the Bible and become false teachers. Many, being the weaker sex, will fall into your temptation, sense prophets are not paid staff (eg. not honored in their own country). The love of money is the root of all evil.

Please also stop babbling that garbage about culture. The scripture says, "I change not." Women were never allowed authority over men in the Old Testament, nor in the New Testament. Culture had already changed hands to the point of much of the New Testament being recorded in Greek. Even with the Gentiles having been brought into the early church, we have no teachings NOR WRITINGS of women that were ever ordained into the scriptures. Ester and Ruth were books that prove that women have not been mistreated, in that the two women were written about and even the books named after them. Hardly mistreatment of two prophetesses.

I guess you can look at women's authority over men with the same respect as you can consider the Apostle Paul's description of his experience on the road to Damascus - in Acts 22:9. If you look at it closely, Luke accurately described the event in Acts 9:7, explaining that only Paul saw the light AND heard the voice (during his vision), and that the men who journeyed with Paul only heard the voice of the vision. Later, however, in Acts 22:9, Luke wrote of Paul's account of the event when under severe persecution. Luke quoted Paul saying that the men who journeyed with him saw only the light and heard not the voice (the reverse of Luke 9:7). Luke recorded BOTH of these accounts, but the one that LUKE RECORDED AS HIS DETAIL OF THE EVENT in Luke 9"7 was the accurate account. Paul's errant (under pressure) account of the events was being expressed to non-believers, and it was also not a written work. Thus, Luke's hand was GUIDED BY DIVINE INTERVENTION in that he accurately recorded the road to Damascus, and then accurately recorded Paul's confusion in describing the road to Damascus. God's divine intervention will be where it belongs, and not where we are told that it will not be, and women have never had that divine intervention giving them the authority to write nor usurp authority with the scriptures.

'NUFF SAID...

[lilpixieofterror]

Some of you are going to hate me for what I am about to express, but I don't care. The liberals will call me crazy for still believing the Bible, and the conservatives, some of you, might be angered at me because liberals will have access to this post, but here goes:

Too bad I'm not a liberal, eh?


You liberals are giving women a bad sense of direction.

I'm not a liberal dear, I'm telling women that they can be who they want to be and that God doesn't look down on them for being women. Is that a bad thing?


Hannah's prayer made the Bible, as did songs that were sung by Solomon's wife. The New Testament even reiterates that "daughters" will have dreams, visions and prophesy. Why, though, do you encourage women to take roles in the church that are less than prophets' roles, when they are not supposed to?

Where did I say they can't or did you just read that in there? :ahem:


This is truly bad, what you are doing. Prophesying is a strong role, and far greater than teaching or otherwise usurping authority over men.

That isn't what the Bible teaches, but hey... who needs to study when we can just make assertions and not back them up? Are you even aware of the point of that verse? I'll tell you right now, even men were told to learn in silence in submission so Paul was telling Timothy that women should learn the same way men are.


We need the greater of the two, not the lesser. You are encouraging women to compromise the Bible and become false teachers. Many, being the weaker sex, will fall into your temptation, sense prophets are not paid staff (eg. not honored in their own country). The love of money is the root of all evil.

Sorry dear, but you're reading that into my words. What temptation am I saying? That it's ok that women can be successful in the work place as well as at home and have every right to peruse their education and career goal as well? How dare I say that, I should be telling them to be barefoot and pregnant until they outlive their usefulness and than just live in a bed room alone. :ahem:


Please also stop babbling that garbage about culture. The scripture says, "I change not."

It doesn't, but society does and the bible was not written in a culture vacuum, it was written to them... not us so we should understand it within it's proper context.


Women were never allowed authority over men in the Old Testament, nor in the New Testament.

Might want to tell Lydia that or explain why women are mention in all of Paul's fare wells and greetings and told that they are great teachers as well.


Culture had already changed hands to the point of much of the New Testament being recorded in Greek. Even with the Gentiles having been brought into the early church, we have no teachings NOR WRITINGS of women that were ever ordained into the scriptures.

Men where not ordained in the scriptures either. Your point? :shrug:


Ester and Ruth were books that prove that women have not been mistreated, in that the two women were written about and even the books named after them. Hardly mistreatment of two prophetesses.

And again, you miss the point of the article, huh? But who needs logic or to understand the point when we have you to tell us what the point is!


I guess you can look at women's authority over men with the same respect as you can consider the Apostle Paul's description of his experience on the road to Damascus - in Acts 22:9. If you look at it closely, Luke ac... blah blah blah blah blah...

I'm sorry, but does that ranting of yours have a point?


God's divine intervention will be where it belongs, and not where we are told that it will not be, and women have never had that divine intervention giving them the authority to write nor usurp authority with the scriptures.

Ummm, you sure about that? Ever hear of Deborah or the daughters in Acts that we are told had the gift of prophecy? Try again...


'NUFF SAID...

Oh yeah, you said plenty... but no substance. Shoot, you can't even get my views right, I'm not a liberal, I'm actually more in the middle and I got my information from a man, aka... not a women. So try again.

[NathanDavid]

lilpixieofterror (not), I did not read all of the original post, but I read enough of your poor writing to learn that you were darkening the waters with assertions about the Apostle Paul and Christ being anti-woman. That was enough right there for me to know that arguing with you would be a waste of pearls, but the other folks in this thread deserve to have the light shine in the midst of all of your darkness. You can read around all of the truth in the world (WELL, ahem, you could if you could read), but in the end, if you choose to do so, then you will surely perish. As for me and my house, I will serve the Lord. Well well well...

[sc_q_jayce]

You came away from her writing to believe that she supported the thesis "Paul/Christ is anti-woman" ?

Read again.

[Michelle]

Well, he admitted he didn't actually read it.

[sc_q_jayce]

I know. Still, my advice stands. :)

[lilpixieofterror]

lilpixieofterror (not), I did not read all of the original post, but I read enough of your poor writing to learn that you were darkening the waters with assertions about the Apostle Paul and Christ being anti-woman.

If you actually read what I said instead of what you think I said you would of learned that my actual view is that Paul has a heart for women as well and expresses this in his writing, but that would require reading what I said, huh? BTW care to point out what is so bad about my writing? I've done quite well in college level writing classes or do a few minor spelling/grammar errors enough for you to whine about?


That was enough right there for me to know that arguing with you would be a waste of pearls, but the other folks in this thread deserve to have the light shine in the midst of all of your darkness. You can read around all of the truth in the world (WELL, ahem, you could if you could read), but in the end, if you choose to do so, then you will surely perish. As for me and my house, I will serve the Lord. Well well well...

You could actually try reading my article and showing that I was saying Paul was anti women, but that would require educating yourself, huh?

[NathanDavid]

I did go back and read the article, briefly, last week - after the last few posts made your thread. It still looked/looks to me that you were trying to water down Paul's instruction. You were doing so by using (or quoting) condescending tones about Paul and Christ. Whether you wrote them yourself, or whether they were just tones from an article, the way that they were presented in this thread was as if to apply the femenist movement's tests to the Bible (particularly, Christ and Paul). We (men included) are not to test God, only try the spirits against the Word.

Clearly, when Christ was tempted on the mount he stated as much to Satan, that God is not to be tested. So, to even consider creating a thread that questions the character of Christ himself as being anti-woman, and to not immediately denounce the tone, it is the perfect example why God led Paul to disallow women teaching/usurping authority over men with the scriptures.

So, now do you understand ME better? The Bible says to BOLDLY proclaim the gospel of Christ. You were not bold, at least not for Christ's unadulterated Word.

I would be really easily tempted to say, at this point, "It's not what you said; it's what you didn't say," but that would imply that I accept you as a teacher of the Gospel. If you learn to post and teach Christ's unadulterated message, then you'll be useful to teach women and children, or even to prophesy, if God gives you the gift. It is obvious that you have something driving you to want to teach something somewhere...

One quick look and I'm done. Even Harvard College uses provocation to open minds. I am aware of that, but they do not test the Words of Christ or the apostles. They ask the students, "Can God make a rock that He can't pick up?" That question is not a shot at God; it's a shot at the limitation of human wisdom, a shot that ultimately supports Bible's teaching. Now, if I am wrong about that, well, then at least I am just that much more right to not vote for Obama (a Harvard graduate)...

Oops, sorry... one more thing. Don't know where it is, but somewhere in the Old Testament the women had to lead the military in battle. That's not using scripture to usurp authority, that's just being a hootin' of a woman! It is truly sad that so many feminists have convinced our ladies that a woman is being mistreated who accepts her role as it is laid out in God's Word (Proverbs 31). God loves women (he just has to!)...

[Michelle]

God loves women (he just has to!)...You mean...He doesn't really want to?? :-(

[NathanDavid]

Michelle... hmm, that's a power name right? I bet your a tough one! From Psalms 23 ... "I shall not want..." (I am just kidding of course)...

Gotta love 'em...

[lilpixieofterror]

I did go back and read the article, briefly, last week - after the last few posts made your thread. It still looked/looks to me that you were trying to water down Paul's instruction.

In other words

"I don't have anything of substance, so let me rant and whine for awhile and fill in some space fillers."

Anytime you want, you're welcome to show that I watered down anything, so far... nothing to show it yet.


You were doing so by using (or quoting) condescending tones about Paul and Christ.

My tones are condescending now? :ahem: What you mean is that, "You are attacking something I believe in, so let me read emotions in that are not there so I can feel better about it." Sorry dear, but this is me being condescending to you, my article isn't condescending to Paul or Jesus, but go ahead... make up whatever you want to feel better about yourself.


Whether you wrote them yourself, or whether they were just tones from an article, the way that they were presented in this thread was as if to apply the femenist movement's tests to the Bible (particularly, Christ and Paul). We (men included) are not to test God, only try the spirits against the Word.

Oh? More assertions and nothing yet to prove me wrong, huh? Come on now... show me in error.. I'm waiting, but it seems you can't do that because you don't know what you're talking about. So you rant in place of arguments. It's pretty funny that some extremist atheist say I can't be a feminist for being anti abortion and for family values, but fundy Christians say I'm a feminist. I do wish you people could make up your mind about what I am. Now are you going to prove your assertions or just rant in place of arguments?


Clearly, when Christ was tempted on the mount he stated as much to Satan, that God is not to be tested. So, to even consider creating a thread that questions the character of Christ himself as being anti-woman, and to not immediately denounce the tone, it is the perfect example why God led Paul to disallow women teaching/usurping authority over men with the scriptures.

I see you're too dumb to notice that I'm not testing Christ at all, but peculator interpretations of the text. Go ahead though, throw out irrelevant arguments and just show everybody how much of a moron you are. And just so you are aware, almost all of my source work was from a male, not a female. So you might want to go tell your fellow men that they are usurping authority for telling women that they don't have to listen to your crap you spill out. :rofl: Another one of your arguments comes crashing down, but it seems you still are not done heaping shame upon yourself.


So, now do you understand ME better? The Bible says to BOLDLY proclaim the gospel of Christ. You were not bold, at least not for Christ's unadulterated Word.

I understand perfectly. You're an idiot who doesn't understand my article and is too dumb to figure out that I'm attacking an interpretation and not Christ. Go ahead, keep pretending your interpretation is the default and to dare to question it means you are questioning Christ and usurping authority of men. :lol: I think next time I'll just turn on the laugh track and let it play with each and every stupid statement you make.


I would be really easily tempted to say, at this point, "It's not what you said; it's what you didn't say," but that would imply that I accept you as a teacher of the Gospel. If you learn to post and teach Christ's unadulterated message, then you'll be useful to teach women and children, or even to prophesy, if God gives you the gift. It is obvious that you have something driving you to want to teach something somewhere...


More of this same strawman that falls out of your mouth, huh? You can't prove me wrong, so take a new approach that can the translated as, "WAAAA!!!! My position is the true gospel and if you dare challenge it, you are disobeying scripture!!! :bawl:" Isn't that so much more accurate? Now please prove that your position is the true interpretation of the scriptures and mine isn't or you can just drop this idiotic charge that I'm 'altering the message'.


One quick look and I'm done. Even Harvard College uses provocation to open minds. I am aware of that, but they do not test the Words of Christ or the apostles. They ask the students, "Can God make a rock that He can't pick up?" That question is not a shot at God; it's a shot at the limitation of human wisdom, a shot that ultimately supports Bible's teaching. Now, if I am wrong about that, well, then at least I am just that much more right to not vote for Obama (a Harvard graduate)...

More ranting and no answer to my article, just "WAAAA! My position is the true Gospel and since you dare challenge it, you are attacking God! WAAAA WAAA WAA!" I do love how this game works though, just call your view the view that Christ had and anybody who dares challenge it, accuse them of attacking God. Sorry, I'm smarter than that and I'm not falling for it, you can either show your view is the view that Paul and Jesus had, or just withdraw your accusations. My bet is you can't show it, so you'll rant some more to make up for your total lack of answers.


Oops, sorry... one more thing. Don't know where it is, but somewhere in the Old Testament the women had to lead the military in battle. That's not using scripture to usurp authority, that's just being a hootin' of a woman! It is truly sad that so many feminists have convinced our ladies that a woman is being mistreated who accepts her role as it is laid out in God's Word (Proverbs 31). God loves women (he just has to!)...

Perhaps you can actually quote where I said or implied anything you think I am? Can't, can you? Nope, so what do you do? Make assertions without evidence. Whine that I don't agree with you. State your position is default and anybody who disagrees is 'usurping authority'. Better not vote in the election because if we have a new leader, isn't that usurping authority? Do actually try to answer a word I said and not rant in your next post, ok?

[NathanDavid]

Lill Miss Terror (not), I'm not going to bother reading your garbage. I saw enough of your folly in the first paragraph of the original post. Your name alone is condescending. It shows that you have no self respect and no imagination. You just want attention. Your hostility is exactly why you have no business teaching anything but how to stir a toilet. Go and march with your gay rights groups. I know what's got you riled all of the sudden. Obama's lipstick on a pig scared you; it scored your ideology about your new found hero! Now you hate him too, and Palin is too decent for someone like you to vote for... at least she knows her place!

[NathanDavid]

I've given this thread one last look, and it still looks to be disputing the depths of what Paul taught. Paul made himself abundantly clear about women teachers. He even illustrated by the fact that God created man first. Here's meat: 2 Corinthians 3:12-18 and 2 Corinthians 4:2-3

If I wuz you, Lil' Ms. Terror, I'd take my eyes off that air show over Iraq. All that "I'd awl a tree" makes that Bible you'ra holdin' look like... well, lipstick on a pig! Hebrews 6:6

Anna' know'd 't were my last post
To the one who'd been heart-cut the most
The god of rhetorical waste
Who's folly she'd been known two'a faced
Stilla' know'd 't were my time to head out
Though, the garbage 'twas passed in by Trout
't were surely to confuse some young roe
Butta' just had to boldly, BOLDLY GO!



('D like to hear Fred Thompson read it aloud!...)

[lilpixieofterror]

I've given this thread one last look, and it still looks to be disputing the depths of what Paul taught.

Translation: "My view is absolute truth and anybody who dares to disagree with me must be disputing what Paul taught, that is the only logical answer."

Still no rebuttal to my words. Still no evidence to support your ideas. Still nothing by ranting and raving and pretend that is an argument.


Paul made himself abundantly clear about women teachers. He even illustrated by the fact that God created man first. Here's meat: 2 Corinthians 3:12-18 and 2 Corinthians 4:2-3

How in the world you think 2 Corinthians 3:12-18 or 2 Corinthians 4:2-3 relates to this issue, I have no idea, but from what I see yet again it's "WAAAA!!!! I'm right and you're wrong because my view is the default and anybody who challanges is disputing God!" See, isn't that so much more accurate than mentally throwing up verses and thinking that is a valid argument? Now again, please prove that your view is Paul's origional view and answer my article. Stop whining that your view is default and start proving it is. I'm waiting....


If I wuz you, Lil' Ms. Terror, I'd take my eyes off that air show over Iraq. All that "I'd awl a tree" makes that Bible you'ra holdin' look like... well, lipstick on a pig! Hebrews 6:6

Insults over arguments, eh? I see when you can't answer an argument because it's too hard for you, just throw up Bible verses and pretend that is an answer.


Anna' know'd 't were my last post
To the one who'd been heart-cut the most
The god of rhetorical waste
Who's folly she'd been known two'a faced
Stilla' know'd 't were my time to head out
Though, the garbage 'twas passed in by Trout
't were surely to confuse some young roe
Butta' just had to boldly, BOLDLY GO!

More insults, zero arguments. Prove me wrong... I'm still waiting...


('D like to hear Fred Thompson read it aloud!...)

Do you actually have an argument or is ranting the only argument you can produce?

[John Gardner]

In rereading this thread, in which lilpixie's initial points were hardly seriously touched, let alone rebutted, I'm reminded why I resolved to eschew the "liberal" versus "conservative" tags in Bible discourse.

It's not just an issue of imprecision. I know what the tags are generally supposed to evoke. (Ditto "Red states"/"Blue states".) It's an issue of underlying meaning. Orwell had it right in "Politics and the English Language" - when we adopt party-line terminology, we lose the ability to communicate effectively outside our parties.

Take women teaching in church - a fine example! We have the Pauline statements in 1 Cor. 14, which - like all Scripture -- can be taken without context and without reference to the frequent mentions of women in authority elsewhere in NT. What makes it more "conservative" to view Paul's statements this way? Could it possibly be the implicit "fit" between a "no women teachers rule" (whether or not Paul stated this "rule") and a rejection of 20/21st C. party-line "liberal" feminism? If so, this is a reactionary political exegesis, it is not Bible scholarship at all.

Do I think that kicking out the liberal-versus-conservative tags will make exegesis a happier or gentler place? Not on your gender inflected life. But at least it might pull Bible discourse somewhat out of the CNN/Election Year orbit and into a dialogue about Yeshua and His church.

Shalom.

[Mjornir]

your article is one of constant misconception.
old world religion wanted power to stay under male dominancy,void of female control.
paul writes what is allowed as man's law, since jesus did not come here to upsurp that authority, but he did rival it from time to time...
our ideas that males should dominate is the equivalent of the idea that incest ( which was a common practice within the confines of royalty) is against God.
it should be noted (genisis) that God created incest when He took a rib and flesh of adam and made a woman(We now call this DNA cloning) which effectively makes eve adam's twin sister...

so even though the bible has a verse or two that alone would insist your idea to be correct, it is hereby a wrong idea in God's eyes, after all, we are all elihims, and elihims in spirit form have no sex per say.
if jesus meant for woman to remain silent, mary would not be the first to witness his ressurection and told to tell others...
several johns were credited as having wrote the books of the johns, revelation-john the apostle in exile as an old man near 95 ad, the other three books were all written apparently after the murders of the disiples of jesus except for john the apostle who again was in exile, why? because he knew what was happening to the others...

however, mary magdalene was untouched, could it be because jesus stood up for her instead of letting her be stoned? imagine if you will, in perfect, fluent greek, the books of john were penned, but no greek speaking disciple was alive at the time to write, but if mary did write these books, who would go against her with the fear of God rising from the dead and ascending, might come back for vengence if they touched mary?

one more note...
constantine was a pagan, not a christian. he legalized christianity in fear that because we were growing in more numbers, that a possible revolt was eminant in which he would lose.

anyways, this is something to think about....

[Mjornir]

heck with what paul taught... why dont you focus more on what Jesus taught...
as far as man is concern, you need to open your bible again for here i give you a quick lesson....
God, on the sixth day create male AND female, on the seventh day, God RESTED....
note that this is the 6th day and God saw it as good(final)...
now man is on the scene during 6th day (1000 yrs.), then God rests on the 7th day (1000 yrs.)...
now exists MANkind for 2000 years, and yes, we already screwed up...
God on the 8th day (1st day of the 2nd week) seeing what a bunch of idiots we are, then makes Adam (Adam is not this individual's name, but the name of his species-hence: Adam is the first ADAM, and Jesus is the last ADAM of ADAMkind) a tiller for there was none.
think real quick-why did God tell Seth and HIS people not to mingle with man at the bottom of the mountain?

[Mjornir]

Translation: "My view is absolute truth and anybody who dares to disagree with me must be disputing what Paul taught, that is the only logical answer."

Still no rebuttal to my words. Still no evidence to support your ideas. Still nothing by ranting and raving and pretend that is an argument.



How in the world you think 2 Corinthians 3:12-18 or 2 Corinthians 4:2-3 relates to this issue, I have no idea, but from what I see yet again it's "WAAAA!!!! I'm right and you're wrong because my view is the default and anybody who challanges is disputing God!" See, isn't that so much more accurate than mentally throwing up verses and thinking that is a valid argument? Now again, please prove that your view is Paul's origional view and answer my article. Stop whining that your view is default and start proving it is. I'm waiting....



Insults over arguments, eh? I see when you can't answer an argument because it's too hard for you, just throw up Bible verses and pretend that is an answer.



More insults, zero arguments. Prove me wrong... I'm still waiting...



Do you actually have an argument or is ranting the only argument you can produce?



Hello, this is a wake-up call... who is the left nutted idiot that thinks woman have no voice? verily-verily i tell you that you need to focus on what Jesus SAYS, not what paul says...

[lilpixieofterror]

your article is one of constant misconception.
old world religion wanted power to stay under male dominancy,void of female control.

:lmbo: And your source for this is what? The fact you like it so therefore it's true? Sorry honey, but this is just an assertion without evidence. If you actually read the Bible (I know it would be hard to do that) women were in positions of authority in both the OT and the NT. Sorry, but you loose on this point, but keep pretending you're an expert because it's obvious you're not.


paul writes what is allowed as man's law, since jesus did not come here to upsurp that authority, but he did rival it from time to time...

And can you give the verse that supports that?


our ideas that males should dominate is the equivalent of the idea that incest ( which was a common practice within the confines of royalty) is against God.

Source please.


it should be noted (genisis) that God created incest when He took a rib and flesh of adam and made a woman(We now call this DNA cloning) which effectively makes eve adam's twin sister...

Wow, that wins you a screwball award. It's kind of hard for them to be clones when males and females have different sex chromosomes (Men have XY and women have XX). So how they can be twins when genetics says it's impossible for identical twins to be a male and female, I have no idea (been getting your genetics from cartoons I see). Oh well, keep making a fool of yourself, doing a good job of it so far. :thumb:


so even though the bible has a verse or two that alone would insist your idea to be correct, it is hereby a wrong idea in God's eyes, after all, we are all elihims, and elihims in spirit form have no sex per say.

What this has to do with my article, I have no idea.


if jesus meant for woman to remain silent, mary would not be the first to witness his ressurection and told to tell others...

Woosh! The point made as it went over your head. Did you actually read my article or are you ranting?


several johns were credited as having wrote the books of the johns, revelation-john the apostle in exile as an old man near 95 ad, the other three books were all written apparently after the murders of the disiples of jesus except for john the apostle who again was in exile, why? because he knew what was happening to the others...

And this has what to do with my article?


however, mary magdalene was untouched, could it be because jesus stood up for her instead of letting her be stoned? imagine if you will, in perfect, fluent greek, the books of john were penned, but no greek speaking disciple was alive at the time to write, but if mary did write these books, who would go against her with the fear of God rising from the dead and ascending, might come back for vengence if they touched mary?

There is no evidence that Mary was a prostitute. Are you getting your information from outdated sources? Now what does this have to do with what I said? Nothing really, you're just ranting to rant.


one more note...
constantine was a pagan, not a christian. he legalized christianity in fear that because we were growing in more numbers, that a possible revolt was eminant in which he would lose.

Constantine was baptized as a Christian before his death. Do you have any proof he was a pagan or are you just making up things as you go along?


anyways, this is something to think about....

That you haven't got a clue what you're talking about and go off on endless tangents that have nothing to do with the article in question? :ahem: You showed me one thing... you're an idiot that isn't worth much time bothering with. Now do you have a real response to my article or all you do have left is ranting?

Now let me answer your other rants posts:


heck with what paul taught... why dont you focus more on what Jesus taught...

Because the article is about rather or not Paul was really saying X and thus the entire focus of the article is on that one verse of 1 Corinthians.


as far as man is concern, you need to open your bible again for here i give you a quick lesson....
God, on the sixth day create male AND female, on the seventh day, God RESTED....
note that this is the 6th day and God saw it as good(final)...
now man is on the scene during 6th day (1000 yrs.), then God rests on the 7th day (1000 yrs.)...
now exists MANkind for 2000 years, and yes, we already screwed up...
God on the 8th day (1st day of the 2nd week) seeing what a bunch of idiots we are, then makes Adam (Adam is not this individual's name, but the name of his species-hence: Adam is the first ADAM, and Jesus is the last ADAM of ADAMkind) a tiller for there was none.
think real quick-why did God tell Seth and HIS people not to mingle with man at the bottom of the mountain?

What does this have to do with my article? This wins another screwball award. Good job!


Hello, this is a wake-up call... who is the left nutted idiot that thinks woman have no voice? verily-verily i tell you that you need to focus on what Jesus SAYS, not what paul says...

Are you an idiot that is incapable of reading my article? No where did I say a word about women having no voice. Do you have reading issues?

[Mjornir]

first, i never said that there were no woman of power
(that is you circumventing my QOUTE "RANTINGS"
UNQUOTE)...
PLEASE SHUT UP AND READ WHAT I SAID AGAIN...

I SAID...

however, mary magdalene was untouched, could it be
because jesus stood up for her instead of letting her
be stoned? imagine if you will, in perfect, fluent
greek, the books of john were penned, but no greek
speaking disciple was alive at the time to write, but
if mary did write these books, who would go against
her with the fear of God rising from the dead and
ascending, might come back for vengence if they
touched mary?


AND YOU SAID.....

There is no evidence that Mary was a prostitute. Are
you getting your information from outdated sources?
Now what does this have to do with what I said?
Nothing really, you're just ranting to rant.

Evidence from The Da Vinci Code:

“My dear child, it was not Mary Magdalene's royal
blood that concerned the Church so much as it was her
consorting with Christ, who also had royal blood. As
you know, the Book of Matthew tells us that Jesus was
of the House of David. A descendant of King Solomon
–King of the Jews. By marrying into the powerful
House of Benjamin, Jesus fused two royal bloodlines,
creating a potent political union with the potential
of making a legitimate claim to the throne and
restoring the line of kings as it was under Solomon.”
–Teabing (249)

“That's part of what the Crusades were about.
Gathering and destroying information. The threat Mary
Magdalene posed to the men of the early Church was
potentially ruinous. Not only was she the woman to
whom Jesus had assigned the task of founding the
Church, but she also had physical proof that the
Church's newly proclaimed deity had spawned a mortal
bloodline. The Church, in order to defend itself
against the Magdalene's power, perpetuated her image
as a whore and buried evidence of Christ's marriage to
her, thereby defusing any potential claims that Christ
had a surviving bloodline and was a mortal prophet.”
(254)

“…Mary Magdalene was pregnant at the time of the
crucifixion. For the safety of Christ's unborn child,
she had no choice but to flee the Holy Land. With the
Help of Jesus' trusted uncle Joseph of Arimathea, Mary
Magdalene secretly traveled to France, then known as
Gaul. There she found safe refuge in the Jewish
community. It was here in France that she gave birth
to a daughter. Her name was Sarah.” (255)

“Magdalene's and Sarah's lives were scrutinously
chronicled by their Jewish protectors. Remember that
Magdalene's child belonged to the lineage of Jewish
kings—David and Solomon. For this reason, the Jews in
France considered Magdalene sacred royalty and revered
her as the progenitor of the royal line of kings.”
(255)

“…Christ's line grew quietly under cover in France
until making a bold move in the fifth century, when it
intermarried with French royal blood and created a
lineage known as the Merovingian bloodline.” –Teabing
(257)
“With Dagobert's murder, the Merovingian, Sigisbert,
secretly escaped the attack and carried on the
lineage, which later included Godefroi de Bouillon-
founder of the Priory of Sion.” –Teabing (258)
“The modern Priory of Sion has a momentous duty.
Theirs is a threefold charge. The brotherhood must
protect the Sangreal documents. They must protect the
tomb of Mary Magdalene. And, of course, they must
nurture and protect the bloodline of Christ –those few
members of the royal Merovingian bloodline who have
survived into modern times.” –Teabing (258)
“Only two direct lines of Merovingians remain. Their
family names are Plantard and Saint-Clair. Both
families live in hiding, probably protected by the
Priory.” –Langdon (260)
The Origins of the Merovingian Line:
This site describes the origins of the Merovingian
bloodline as being from the Germanic tribe of the
Franks. Specifically, the Salian Franks who were
located at the most northern part of the area along
the Rhine River which the Franks occupied. The chief
of the Salian Franks, Merovich, is where the name
Merovingian originated. Merovich's son, Clovis is
known as the first king of the Merovingians.

The Knights Templar:
The Knights Templar presents evidence that supports
Brown's theory of the Merovingians being descendants
of Mary Magdalene and Jesus, specifically the ancestry
of the Frankish people that the Merovingians directly
descended from. Dr. Steven Edward Mizrach elaborates
on the conception of the first Merovingian king by
providing a theory of how the mother of Merovich was
actually impregnated by both King Chlodio and by a
"Quinotaur," an aquatic creature. While this theory
seems to be quite far-fetched to the educated reader,
it does provide a credible history for what happened
to the royal lineage.

I SAID...

one more note...
constantine was a pagan, not a christian. he legalized
christianity in fear that because we were growing in
more numbers, that a possible revolt was eminant in
which he would lose.

AND YOU SAID....

Constantine was baptized as a Christian before his
death. Do you have any proof he was a pagan or are you
just making up things as you go along?

TRY THIS...

Constantine I
2007 Schools Wikipedia Selection. Related subjects:
Historical figuresConstantine I
Emperor of the Roman Empire

Legend and Donation of Constantine
In later years, historical facts were clouded by
legend. It was considered inappropriate that
Constantine was baptized only on his death-bed and by
a bishop of questionable orthodoxy, and hence a legend
emerged that Pope Silvester I (314-335) had cured the
pagan Emperor from leprosy. According to this legend,
Constantine was baptized after that and donated
buildings to the Pope. In the 8th century, a document
called the " Donation of Constantine" first appeared,
in which the freshly converted Constantine hands the
temporal rule over Rome, Italy and the Occident to the
Pope. In the High Middle Ages, this document was used
and accepted as the basis for the Pope's temporal
power, though it was denounced as a forgery by Emperor
Otto III and lamented as the root of papal worldliness
by the poet Dante Alighieri. The 15th century
philologist Lorenzo Valla proved the document was
indeed a forgery

AND THIS...(PLEASE NOTE HOW PAGANISM IS "BETWEEN THE
LINES")

Constantine's iconography and ideology
Coins struck for emperors often reveal details of
their personal iconography. During the early part of
Constantine's rule, representations first of Mars and
then (from 310) of Apollo as Sun god consistently
appear on the reverse of the coinage. Mars had been
associated with the Tetrarchy, and Constantine's use
of this symbolism served to emphasize the legitimacy
of his rule. After his breach with his father's old
colleague Maximian in 309–310, Constantine began to
claim legitimate descent from the 3rd century emperor
Marcus Aurelius Claudius Gothicus, the hero of the
Battle of Naissus (September, 268). The Augustan
History of the 4th century reports Constantine's
paternal grandmother Claudia to be a daughter of
Crispus, Crispus being a reported brother of both
Claudius II and Quintillus. Historians however suspect
this account to be a genealogical fabrication to
flatter Constantine.
Follis by Constantine. On the reverse, a labarum with
the chi-rho.Gothicus had claimed the divine protection
of Apollo-Sol Invictus. In mid-310, two years before
the victory at the Milvian Bridge, Constantine
reportedly experienced the publicly announced vision
in which Apollo-Sol Invictus appeared to him with
omens of success. Thereafter the reverses of his
coinage were dominated for several years by his
"companion, the unconquered Sol" — the inscriptions
read SOLI INVICTO COMITI. The depiction represents
Apollo with a solar halo, Helios-like, and the globe
in his hands. In the 320s Constantine has a halo of
his own. There are also coins depicting Apollo driving
the chariot of the Sun on a shield Constantine is
holding and another in 312 shows the Christian chi-rho
on a helmet Constantine is wearing.
An example of "staring eyes" on later Constantine
coinage.The great staring eyes in the iconography of
Constantine, though not specifically Christian, show
how official images were moving away from early
imperial conventions of realistic portrayal towards
schematic representations: the Emperor as Emperor, not
merely as this particular individual Constantine, with
his characteristic broad jaw and cleft chin. The large
staring eyes will loom larger as the 4th century
progresses: compare the early 5th century silver
coinage of Theodosius I

I NEVER SAID MARY WAS A PROSTITUTE, YOU DID...
PLEASE READ AGAIN...

I SAID...

however, mary magdalene was untouched, could it be
because jesus stood up for her instead of letting her
be stoned? imagine if you will, in perfect, fluent
greek, the books of john were penned, but no greek
speaking disciple was alive at the time to write, but
if mary did write these books, who would go against
her with the fear of God rising from the dead and
ascending, might come back for vengence if they
touched mary?

AND YOU SAID...

There is no evidence that Mary was a prostitute. Are
you getting your information from outdated sources?
Now what does this have to do with what I said?
Nothing really, you're just ranting to rant.

AND DEPENDING ON WHICH VERSION OF KJV YOU READ, IT
WILL SAY SOMETHING EQUAL AS THIS...BUT THERE IS MORE.
I WILL SHOW YOU AS DOING THE SAME AS THE PHARISSEES,
AND AS LUCIFER IN THE GARDEN WHEN HE SAID TO EVE, "DID
NOT GOD SAY YOU WILL BE AS GODS KNOWING GOOD AND
EVIL?"

READY?...

JOHN 8;1-11

Gospel According to Saint John
< prev | Chapter 8 | next >
The woman taken in adultery. Christ justifies his
doctrine.

1 And Jesus went unto mount Olivet. 2 And early in the
morning he came again into the temple, and all the
people came to him, and sitting down he taught them. 3
And the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a
woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the
midst, 4 And said to him: Master, this woman was even
now taken in adultery. 5 Now Moses in the law
commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest
thou?
6 And this they said tempting him, that they might
accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with
his finger on the ground. 7 When therefore they
continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said
to them: He that is without sin among you, let him
first cast a stone at her. 8 And again stooping down,
he wrote on the ground. 9 But they hearing this, went
out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus
alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman,
where are they that accused thee? Hath no man
condemned thee?
11 Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither
will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more. 12 Again
therefore, Jesus spoke to them, saying: I am the light
of the world: he that followeth me, walketh not in
darkness, but shall have the light of life. 13 The
Pharisees therefore said to him: Thou givest testimony
of thyself: thy testimony is not true. 14 Jesus
answered, and said to them: Although I give testimony
of myself, my testimony is true: for I know whence I
came, and whither I go: but you know not whence I
come, or whither I go. 15 You judge according to the
flesh: I judge not any man.
16 And if I do judge, my judgment is true: because I
am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. 17
And in your law it is written, that the testimony of
two men is true. 18 I am one that give testimony of
myself: and the Father that sent me giveth testimony
of me. 19 They said therefore to him: Where is thy
Father? Jesus answered: Neither me do you know, nor my
Father: if you did know me, perhaps you would know my
Father also. 20 These words Jesus spoke in the
treasury, teaching in the temple: and no man laid
hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.
21 Again therefore Jesus said to them: I go, and you
shall seek me, and you shall die in your sin. Whither
I go, you cannot come. 22 The Jews therefore said:
Will he kill himself, because he said: Whither I go,
you cannot come? 23 And he said to them: You are from
beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am
not of this world. 24 Therefore I said to you, that
you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not
that I am he, you shall die in your sin. 25 They said
therefore to him: Who art thou? Jesus said to them:
The beginning, who also speak unto you.
26 Many things I have to speak and to judge of you.
But he that sent me, is true: and the things I have
heard of him, these same I speak in the world. 27 And
they understood not, that he called God his Father. 28
Jesus therefore said to them: When you shall have
lifted up the Son of man, then shall you know, that I
am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the
Father hath taught me, these things I speak: 29 And he
that sent me, is with me, and he hath not left me
alone: for I do always the things that please him. 30
When he spoke these things, many believed in him.
31 Then Jesus said to those Jews, who believed him: If
you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples
indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth
shall make you free. 33 They answered him: We are the
seed of Abraham, and we have never been slaves to any
man: how sayest thou: you shall be free? 34 Jesus
answered them: Amen, amen I say unto you: that
whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin. 35
Now the servant abideth not in the house for ever; but
the son abideth for ever.
36 If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall
be free indeed. 37 I know that you are the children of
Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath
no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen
with my Father: and you do the things that you have
seen with your father. 39 They answered, and said to
him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If
you be the children of Abraham, do the works of
Abraham. 40 But now you seek to kill me, a man who
have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of
God. This Abraham did not.
41 You do the works of your father. They said
therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we
have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus therefore said to
them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love
me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not
of myself, but he sent me: 43 Why do you not know my
speech? Because you cannot hear my word. 44 You are of
your father the devil, and the desires of your father
you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and
he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in
him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own:
for he is a liar, and the father thereof. 45 But if I
say the truth, you believe me not.
46 Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the
truth to you, why do you not believe me? 47 He that is
of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear
them not, because you are not of God. 48 The Jews
therefore answered, and said to him: Do not we say
well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? 49
Jesus answered: I have not a devil: but I honour my
Father, and you have dishonoured me. 50 But I seek not
my own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.
51 Amen, amen I say to you: If any man keep my word,
he shall not see death for ever. 52 The Jews therefore
said: Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is
dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest: If any man
keep my word, he shall not taste death for ever. 53
Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead?
and the prophets are dead. Whom dost thou make
thyself? 54 Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my
glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me,
of whom you say that he is your God. 55 And you have
not known him, but I know him. And if I shall say that
I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I
do know him, and do keep his word.
56 Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my
day: he saw it, and was glad. 57 The Jews therefore
said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and
hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said to them: Amen,
amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. 59
They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But
Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION IS:

What is the view of women in the Bible? This seems to be a question that people throughout history and in our modern time want to answer. Was Jesus and Paul really anti women or is there more to it than the ‘plain reading’ of the text?

ANSWER:

AS FAR AS PAUL IS CONCERNED, IT IS OF NO INTEREST TO ME, NOW AS FOR JESUS, NO NO NO HE IS NOT ANTI-WOMAN...

ANYHOW, I COULD GO ON AND ON, BUT I AM NOT LIKE YOU...
DONT TAKE MY WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT...

[Mjornir]

by the way, da vinci later denounced his previous work...

[lilpixieofterror]

first, i never said that there were no woman of power
(that is you circumventing my QOUTE "RANTINGS"
UNQUOTE)...
PLEASE SHUT UP AND READ WHAT I SAID AGAIN...

Maybe if you were coherant instead of a rambler, I might be able to respond. Nobody has a clue what you're talking about or what this has to do with a word I said, but whatever.


I SAID...

however, mary magdalene was untouched, could it be
because jesus stood up for her instead of letting her
be stoned? imagine if you will, in perfect, fluent
greek, the books of john were penned, but no greek
speaking disciple was alive at the time to write, but
if mary did write these books, who would go against
her with the fear of God rising from the dead and
ascending, might come back for vengence if they
touched mary?

And this has want to do with my argument? :shrug:


“My dear child, it was not Mary Magdalene's royal
blood that concerned the Church so much as it was her
consorting with Christ, who also had royal blood. As
you know, the Book of Matthew tells us that Jesus was
of the House of David. A descendant of King Solomon
–King of the Jews. By marrying into the powerful
House of Benjamin, Jesus fused two royal bloodlines,
creating a potent political union with the potential
of making a legitimate claim to the throne and
restoring the line of kings as it was under Solomon.”
–Teabing (249)

:rofl: Using the Da Vinchi code for source work. HAHAHAHA! There are several books refuting that nonsense and only an idiot would believe that. Now do you have a source that is written by scholars or just a non-expert? The rest or your ranting post is more uses of crappy source work with a non-expert in the field combined with just plan incomptence that didn't refute a word I said nor did it answer anything. Keep trying...


AS FAR AS PAUL IS CONCERNED, IT IS OF NO INTEREST TO ME, NOW AS FOR JESUS, NO NO NO HE IS NOT ANTI-WOMAN...

In other words... you don't care what my argument is or what it is directed at, you just want to rant. :ahem: Do you have a real source on any of your ranting or is Dan Brown and Wikipedia the only source work you have? Pick up some serious scholarly work and stop using crappy sources.


ANYHOW, I COULD GO ON AND ON, BUT I AM NOT LIKE YOU...
DONT TAKE MY WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT.

Your words were not taken in context and were discussed as such. The fact you use such crappy source work such as Dan Brown shows me that you haven't ever read a serious book or article on the subject. How about you actually refute my words instead of ranting or would that be too hard?

[Mjornir]

There is one more thing that should be taken in when reading this passage. It's the historical context of it all. Up until recent times, as in the 1900's some time, churches were segregated by sex. And what was happening in the church of Corinth was that women were standing up and yelling across the church asking their husbands what the preacher meant. Paul was probably addressing that problem of this particular church. It is most likely a statement to the women in that church to keep quiet and not be an interruption to the service. The reason for this is most likely because the women at the time were uneducated and simply did not understand what was being said.

Corinth was a church that had many problems with their women, because the culture of that city had women set up on a pedestal. So whenever Paul addresses women in Corinth it was because they were causing problems that other churches of the time didn't have.

Now I am not trying to say that this is the definitive answer to this question, but it is what makes the most sense to me.




NOW THIS IS ACCEPTABLE....CONGRADS!!!:pray:

[Mjornir]

Maybe if you were coherant instead of a rambler, I might be able to respond. Nobody has a clue what you're talking about or what this has to do with a word I said, but whatever.



And this has want to do with my argument? :shrug:



:rofl: Using the Da Vinchi code for source work. HAHAHAHA! There are several books refuting that nonsense and only an idiot would believe that. Now do you have a source that is written by scholars or just a non-expert? The rest or your ranting post is more uses of crappy source work with a non-expert in the field combined with just plan incomptence that didn't refute a word I said nor did it answer anything. Keep trying...



In other words... you don't care what my argument is or what it is directed at, you just want to rant. :ahem: Do you have a real source on any of your ranting or is Dan Brown and Wikipedia the only source work you have? Pick up some serious scholarly work and stop using crappy sources.



Your words were not taken in context and were discussed as such. The fact you use such crappy source work such as Dan Brown shows me that you haven't ever read a serious book or article on the subject. How about you actually refute my words instead of ranting or would that be too hard?



LIKE I SAID, I AM NOT LIKE YOU AT ALL...YOU TAKE EVERYTHING OUT OF CONTEXT...
YOU ARE A VERSE-PICKER AND A WORD TWISTER...
DA VINCI IS NOT SOURCEWORK AND WITHOUT LOOKING AT MY MESSAGE TO YOU, I WILL TELL YOU WHAT IT HAD TO DO WITH..
YOU SAID CONSTANTINE WAS A CHRISTIAN. UNFORTUNATELY YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT THE INFO YOU GOT WHICH GAVE YOU THE IDEA IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS IN FACT BASED ON WHAT DI VINCI WROTE AS HE IS THE ONE WHO NOTED THE IDEA.
FURTHERMORE, YOU SAID YOU NEVER SAID MARY WAS A PROSTITUTE (IMPLYING @ THE TIME, THE NOTION THAT I SAID THAT YOU DID, WHEN I NEVER SAID IT IN THE FIRST PLACE), WHEN THE BIBLE ONLY SAYS SHE WAS CAUGHT IN THE ACT OF ADULTERY, BUT IN EITHER CASE, DA VINCI MADE THE CLAIM THAT MARY AND JESUS WERE IN A RELATION ONLY TO DESTROY THE IDEA THAT JESUS IS GOD IN THE FLESH(JUST IN CASE YOU WANT TO ARGUE-ONE OF THE MANY BOOKS OF JOHN((FORGIVE ME FOR NOT MAKING A COMPLETE VERSE LOCATION-I JUST GOT OFF WORK AND I AM TIRED)), "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND THE WORD WAS GOD-" AND AS YOU READ-"AND THE WORD BECAME FLESH AND DWELT AMONG US-"

NOW, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS VIA DA VINCI IN WHICH HE CONFESSED HE MADE IT UP...
ALSO, THE MESSAGE IN REGARDS TO CONSTANTINE,IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT I LEFT YOU, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE IDEA IS HE WAS BAPTIZED PRIOR TO DEATH, BUT THERE IS OTHER ACCOUNTS THAT SUGGEST HE WAS BAPTIZED EVEN EARLIER, BUT THE STORY REMAINS THE SAME IN WHICH AFTER HE WAS BAPTIZD AND LATER DIED, HE LEFT A DONATION OF CONTROL OF ALL ROME TO THE PAPACY(POPE).
LATER (LIKE MANY MOONS LATER), IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FORGED AND NOT FROM CONSTANTINE...
SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE, SIMPLY PUT, CONSTANTINE WAS BORN, RAISE AS A PAGAN, AND DIED AS A PAGAN....

THIS IS THE DEFAULT TRUTH WHETHER YOU ACCEPT IT OR NOT, I-REALLY-DON'T-CARE.
JESUS TOLD THE PHARISEES THE TRUTH, AND THEY LISTENED NOT, DO YOU THINK I EXPECT ANY DIFFERENT FROM YOU?NOT ON YOUR PETTY LIFE, AND YES!!! I AM JUST PASSING THROUGH...

YOU WALK AROUND THINKING YOU KNOW WHAT IS, JUST BECAUSE SOME ELSE HAS A DEGREE AND TELLS YOU IT... I COULD POINT OUT MANY DETAILS IN THE BIBLE THAT WOULD SHAKE YOUR (QUOTE) FAITH (UNQUOTE) TO THE GROUND...

TRY THIS...

PETER, COME TO ME...

BUT LORD, YOU IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LAKE...

PETER....

AAAAGGGGHHHHH, I CANT SWIM!!!!!!

OH YE OF LITTLE FAITH.................


WHAT DO YOU THINK JESUS WAS TRYING TO TEACH PETER?
WHAT DO YOU THINK JESUS MEANS WHEN HE SAYS WE MUST BECOME AS HE IS?
WHAT WAS THE REAL PURPOSE GOD HAD MOSES SET THE HEBREWS FREE FROM EGYPT?
WHY DID JESUS ON THE MOUNT OF OLIVES PRAY TO THE FATHER IF HIS (JESUS')CUP COULD BE PASSED TO ANOTHER?
WHO IS CAIN'S REAL FATHER?
WHY DID JACOB BARTER A BOWL OF SOUP FOR ESAU'S BIRTHRIGHT?
WHAT IS THE REASON CAIN KILLED ABLE?
WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE FIRST "ADAM"?
WHY DID JESUS RIDE THE BABY JACKASS INTO TOWN? WHERE IS THE MENTION OF THE BABY'S MOTHER? AND WAS IT REALLY A PROPHECY? OR A PLOY?


AS I SAID, I COULD GO ON AND ON...
IF YOU ARE AS KNOWLEDGEABLE AS YOU THINK YOU ARE, ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS...

MY WAY OF THINKING IS UNORTHODOX ( I GRANT YOU THAT), HOWEVER, MY CONCLUSIONS ARE EQUAL IF NOT BETTER...
IM NOT IGNORANT AS YOU WOULD WISH, SO LETS BE CONSIDERATE...


WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?
THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEOLOGISTS, IF YOU WILL, HAVE FORGOTTEN WHO GOD REALLY IS. YOU ALL(AGAIN, THE VAST MAJORITY) DONT REALIZE THAT EVEN LUCIFER DOESNT BELEIVE THAT OUR HEAVENLY FATHER EXISTS, WHICH IS WHY HE THINKS HE CAN WIN.
OUT OF EVERY THING YOU CLAIM TO KNOW, YOU ACTUALLY DONT KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL EXCEPT HOW TO MANIPULATE THE WORD OF GOD FOR YOUR OWN GAIN.
YOU RIDICULED (AT LEAST I AM ASSUMING) ANOTHER BY IMPOSING AND IMPLYING HOW YOU HAVE THE DEFAULT VEIW ABOUT WHAT PAUL SAID/MEANT IN REGARDS TO WOMEN IN THE CHURCH...
HMMM, DEFAULT VEIW=THE AVERAGE VEIW=THE NORM=MAN=PURE FOLLY....
SEEK THE WIDOM OF GOD, NOT OF SOME GUY W/ A DEGREE SAYING THE SUN IS GREEN, WHEN IN FACT IT IS RED BLUE, AND YELLOW (JUST AS A @$$COVER, IR,UV, AND VISIBLE LIGHT)......

TIME FOR A SMOKE!!! AND SPARE ME ABOUT CIGS ARE A SIN, AFTER ALL, GOD GAVE MAN DOMINION OVER THE EARTH-SO I DONT CARE TO HEAR IT...:eek:

[lilpixieofterror]

LIKE I SAID, I AM NOT LIKE YOU AT ALL...YOU TAKE EVERYTHING OUT OF CONTEXT...
YOU ARE A VERSE-PICKER AND A WORD TWISTER...

Yeah whatever.


DA VINCI IS NOT SOURCEWORK AND WITHOUT LOOKING AT MY MESSAGE TO YOU, I WILL TELL YOU WHAT IT HAD TO DO WITH..

Sure it is your source work. All you have presented thus far is a few quotes from the book. I know who Teabing is and I know that much of what he says is utter nonsense. But who needs fact, when we have you tell us everything!


YOU SAID CONSTANTINE WAS A CHRISTIAN. UNFORTUNATELY YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT THE INFO YOU GOT WHICH GAVE YOU THE IDEA IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS IN FACT BASED ON WHAT DI VINCI WROTE AS HE IS THE ONE WHO NOTED THE IDEA.

The idea that he was a Christian comes from sources about 1,000 years before Da Vinci's birth. In fact, close to Constantine's death, he was baptized as a Christian. So whine all you want that the idea came from Da Vinchi, but it didn't. Yet again... poor source works = stupid argument.


FURTHERMORE, YOU SAID YOU NEVER SAID MARY WAS A PROSTITUTE (IMPLYING @ THE TIME, THE NOTION THAT I SAID THAT YOU DID, WHEN I NEVER SAID IT IN THE FIRST PLACE), WHEN THE BIBLE ONLY SAYS SHE WAS CAUGHT IN THE ACT OF ADULTERY,

The Bible says nothing of the sort stupid. Those two women are most likely different women. The connection to Mary was made centuries latter by a sermon by a pope and in the 20th century, the RCC offically removed Mary from the label of a prostitute. Like I said, poor source on your part as made you use one stupid argumen tafter another. The bible says nothing of the sort, stop getting your information from Dan Brown and start reading some in depth books on the topic.


BUT IN EITHER CASE, DA VINCI MADE THE CLAIM THAT MARY AND JESUS WERE IN A RELATION ONLY TO DESTROY THE IDEA THAT JESUS IS GOD IN THE FLESH(JUST IN CASE YOU WANT TO ARGUE-ONE OF THE MANY BOOKS OF JOHN((FORGIVE ME FOR NOT MAKING A COMPLETE VERSE LOCATION-I JUST GOT OFF WORK AND I AM TIRED)), "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND THE WORD WAS GOD-" AND AS YOU READ-"AND THE WORD BECAME FLESH AND DWELT AMONG US-"

Da Vinchi made no such claim and you're not going to those claims in his personal note books. Sorry stupid, but you will not find in the early traditions of Mary and Jesus having any kind of sexual relationship and the only evidence that Dan Brown has is from the Gospel of Mary (that was written over 300 years after the Gospels) and even the Gospel of Mary makes no such claims. Like I said, do your homework and stop using Dan Brown for your source work.


NOW, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS VIA DA VINCI IN WHICH HE CONFESSED HE MADE IT UP...

Ummm nope, you just have believing whatever Dan Brown tells you without reason or thinking. :ahem:


ALSO, THE MESSAGE IN REGARDS TO CONSTANTINE,IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT I LEFT YOU, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE IDEA IS HE WAS BAPTIZED PRIOR TO DEATH, BUT THERE IS OTHER ACCOUNTS THAT SUGGEST HE WAS BAPTIZED EVEN EARLIER, BUT THE STORY REMAINS THE SAME IN WHICH AFTER HE WAS BAPTIZD AND LATER DIED, HE LEFT A DONATION OF CONTROL OF ALL ROME TO THE PAPACY(POPE).

And another error of yours. The country of the Roman Empire was not left to the pope at all and you'd be hard pressed to find anybody making such claims. Hey, who needs real source woek when we have Dan Brown to tell us everything we want to hear?


LATER (LIKE MANY MOONS LATER), IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FORGED AND NOT FROM CONSTANTINE...
SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE, SIMPLY PUT, CONSTANTINE WAS BORN, RAISE AS A PAGAN, AND DIED AS A PAGAN....

Nobody claimed moron that they were from Constantine. :doh: They are from an historian and nobody claimed that Constantine was not a pagan earlier in his life. More gross errors you are caught in. Sorry stupid, but agian you'd be hard pressed to present evidence for your claim. Do you have any or do you just have assertions from your scholar (Dan Brown)?


THIS IS THE DEFAULT TRUTH WHETHER YOU ACCEPT IT OR NOT, I-REALLY-DON'T-CARE.
JESUS TOLD THE PHARISEES THE TRUTH, AND THEY LISTENED NOT, DO YOU THINK I EXPECT ANY DIFFERENT FROM YOU?NOT ON YOUR PETTY LIFE, AND YES!!! I AM JUST PASSING THROUGH...

I think you're an idiot and you keep showing it by using crappy source work or assertions that don't fit in with history, but whatever you want to believe.


YOU WALK AROUND THINKING YOU KNOW WHAT IS, JUST BECAUSE SOME ELSE HAS A DEGREE AND TELLS YOU IT... I COULD POINT OUT MANY DETAILS IN THE BIBLE THAT WOULD SHAKE YOUR (QUOTE) FAITH (UNQUOTE) TO THE GROUND...

I doubt it, but you are pretty arrogant and downright clueless on everything, but for my own entertainment, I think I'll crush you just for fun.


TRY THIS...

PETER, COME TO ME...

BUT LORD, YOU IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LAKE...

PETER....

AAAAGGGGHHHHH, I CANT SWIM!!!!!!

OH YE OF LITTLE FAITH.................

That was in Mark, but that isn't how it went. What this has to do with anything... I have no idea... :ahem: I guess this is more of your ranting?


WHAT DO YOU THINK JESUS WAS TRYING TO TEACH PETER?

To have faith.


WHAT DO YOU THINK JESUS MEANS WHEN HE SAYS WE MUST BECOME AS HE IS?

What verse are you talking about? Got a quote on that?


WHAT WAS THE REAL PURPOSE GOD HAD MOSES SET THE HEBREWS FREE FROM EGYPT?

To establish the Jewish people as his choosen people and to give them back the land he promissed their faither?


WHY DID JESUS ON THE MOUNT OF OLIVES PRAY TO THE FATHER IF HIS (JESUS')CUP COULD BE PASSED TO ANOTHER?

Because his human side was crying out to God. Might want to try to learn about about Molinism, it would do you a load of good at this point.


WHO IS CAIN'S REAL FATHER?

Adam, have any evidence he isn't?


WHY DID JACOB BARTER A BOWL OF SOUP FOR ESAU'S BIRTHRIGHT?

What does this have to do with anything?


blah blah blah balh...

You sure have a hard time keeping on topic, huh?


AS I SAID, I COULD GO ON AND ON...
IF YOU ARE AS KNOWLEDGEABLE AS YOU THINK YOU ARE, ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS...

I answered them before and answered them again. You're just don't like the answers, so you repeat it again and again and hope it changes. :lol:


MY WAY OF THINKING IS UNORTHODOX ( I GRANT YOU THAT), HOWEVER, MY CONCLUSIONS ARE EQUAL IF NOT BETTER...
IM NOT IGNORANT AS YOU WOULD WISH, SO LETS BE CONSIDERATE...

You are very dumb and your ranting and off topic questions prove that. Your conclusions are not equal or better, they are crap that downright ignores real history and what the Bible clearly says. Keep believing whatever you want to hear, that is much better than arguments, huh?


WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?
THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEOLOGISTS, IF YOU WILL, HAVE FORGOTTEN WHO GOD REALLY IS. YOU ALL(AGAIN, THE VAST MAJORITY) DONT REALIZE THAT EVEN LUCIFER DOESNT BELEIVE THAT OUR HEAVENLY FATHER EXISTS, WHICH IS WHY HE THINKS HE CAN WIN.

Anybody figure out how this moron comes to these conclusions?


OUT OF EVERY THING YOU CLAIM TO KNOW, YOU ACTUALLY DONT KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL EXCEPT HOW TO MANIPULATE THE WORD OF GOD FOR YOUR OWN GAIN.

Prove it, I have provided source work for my claims as well as Bible verses that agree with me. You have presented crap from Dan Brown that is laughed at by serious scholars. Gosh... who should others believe?


YOU RIDICULED (AT LEAST I AM ASSUMING) ANOTHER BY IMPOSING AND IMPLYING HOW YOU HAVE THE DEFAULT VEIW ABOUT WHAT PAUL SAID/MEANT IN REGARDS TO WOMEN IN THE CHURCH...

Yep, and rightfully so. :thumb: Just as I ridicule you for ranting like a moron.


HMMM, DEFAULT VEIW=THE AVERAGE VEIW=THE NORM=MAN=PURE FOLLY....
SEEK THE WIDOM OF GOD, NOT OF SOME GUY W/ A DEGREE SAYING THE SUN IS GREEN, WHEN IN FACT IT IS RED BLUE, AND YELLOW (JUST AS A @$$COVER, IR,UV, AND VISIBLE LIGHT)......

Does this ranting have a point? Are you going to prov eme wrong yet or just rant and rant some more?


TIME FOR A SMOKE!!! AND SPARE ME ABOUT CIGS ARE A SIN, AFTER ALL, GOD GAVE MAN DOMINION OVER THE EARTH-SO I DONT CARE TO HEAR IT...:eek:

So you're done ranting? Come back when you want to rant again!

[Mjornir]

you know lpix, i gave you some very simply questions and instead of answering them correctly, or at least trying to do so, you simply go into your retoric... you are are not very bright and you show it well...you continually act ignorant in your ideas and play this "ranting" card because you dont have the balls to try...anyone with real knowldgeable wisdom would see that GOD had moses go through all he did as GOD said for him to do it when instead of 120 to the promised land, moses could have became pharoah as he was very favored by his assumed father (i dont recall his name-this is a point for you,HAHAHA), but instead of diong it as an egyptian, GOD revealed to him who he really was and he chose to become a "hebrew" over "egyptian"...
mose is the current branch at the time to sire the next "ADAM" in order to continue the bloodline towards jesus, and GOD simply had moses go through the weed out process as done with abraham, however, moses did not make it to the promised land because he struck the rock instead of speaking to it the second time around...
i did have a question to ask you, but unfortunately i already know you are an idiot in disguise and i already have a 75/25% idea as to what your answer would be, so i am not going to waste time with it...
i have tried more times with you than jesus requires, and i am now brushing my feet of you...
good luck in life with your stupidity, you've earned the ignorant award...

[lilpixieofterror]

you know lpix, i gave you some very simply questions and instead of answering them correctly, or at least trying to do so, you simply go into your retoric...

You mean like answering them the way you want them answered. :lol: Sorry, but I don't have to play by your rules, despite how much you think I do.


you are are not very bright and you show it well...

Might want to tell my teachers, peers, and IQ test that one. At college level courses I continue to get A's and B's, in my job I countinue to impress my peers by my level of knowledge and expertise, and my IQ test put me in the gifted to boarderline genious area. How about you?


you continually act ignorant in your ideas and play this "ranting" card because you dont have the balls to try...anyone with real knowldgeable wisdom would see that GOD had moses go through all he did as GOD said for him to do it when instead of 120 to the promised land, moses could have became pharoah as he was very favored by his assumed father (i dont recall his name-this is a point for you,HAHAHA),

Since I'm a female and not a male... that is correct I don't have those body parts. In all serious though... God did not promise the Jewish people Egypt, he promissed them the near east. Do try to play attention. And second, what in the world does this have to do with a word I said reguarding my article? :shrug:


but instead of diong it as an egyptian, GOD revealed to him who he really was and he chose to become a "hebrew" over "egyptian"...

Because the Jewish people are God's choosen people that were destined to give rise to the Messiah that would crush the serpant in Genesis 3 (just as God said). If you stopped to notice, God continued to narrow down the group, time, place, etc that would do this throughout the OT. Until you arrive at the 1st century AD with a man named Jesus. That is why God revealed himself to the Hebrews. It seems you are too stuck in your ideas to notice that little fact.


mose is the current branch at the time to sire the next "ADAM" in order to continue the bloodline towards jesus, and GOD simply had moses go through the weed out process as done with abraham, however, moses did not make it to the promised land because he struck the rock instead of speaking to it the second time around...

Moses is not part of the blood line of Christ at all. In Edodus 2 we discovery that Moses is part of the house of Levi and not of the house of Judah in which David was a member of that lead up to Jesus (Matthew 1 and Luke 3). Although Moses and Jesus were distiant relatives (both are related to Abraham and Isaac) Moses had little to do with the acual blood line of Christ. What on earth this has to do with my article... I have no idea. But you are sure good at going off on tangets that have absolutly nothing to do with the topic in question.


i did have a question to ask you, but unfortunately i already know you are an idiot in disguise and i already have a 75/25% idea as to what your answer would be, so i am not going to waste time with it...

What is the problem... I didn't answer things the way you want so I must be an idiot. :lol: Gosh, by that logic you didn't answer things they way I wanted so you must be an idiot. Pretty easy game to play I see. Maybe if you gave the relevance to this 1,000 question and answer game and how it at all petarians to the topic, I might actually take you serious. For now I just think you're a ranting looney.


i have tried more times with you than jesus requires, and i am now brushing my feet of you...
good luck in life with your stupidity, you've earned the ignorant award...

Never admit defeat eh? The true path of a fundy who is so stuck in his ways that he doesn't care what the truth is, he just wants excuses to further seed his own beliefs. Thanks for showing everybody who the fool here really is. It sure isn't me (I actually answered you in full) it is the person who goes off on 10 tangents that has absolutly nothing to do with the topic in question. Don't worry, you have already earned yourself one screwball, maybe you can go for two or three before the month is up.

[Mjornir]

show one that you answered...properly....
all you have done is deviate around the question rather than answer it...
and now you run off with the mouth acting like you have something to prove...
as i said, i am not like you at all...
everyone is entitled to their opinions, and i can live with that, but can you?
i am not going to waste the rest of my life on some one who knows it all...
but i do have a scenario for you...

if you had a loving family to go home to, and on one dark and lonely night after "bussiness"(if you will), you arrived home and found a group of thugs at your family's throat and as they walked out with them, leaving you behind with the instructions, "EITHER YOU COMMIT A PARTICULAR CRIME, OR YOUR FAMILY PERISHES", what would you do?
i just thought i would ask, after all, i was a tow truck driver for 3 years and had to tell clients get out of the way of traffic bcus as much as i would like to say i would take that hit for you, i would not want to be put to the test only to find out i may not do so...
but it was a rather awkward question, i know...
of course you dont have to answer, since i can guess what it would be...
if you are destined for heaven, then the default is i am destined for hell, so be it....

good luck with the road you walk.....

[lilpixieofterror]

show one that you answered...properly....
all you have done is deviate around the question rather than answer it...
and now you run off with the mouth acting like you have something to prove...
as i said, i am not like you at all...
everyone is entitled to their opinions, and i can live with that, but can you?
i am not going to waste the rest of my life on some one who knows it all...
but i do have a scenario for you...

Read above and prove me wrong please.


if you had a loving family to go home to, and on one dark and lonely night after "bussiness"(if you will), you arrived home and found a group of thugs at your family's throat and as they walked out with them, leaving you behind with the instructions, "EITHER YOU COMMIT A PARTICULAR CRIME, OR YOUR FAMILY PERISHES", what would you do?

What does this have to do with my article? NOTHING! So can you give something that actually has something to do with my article?


i just thought i would ask, after all, i was a tow truck driver for 3 years and had to tell clients get out of the way of traffic bcus as much as i would like to say i would take that hit for you, i would not want to be put to the test only to find out i may not do so...
but it was a rather awkward question, i know...
of course you dont have to answer, since i can guess what it would be...
if you are destined for heaven, then the default is i am destined for hell, so be it....

good luck with the road you walk.....

Anybody care to explain what this has to do with my article? I'm sure lost...

[journeyman]

Good Article. If Jesus had wanted to say, "i want no women preachers!" he could have done so. It would have been notable,and thus recorded. (contrasting with his inclusive attitude to all and sundry.)
There is no male or female in Christ, so each have to use their Pauline listed talents to build up the unity of the body.
If Jesus had wanted a book of rules to be built up, the bible, and applied as rulescontrary to the spirit of the matter, he would have praised the teachers of the law, not chastised them.

[Mjornir]

thanks journeyman

finally a real-life person in Christ that i can related with...
this is exactly what i was trying to point out, however LPoT keeps deviating around the issue like acting smart is the same as being wise...
as i mentioned earlier, to hell with what paul said and consider what Jesus said...Jesus IS the light, not paul, not man...
anyways LPoT, i am tired, cranky, and not feelin' your BS, so get a clue, maybe journeyman might have more success at ironing you out, but i am done with you, 3 is the charm, and i am wiping my feet...

[lilpixieofterror]

thanks journeyman

finally a real-life person in Christ that i can related with...

Awww, so only those you like are True ChristiansTM eh?


this is exactly what i was trying to point out, however LPoT keeps deviating around the issue like acting smart is the same as being wise...

Prove me wrong... still waiting...


as i mentioned earlier, to hell with what paul said and consider what Jesus said...Jesus IS the light, not paul, not man...

Again idiot, the article is specifically dealing with Paul and dealing with this one issue. In other words... it is not about anything Jesus said, not about anything in the OT, and not about anything else other than this specific issue and this specific verse. Do you have a problem processing this complicated logic or do I need to dim it down for you to understand?


anyways LPoT, i am tired, cranky, and not feelin' your BS, so get a clue, maybe journeyman might have more success at ironing you out, but i am done with you, 3 is the charm, and i am wiping my feet...

So you embarassed yourself in front of everybody, can't prove me wrong, and too dumb to understand that the article is dealing with this issue only, so saying, "Duh, what about Jesus!" does not address the article at all. All in all... you failed to prove anything more than you're an idiot that nobody should listen to. I'm still waiting for what in the world your ranting has to do with a word I said or what my article was about. Are you going to provide an answer for that someday?

[Mjornir]

1 Corth 14:29-36, a closer look.

What is the view of women in the Bible? This seems to be a question that people throughout history and in our modern time want to answer. Was Jesus and Paul really anti women or is there more to it than the ‘plain reading’ of the text?

So you embarassed yourself in front of everybody, can't prove me wrong, and too dumb to understand that the article is dealing with this issue only, so saying, "Duh, what about Jesus!" does not address the article at all. All in all... you failed to prove anything more than you're an idiot that nobody should listen to. I'm still waiting for what in the world your ranting has to do with a word I said or what my article was about. Are you going to provide an answer for that someday?

ok, the first para is the excerp of the article. the second para is the excerp of you belittleing me with the "whats this got to do with my article BS.

the " "Duh, what about Jesus!" does not address the article at all. "
does address the article, where as you ask a stupid Q about whether or not these individuals are anti-women, and as usual i am pointing out to you that for 1: it does not matter what paul is or is not saying, and for 2:listen to what Jesus has to say.
simply put: if Jesus is anti-women, then mary (magdalene) would not be the first to witness Christ-crucified/ressurected/accended.
the answer you are seeking (but dont want to hear) is "NO!!!", our Lord Jesus is NOT anti-women...
and for you to ask a stupid Q as this, suggests to me that YOU ARE...

you have been shown this the whole time, but like most, you only listen to what you WANT to hear (like most christians)...

now, where in HELL (a.k.a.: the world) did you ever get the idea that anything i said was in regards to your article?
everything was in regards to you, pretending to be something you are not...
you sit there and belittle every person who disagrees with you, you are haughty, and blind to the truth... there is so much in what is left of the bible that you dont know because you are blind to it...

thanks journeyman

finally a real-life person in Christ that i can related with...
Awww, so only those you like are True ChristiansTM eh?

sorry ya lil'faerie, i can only like true christians, cant like devils in sheep's clothing, or posers for that matter

as i mentioned earlier, to hell with what paul said and consider what Jesus said...Jesus IS the light, not paul, not man...

Again idiot, the article is specifically dealing with Paul and dealing with this one issue. In other words... it is not about anything Jesus said, not about anything in the OT, and not about anything else other than this specific issue and this specific verse. Do you have a problem processing this complicated logic or do I need to dim it down for you to understand?

an excerp from YOUR words:

What is the view of women in the Bible? This seems to be a question that people throughout history and in our modern time want to answer. Was Jesus and Paul really anti women or is there more to it than the ‘plain reading’ of the text?

this is exactly what i was trying to point out, however LPoT keeps deviating around the issue like acting smart is the same as being wise...

Prove me wrong... still waiting...

this is exactly what i was trying to point out, however LPoT keeps deviating around the issue like acting smart is the same as being wise...

Again idiot, the article is specifically dealing with Paul and dealing with this one issue. In other words... it is not about anything Jesus said, not about anything in the OT, and not about anything else other than this specific issue and this specific verse. Do you have a problem processing this complicated logic or do I need to dim it down for you to understand?

correction lil'faerie, it has EVERYTHING to do with Jesus.

point: has nothing to do with how paul feels toward women, it has everything to do with Jesus because to brought it up, and the only real issue is you trying to gather brownie points to cover a possibility that you might be anti-women yourself or a gathering of praise as the one who noted the subject...

so because you keep deviating, i will ask you one question bluntly, and i do expect a one-word-answer as either a "YES" or a "NO"...

are you anti-women or one who holds a grudge against women in general?

[lilpixieofterror]

This didn't answer my article at all. Try again.

[Mjornir]

This didn't answer my article at all. Try again.

again, you deviated... you dont read so well, this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with your article, but everything to do with WHY you chose it for your article...
ONLY a person who has a problem that involves women would choose a subject as this...
do you see me posting articles? NO... its bcus i dont have an issue in understanding that yes is yes and no is no...
i do have a issue with those who use bible verses/subjects and twist it to their own gain, but in this case, you lose....
in front of the forum, you have refused to answer my previous question as to were you stand among women, so by now it is obvious that i have made my point about your integrety (towards women)...
with this said, you are the one who embarressed yourself...
curiousity asks, since your article is roughly about the same time as the us presidential nominations, would this be in regards to hillary being nominated???
i think it does, but i wont press the idea against you...LOL...

from what i see, no one could answer your "article" unless they are likely to say what you want to hear....

[lilpixieofterror]

again, you deviated...

Deviated because nobody has the slightest clue what this has to do with anything. You are good at ranting though, that's for sure.


you dont read so well, this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with your article, but everything to do with WHY you chose it for your article...

So why should I care or even sit back and listen to your ranting?


ONLY a person who has a problem that involves women would choose a subject as this...
do you see me posting articles? NO... its bcus i dont have an issue in understanding that yes is yes and no is no...

Nope, you're just an idiot that can't stay on topic and actually address something that has anything to do with the topic in question. Maybe if you actually brought up something... anything that has a thing to do with the topic of my article, I wouldn't ignore your ranting.


i do have a issue with those who use bible verses/subjects and twist it to their own gain, but in this case, you lose....

You have still failed to prove that I twisted anything. The only thing you have accomplished is to show everybody that you rant and rave for paragraphs and paragraphs about absolutly nothing. I have shown your post to others and they have said the same thing. You have failed to address a single point I have made and just ranted about things that have nothing to do with what I said. Can you actually answer a single point I made?


in front of the forum, you have refused to answer my previous question as to were you stand among women, so by now it is obvious that i have made my point about your integrety (towards women)...

Because your 'questions' have ZERO to do with the topic and I'm not here to answer questions from a ranter who can't even keep the conversation on target. Are you just too stupid to understand that?


with this said, you are the one who embarressed yourself...

:ahem:


curiousity asks, since your article is roughly about the same time as the us presidential nominations, would this be in regards to hillary being nominated???
i think it does, but i wont press the idea against you...LOL...

What does this have to do with a word I said? BTW didn't vote for Hilary, so try again or do you just like ranting about absolutly nothing? :lol:


from what i see, no one could answer your "article" unless they are likely to say what you want to hear....

Nope, nobody can answer because they are too stupid to actually refute my points. You can't even stay on topic let alone refute a word i said?