I honestly don't understand why everyone is so adamantly arguing with this woman over stupid head coverings. When in most churches women do not wear such things and are not being punished for it.
So let me see if I get this straight....before the death and resurrection of Christ, Jewish men had to wear coverings on their heads because of their shame of their sin, and Paul radically does away with that tradition...but Jewish women still had to remain veiled and basically be ashamed to be born women and carry all the blame for sin, and Paul does NOTHING to do away with this for the women as he does for the men...I'm sorry, God forgive me, but can we say the words DOUBLE STANDARD???
Women had a double reason to wear the covering. It had nothing to do with being ashamed of being a woman. If they removed their covering their husband would divorce them. Paul allowed women to cover to keep their marriages and when the tradition that would cause their divorce was done away with, they would be free from the tradition to cover without risking a divorce. It was not a double standard as men only had one reason to cover and they did not risk being divorced.
It is interesting that you would choose to quote a Jewish man to discern what Christians ought to do. We are to veil because of the angels. Satan tempted the woman, and that was Satan's showing how he disregarded the Godly order of God covering man, Man covering woman. Myself, I am a woman who has come out of great darkness, and the headcovering has set me free in many ways. Those who eschew the covering in the west, have never tried it for themselves. Christianity is an experiential faith
@SilverMoonSpa the quote was not given "what Christians ought to do" but was a quote showing what the headcovering meant. It is a covering because of the shame of sin. Is that appropriate for Christians who have had their sin covered by the blood of Jesus? There is no other spiritual covering but Jesus Christ and His blood. Nothing is needed when we have Jesus. The meaning of the physical covering is clearly not Christian. We are pure before God and don't need a symbol of our old shame.
It is about head coverings which would of course cover the hair. The tradition said that a woman's head (and hair) must be covered and Paul said her hair has been given naturally by God as a covering. Same for men. He also has a natural head covering.
one thing that i don't get is everyone seems to be talking about hair coverings when this scripture is talking about head coverings and the scripture says what our head covering is .... our hair?
Should women usurp the authority of men, let alone teach. This verse has always bothered me. It has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with Gods Word! I believe it applies today as it did then!
1 Timothy 2:
[12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
[13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
[14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
John Lightfoot's comments explain the culture of that day. There are many times that we need to understand that culture to understand the hard sayings of the bible. We cannot import our 21st century culture into the bible. All respectable bible teachers know that the biblical culture is important to know and we need to seek out resources that show us what the culture of that day understood as normal that we have a hard time understanding today.
The head covering was certainly a cultural thing. If it wasn't then women would wear headcoverings today.
Also Paul does not say that that they have no "other" practice. Check out the Greek. The Greek says no "such" practice. The ESV and and others say "If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
They did not have the custom of headcoverings although the culture of that day insisted on women being covered.
We need culture to understand the bible, but we can't use our own culture to explain the bible as you did when you said that it must not have been what Paul was teaching, or we would see many Christian women wearing a covering today.Just because something is the norm does not mean it's right.
Yes, indeed we need to understand the culture to understand these hard passages. That is why I disagreed with your point that we could understand cultural passages without referencing the culture of that day.
My point about today is that the head covering has not transcended culture. If it had nothing to do with culture then it would be practiced consistently in the church. The only churches practicing the covering practice legalism.
Perhaps you can instruct me on why Paul said that if a man covered his head, that he dishonored his head which was already defined by Paul as the head of a man is "Christ"? How does wearing a head covering shame Christ?
1 Cor. 11 isn't about wearing the hair up or down. It deals with head coverings. Because it deals with the cultural issue of head coverings we should find out what the head covering symbolized. It is documented in Jewish literature.
Why do you think it is talking about about some physical object on your head? Give me scripture to show me,
because I've been looking. Why do you think Paul say in 1 Corinthians 11 that long hair is a women's glory because it was given to her for a covering. In Jewish culture, men covered their heads with a little cap. Not the same.
1 Cor. 11:6 If a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off... This verse doesn't make sense if the reference is not to a head covering. Also if a head covering is not what was meant in verse 4 then the men needed to have their head shaved in order to pray. This isn't followed anywhere else in scripture, nor is it historical. The fact is that a head covering was required for Jewish men during prayer. Paul references this custom & the custom for women to be fully covered.
1 Cor. 11:15 the Greek isn't feminine. It is generic. Hair is given to everyone equally - male and female for a covering. Check out the Greek. I would recommend that you watch the entire video because it is well presented with all the biblical arguments that are easy to follow.
You said: [If it had nothing to do with culture then it would be practiced consistently in the church. ]
There things practiced in the church today that the first churches did not practice.
Let's see...like halloween, Easter with eggs and bunnies, Christ's birth with Santa and elves. Why, all of those must be right, because churhes are doing it today!
NOT. You bring your own twisted way of worshipping into the way you understand scripture.
You have missed my point. I was talking about a view that appeared to make it mandatory for a woman to wear a head covering. The issues you brought up are not in the scripture so it is like comparing apples with oranges. Not the same. Why does Paul say that a woman is allowed to wear a head covering while a man is not?
Something being practiced today or not has nothing to do with the fact it was right do or not.
I don't know all the answers. But I do know that God says man is the glory of God, but that woman is the glory of man. The bible says that he is the glory of God so his head should not be covered. THat's what we know. We don't know everything. We just know that God said that. But since He said that we know that covering the head or not covering is related to honoring.
What scripture says is important and we need to understand if it was a cultural thing for that day or transcends culture and is for today as well.
The man is the glory of God but so is the woman. Both were created in the image of God and both are the glory of God. In addition to that the woman is also the glory of man as she was created from him.
In scripture, glory is not to be covered. Man's tradition cover's his glory as if it is shame. It should not be.
So if the woman is uncovered praying or phrophesizing, and she is the glory of man, she should be covered so that the only thing being honored is Christ. I think that is crystal clear. The question is what Paul meant by covering???? And why did he say other or such?
It isn't crystal clear. The woman does not take away from Christ. We are the glory of God and the glory is never covered. Check out the scriptures. Shame is covered. Glory is not. The only time Moses covered was when the glory was leaving his face. He did not cover his face when he had the glory of God on his face. One's glory is meant to be shown not hidden. Check the scriptures and see if I am right.
You made it seem like Paul didn't mean to say it that way, because women today don't wear them today. I just got back from a church
this past week that had women who wore coverings. I don't wear a covering, but I am open minded to not assume that just because many people don't wear it today, that it doesn't mean we shouldn't.
What I said is that if it is a sin to not wear the head covering - if it is required, we would all be wearing one. And you would be wearing one if you are a female.
And I can't believe that you say that people who want to follow the words of Paul are practicing legalism. That is a put down to people who are trying to be obedient. If they're believers and their conscious convicts them, why would you condemn them of trying to follow what they thought were right?
Same as what Pauls says about believers who strictly think that we should not eat meat offered to idols. Was that legalism too?
It is legalism if these people insist all of us must follow the cultural way because it is required. This is the definition of legalism. If one's conscience convicts them, they should follow their conscience while they search the scriptures diligently to see what is culture and what is required to please God. However in no sense of the word must those who have a weak conscience insist that all other women must be covered to please God in prayer.
If you think we shouldnt be wearing them, but you dont condemn them, then thats biblical. But as far as putting people into groups that you dislike, because theyre wearing a covering. Thats just wrong. No one was forcing anyone here to wear a covering or condemning anyone for not wearing one.
Paul gives women a choice whether they cover or don't cover depending on the culture and the issue of shame. It is not meant to pressure people to go against their conscience and Paul could not force a woman to uncover if her husband would be shamed if she showed her hair. It was considered an immoral thing for a woman to show her hair in public. The Jewish tradition allowed her husband to divorce her if she was caught in public without her hair being covered.
Paul says we could eat this meat, but in case someone's conscious convicts them otherwise ...we should not cause that person to stumble. Why would you call it legalism?
One man's faith allows him to eat everything,
but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not,
and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him...
The weak faith would cause her to be covered in worship and prayer, and Paul himself gives women permission to cover while he strictly states that a man does not have the option to cover. Yet the reason to cover is given in the passage. It is IF there is shame, then cover. In our culture for most there is no shame to show one's hair. But if one has a weak conscience, then she may cover while she studies. But again a weak brother in Christ cannot command a woman to cover her head.
Where do you get this info? Where does it say that Paul is giving women permission to cover while not letting the men the option?
Paul says : 6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 1 Corinthians 11:6
For the women it is if..then. He allows them to cover. For the men he said that covering the head for religious reasons during prayer or prophesying dishonored their head which is Christ. They must not dishonor Christ.
For the women, they must be able to make the decision (verse 10) ISV
1 Co 11:10 This is why a woman should have authority over her own head: because of the angels.
Unveiling may destroy her marriage. She must make a decision and consider the consequences.
so if a womans hair is shorn/uncovered on the head by her hair being shorn then let her be shorn or shaven just let her be that way but if it's a shame for her to have her hair shorn or shaven then just let her be covered just let her be that way that sounds nice but look at it this way if a womans not covered by her hair let her be considered shorn cuz really they are the exact same thing
@adaneth very woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head/if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn so does this mean that the bible contradicts it's self? either we can uncover our head by shorning or shaving our hair or we can cover our head with our hair by not shorning it or shaving because it dishonoures our head which is it? could it be that we need look more closely at what these verses mean so that they don't contradict themselves
That means you either cover, or you cut or shave your hair. Its not an option to cover or not,its an option to coveror cut your hair off.
What does this have anything to do with your cultureand covering your head when you study? Dont make this difficult, it is difficult already. The only culture we should use is the culture of Pauls time in Corinth.
It has nothing to do with a man telling a woman to cover. The problem that we are dealing with is understanding the passage itself.
Please see my articles on this subject at strivetoenter (dot) com Do a search for shaming the head. There are three articles there that will explain this to you from the scriptures. This format is not good for extended discussion because of the limited nature of Youtube.
@adaneth 5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering
shorn and shaven are the same thing and shorn and shaven also means your head is uncovered and if it's wrong for a woman to have her head uncovered by having it shorn or shaven then she shouldn't uncover it by shorning it or shaving it so basic if you want your head covered so that can you pray and stuff don't shorn your hair or shave it cuz that covers your head k?
I do not condemn those who wear something on their head, and I do not condemn those who do not. It is crystal clear that she should be covered. Paul says it. The whole passage itself is not crystal clear, and meaning of the covering is not crystal clear. But did Paul say women should be covered? Yes he did. This whole passage has been been disputed over and over. Paul says we should not condemn believers over these matters. I think you need to apologize to women who wear coverings.
The passage is indeed hard. But it is understandable when one works through the words diligently and one understands the culture of the day.
I have not condemned anyone. I said that it was legalism to demand people to cover their head. If you would like to discuss this further I welcome you to my blog at strivetoenter (dot) com. This format isn't large enough for a full discussion. I have much material on my blog.
Christianity is about witnessing to the world that men are head of their homes and women submit to them but the men love their husbands just like Christ loved the church.
Women who submit to their husbands and don't rule over them will readily show us who their husband is. I am interested to see a video of the husband coming out and showing he is brave and able to run a family to prove that this teaching is working. If I cannot see this, then its difficult to know if the teaching is true.
Women should cover their heads while in the presence of God in the Catholic Church. The "Talmud" says; Sanhedrin 58b. "If a heathen (Gentile) hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed.. Sanhedrin 57a. "A Jew need not pay a Gentile("Cuthean") the wages owed im foe work.
"Husband of one wife" is used to exclude polygamists. Paul doesn't use "wife of one husband" here since it was illegal for women to have more than one husband at a time. It does not exclude women married to one man since deacons also must be the "husband of one wife" yet we know that Phoebe was a deacon.
vs 4 HE must MANAGE HIS own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage HIS own family, how can HE take care of God's church?)
So I guess if God recognises women as head of the church then they can be head of the home too. This is not the way God intends it to be. He has ordained the man to be the head of the home, likewise the church.
So I guess if God recognises women as head of the church then they can be head of the home too. This is not the way God intends it to be. He has ordained the man to be the head of the home, likewise the church.
Good question, especially when the Bible says that it's also good for women not to get married.(1Cor 7:38)
No offense or anything, but I'm really confused over all of this. Mal 3:6 says God doesn't change, but yet Deborah was both spiritual leader and the leader of the military. The men went to her for the word of God. When has it changed?
Also, the Bible presupposes that women are praying and prophesying in church.(1Cor 11:5).
Also, when the disciples came together to pray after Christ had ascended, the women were praying with the men, together in the upper room(Acts 1:14), but in my church we separate the men from the women during prayer meetings. When did this become biblical?
I'm not trying to be contentious, but I'm trying to figure out what's biblical and what's just man's doctrines. It was the same thing with slavery. Christians didn't want to give it up and used the Bible to back it up, and even Martin Luther help on to unbiblical ideas about Jews and women.
None of us are beyond learning or being wrong.We're all prejudice and set in our ways.
ThusFar777-I agree. As an ex-Catholic, I know what it was like not to question what I'd been taught; I've since learned that there is a great deal of tradition taught in all churches and need to test everything - Peace -
God doesn't change( Mal 3:6), but yet Deborah was the spiritual leader and military leader. Men went to her for the word of God. Why was it ok then for a woman to spiritually lead a man and not now? I'm really just curious where we got this from or when things changed.
ThusFar777-"when the disciples came together to pray after Christ had ascended, the women were praying with the men, together in the upper room(Acts 1:14)"
Great point - I think also given the fact that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" the controversial texts need closer examination.
dazzarai-I'm sorry I should have gotten this in with my last question-what is your opinion of all the single women missionaries who served because there weren't enough male missionaries such as Lottie Moon, Amy Carmichael and those that are serving as single women missionaries today? They must teach new Christians-male and female.
Firstly, there is no such thing as not enough men. Jesus needed 12. Are we God to say if there are not enough. Elijah THOUGHT he was the only righteous, but God said he had 7000 more that Elijah did not know about.
I believe women should spread the gospel message, but being a pastor and shepharing the flock is a role ordained for men.
So I guess if God recognises women as head of the church then they can be head of the home too. This is not the way God intends it to be. He has ordained the man to be the head of the home, likewise the church.
Question for you thrufaithalone. Has God ordained women to be head of the home?
I lived in torment for 18 years because of fundamentalist teaching going into the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic,hermeneutics and hellenistic literature. 3 years ago the love of Christ blew me away and I realized so many of us have been deceived. God is Love.. what I see in people trying to condemn women is actually hate and it is demonic. I love the woman who made this video. I see Christ in her.
Jesus does not condemn his people serving Him from their heart.. Knowing Jesus personally will also free you above your understanding scripture.. Too many people are condemned by scripture rather than putting their faith in Christ
This is deception. Notice that the speaker is using references to "lightfoot" and "Jewish culture". What do those things have to do with the Word of G-D? 2Timothy3:16 All scripture is inspired, not lightfoot or Jewish culture. women, obey the Bible. Cover your heads when you pray or prophesy.
The historical grammatical method of interpretation includes understanding the culture of the people that the letter was written to. All bonafide scholars recognize that the culture of the time must be understood to understand the context of the passage.
It is not a matter of not obeying the Bible. We are certainly to obey. It is a matter of understanding it so that we know what we are to obey. We should not obey a faulty interpretation. We are to obey the truth of the word understood correctly in context.
It is a matter of obeying the Word of G-D. I would like to know what else we shouldnt obey? really, what else? let me know. What other inspired words written by the apostles for our benefit is misinterpreted? what else is wasted on our society, no longer applicable. I am curious now.
There are many "hard passages of scripture" that have been debated over the years as they seem to contradict other clear passages of scripture. We need to work hard at these "hard" passages of scripture to fully understand them in context so that they do not contradict other passage.
It appears that women were to have head coverings but the bible says that we are all to have unveiled face before God. 2 Cor. 3:18.
Next 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 says women are to keep silent in the church and this comes in the same passage where the entire church is allowed to prophesy and there is no "law" that says that women are to keep silent as it appears from verse 34. Lots of contradictions.
Firstly, if the Bible has all these contradictions, why are you a Christian? or are you, if you are, your god is incompetent. As to 1COR3:18, there is nothing about head coverings. 1COR14 So Paul must be lying about such a law. I myself dont know what law he is refering to, but that does not mean it does not exist. He was talking to the 'brethren' when he refered to prophesying. I don't claim to understand everything, but I am not going to go up against The Lord. I believe.
First of all I said apparent contradictions, not real contradictions. Secondly you misread it is 2 Cor 3:18 not 1 Cor. and it talks about veiling. 1 Cor. 14 is not a lie about the law. There is an actual law but it is in the oral law of the Jews not the Bible. This is why we must work hard in the hard passages. Case proved.
Interesting, I did read 2COR3:18, but I typed 1COR3:18 which reads: 18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;
It is always good to read the bible in context since our discussion is on the bible and the historical setting at the time of the writing of the bible, not on the wisdom of the world.
ringo4life: again, in today's church peddling and selling is the norm. Paul worked and preached. He accepted offerings. A laborer is worthy of hire. But Paul had his points in 2 Corinthians about not taking money from parts of the church. I get tired of televangelists trying to sell the gospel. I guess I am weary in that area.
Peddling the word of God means to corrupt the word in order to gain personally. The Greek meaning of this word has nothing to do with selling bibles, books or DVDs. If you look at the rest of the verse, Paul says he is not doing this but he is treating the word of God with sincerity. Sincerity is the opposite of peddling. The purpose of the corruption (peddling) is for personal gain.
I consider my way of thinking. All the time. I guess read 2 Corinthians one too many times. But I bless inhistime and do believe in paying for labor. But today we have super rich ministers that are buying their third mansion, not doing God's will by helping the poor. That grieves me and perhaps I am a little tired of that. sorry. me is a human.
Paul preached free. I have never been paid for preaching. Many ministries like Keith Green's used to give their products freely or for donations that people could afford. I do believe in the laborer worthy of hire yes. I just wish more ministries today would follow the example of Paul in 2 Corinthians. God bless inhistime.
I read a commentary once in which the saved through childbearing was explained. Evidently the culture back then believed that women died in childbirth due to curses or hexes put on them or something like that. What Paul was saying is that women will be saved through childbirth (they won't die all the time) if they walk uprightly basically. Wish I had the name of the commentary...
In the DVD series I go through each different explanation for the passage. The problem with the "saved in giving birth to children explanation" is that it didn't come true. Many godly Christian women died giving birth. If you get a chance to view the entire series you will see a very simple yet profound explanation. If you don't want to buy the set, my teaching is also on my blog strivetoenter (dot) com/wim I take questions there too and you can also interact with others. Blessings!
I think this is ridiculous. Your teaching was great, but then you cut it off and try to sell it? You are selling freedom. why can't freedom be free in the church today? it's all about the money. shame on today's church for selling the word of God.
The teaching is free. It is on my blog and I dialog there and answer questions. The DVDs are not free because I put two years into the project and the cost has been great. Most people wouldn't even have put up the graphic presentation up for free as I have but I want the information out. Glad you liked the teaching. If you want the info free just follow my blog. If you want to see my hard work in a visual way then it is only fair to help with the cost of production.
where is the blog? if you have it for free and for cost, then i apologize. hard work deserves a wage, yet the gospel should be free. imagine the apostle paul charging the Galatians for his letter before he sent it to them. he put in years of hard work but preached freely. follow your conscience but be let God worry about meeting your needs. great teaching though.
Thanks! I are going through the 1 Cor. 11 passage verse by verse on my blog right now. I am in full-time ministry teaching the word of God but I receive no pay for my work. My blog is at strivetoenter (dot) com/wim You will need to put the dot in the address with no spaces as no links are allowed on You Tube. I also have just moved so have been real busy unpacking and I will be putting up more material on the blog as I get time. Blessings!
How don't belittle this women of God's work as something she should just give away free. She already shared a little of her teachings at no cost. If you want all of it, then support her vision.
If someone want to buy her messages on DVD, then she deserve her reward for her labor according to scripture.
Do you go to work and labor for free in Jesus name? NO
True. But in the Body of Christ today there is so much peddling I guess I think of the Apostle Paul and how he preached for free just to set himself apart from the peddlers. We need more of that today, especially in American Christendom. Read 2 Corinthians. I guess I long for more of that in the body of Christ, but can't make anybody do it. I don't judge inhistime, just wish the Body would do more free preaching.
None of us was alive in Paul's day to know everything he did in terms of preaching.
Paul had other churches who support him with their MONEY and resources according to scripture while other churches didn't. Paul had needs and received gifts and offerings from others.
No church could function without the financial support and man POWER of others. Money don't grow on trees. Paul didn't preach for free, and Jesus didn't preach for free. Read the (Philippians 4).
Jesus had a treasurer who was a crook. Jesus had money and is followers was not poor broke men. If Jesus and his followers was poor, then how could he help the poor?
The blind can't lead the blind and the poor can't lead the of help the poor. Poor don't mean lack of money. You could have money and still be poor in an area of your life.
If Jesus preached for FREE, then why would he need a treasurer?
Treasurer is defined as: a person appointed to administer or manage the financial assets and liabilities of a society, company, local authority, or other body.
Jesus had a treasure who was stealing money from him. My point is to show you that jesus was receiving money into his ministry. I'm not saying to charge someone $10 to pray the sinners pray for them LOL. What I'm saying is when you produce a good video series, people should pay for it because you (the producer) put all your time into it.
You don't help the poor by giving them money, you help them by teaching them that the WILL of God is for them to prosper in all AREAS of life, by showing them how to become productive. The first people Jesus preach to was the POOR.
You need to teach the poor how to FISH. If you keep bringing them fish, without teaching them to prosper themselves, then you're helping them to remain poor in their thinking and poor in life.
What another minister does with his money is between him and God. You don't have all the answers or knowing of what prosperous ministers do with their money, so don't make claims of what they don't do . Please stay in your lane and do your part.
Don't worry about someone's mansion. If they have 3, then praise God and be happy for them. Don't become envois of men of God or judge them because they live prosperous lives. Don't allow what you read online to shape your thinking about them.
Rather than waiting for someone to preach for FREE, why don't you do it in the streets for a whole year. Give away DVD's and CD's of all your ministry work for FREE for a year and lets see how long you stay in the ministry.
Do you know how much money and time it cost to produce video messages on DVD?
I did that on the streets. For 4 years. I gave away my life for free. My time for free. I gave away money, food, cd's, tapes. I didn't feel led to charge. I don't condemn inhistime. I am just stating opinion. We all have our own walks. Paul worked and preached. Others just preached. Whatever God tells you to do is the right thing to do. The Holy Spirit is must be in charge.
Stuff like that you don't give away my friend. Christians are the only people on the planet who don't understand that they need to pay for stuff. If you want the word of God for free, then open your bible. It will still cost you time to learn it, so you're still paying for it with time. LOL
If you like, you could send me a PM to talk more. I don't want inhistime2007 to feel that I'm spamming her page or anything, so for that I apologize for making so many post.
Don't hate on her ministry, support it just look you would want someone to support yours if you had one. Don't be cheap.
It cost money to buy all the studio equipment, cameras, software, burn DVD's and pay other to help put projects like this together. You support things in the world by spending your money on DVD movies, games, clothes, food, cars, and more.
You are right in that putting together a production costs money. While there are some who can afford to give away products for free, we certainly wouldn't go into a bible book store and demand that each author give away their books for free if they are talking about the bible. If we did that most people couldn't afford to write books and then the world would be without some valuable resources. It cost me two years of my time and the money goes back in the ministry to help others.
Last time I checked you have to buy a bible at the store. LOL
Nothing is FREE.
Salvation is not even FREE. When you get saved, it will cost you everything you own to live a life of victory. It will even cost you loosing some friends, family and more to maintain your walk with God.
This is one area that you must know the truth. Paul made it clear that the head covering shamed Christ? Can you tell me why without going into the historical usage of the head covering? If this passage is so simple than why are women not forced to wear a head covering today? And 1 Timothy 2 says nothing about preachers.
answer this question, then you will have your answer. 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
The same reason why women are disobeying the sriptures and teahing today. We choose to do what we want to do. We disobey the bible when it goes against our desires. Women in some denominations DO adhere to this scripture. Some do not even know about it, because it is not usually taught in most churches.
We are to judge for ourselves. It is proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered. It happens in churches around the country. If you make this passage say that a woman must wear a head covering, you are left with saying that it is not proper and you must explain why we don't cover today.
Well that is your judgement. Paul said "if you want to argue with him, we have no other custom" basically if you want to be ignorant then go ahead. I explained already why women dont cover today (although as I said some women do-you are trying to speak for all women) because some dont know better, and some refuse to aobey the scriptures.
Paul said that we have no such custom. There is no word "other" in the Greek. Women do not cover because the church does not have this custom. If by not covering they offended their husbands they were allowed to cover for that reason.
Do you read from a greek bible? Again I will say go and read 1 Corinthians 11 again, ask God to show you what paul was saying.
the amplified will help explain this: 16Now if anyone is disposed to be argumentative and contentious about this, we hold to and recognize no OTHER custom [in worship] than this, nor do the churches of God generally.
I have asked you to explain the shaming of Christ with the head covering. You have not answered. In answer to your question, I do go through the Greek words with all reputable helps. We must be diligent to rightly divide God's word.
The woman came from man and even from the old testament she was to be covered by the man.
pauluses nature to express the point that men are NOT supposed to cover there heads in worship. This is Gods way. D I have to explain or understand everything he says to do? NO i obey and trust him. You intellect can only go so far with God. If he says it dishonours then it dishonours.
You didn't answer me. The bible says that the veil shames the head which is Christ according to verse 3. Why does the veil shame Christ? Can you answer without going into the history of the meaning of the veil?
The problem you have with this is that all Christians have Christ's glory so if it is dishonoring to cover God's glory then women shouldn't wear a veil either.
Yes the woman is the glory of man but she is also the glory of God just as the man is. Paul doesn't say that she isn't the glory of God and Paul doesn't say that she wasn't created in God's image just because he mentions the man but says nothing about woman's creation in God's image. All members of the body of Christ are to shine forth the glory of Christ. Men and women are all in that glory.
Here is the verse again: 7A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; BUT the woman is the glory of man. Do you see the but?????? I cannot help you understand yif you continue to find reason to dance around scriture. You are ever learning, never coming to the truth.
She is the glory of God but she is also the glory of the man. That is why she must have the authority to make her own decision. If she veils for reason of her sin, she shames Christ, if she does not veil, she shames her husband. She has to make that decision because the woman is the only one who has two heads.
you choose to ignore scripture, i showed you the 2but2 yet you still dance around. tell god later why you ignored his word. This is your problem not mine.
Sorry, I know this conversation is long past, but Strong's Greek definition for the word you call "other" is 'toioutos', meaning "truly this, that is, of this sort (to denote character or individuality): - like, such (an one)."
Thayer's says "1) such as this, of this kind or sort"
The same word is used in Mat 9:8 "But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled, and glorified God, which had given "such"-(toioutos)-power unto men."
Sorry, I know this conversation is long past, but Strong's Greek definition for the word you call "other" is 'toioutos', meaning "truly this, that is, of this sort (to denote character or individuality): - like, such (an one)."
Thayer's says "1) such as this, of this kind or sort"
The same word is used in Mat 9:8 "But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled, and glorified God, which had given "such"-(toioutos)-power unto men."
Also the same Paul who told us to judge for ourselves said that women are to have authority over their own heads. They are to make the decision. The Greek is crystal clear that the decision is in her hands. As I said, get the DVD set and we can discuss further.
No that is not true. We do not have authority to make a decision that is against God's command. In the passage women are said to have authority over their own heads. It is impossible for them to have authority to make that decision if it was against God's law.
Are you telling me God fores us to do anything? WE do have the decision to do what every we want to. Thats why Adam and Eve fell. Godgave commands, and let the choose to obey them.
The Greek is very specific here. The word means the authority to make a decision. It is power to do something with authority. Adam and Eve did not have authority to eat the fruit while they were given free will.
And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.
Again, scripture says that it dishonors her head (her husband) if she is not covered. That was cultural. Even today in some countries they still have their custom. Yet the church does not have this custom. Look at the Greek words. She is allowed to cover her head not commanded to do so.
The hard passages of scripture require us to be diligent to know what is being said. It is always good to read the Greek meanings because it is the original languages but is especially helpful in the hard passages.
Your being a bit pick here, im thought you would of understood what i was saying. My point was, people dont obey 1 corinthians 11, just like they dont obey 1 tim 2:12
1 Timothy 2:12 is not a universal command and we know that because the context tells us that it is about false teaching and a false teacher in Ephesus. Show me how in context one can get the stopping of true doctrine out of this passage. Paul never stopped women from teaching truth.
Again, I encourage you to get the set and then you will have the exegesis to understand the scriptural points. Hearing all sides first before you condemn a point is a godly thing to do.
What exactly am i looking for in chapter 1? How does if relate to women teaching men? Tell me what they were teaching that was false? Because the bible sure doesnt say anything about WOMEN teaching false doctrines.
The word used for "certain men" in 1 Timothy 1:3 is generic meaning men or women. What were these certain ones teaching that was false? Verse 4 tells us.
Verse 4 does not tell us anything about wome teaching false doctrines. If you claim that WOMEN where teaching false doctrines, then you need to substantiate that claim with some evidence. This is purely assumption.
In Verse 3 it says certain men or "ones" were teaching error. The Greek word for men is "tis" and it means people including men and women. In chapter 2 one of these "ones" is stopped just as Paul requested. The reason is stated as deception and Eve is pointed out as an example of the deception. There may have been other women too, but we do know that there was at least one woman teaching error because of chapter 2.
Still dont believe you can come to that conclusion based on that alone. However, lets say i bagree with you. The question is this: What exactly was the ERROR being taught by this woman? Be specific.
We can only go by what the Bible says about the errors in Ephesus. Paul only gives a glimpse into the errors. 1 Timothy 4:3 gives some more errors and certainly the woman was teaching one of these errors. The fact is that deceived false teachers must be stopped from spreading their errors.
This is ,y issue with you. You are claiming the issue is that women where stoped because of spresding errors., but you cannot say what specific errors that they were spreading. There is yet no justification to why only women would be addressed on this issue and permitted not to teach men simply because of teaching error. If you cannot be explain what they where supposedly teaching, you have no case.
You cannot say that women were stopped from teaching. Paul never say "women". He said "a woman". You are the one who added "women". If you make it women then you have no one to attach the "she" to from verse 15. In verse 15 there is "she" and "they". Who is the she?
The "a woman" of 1 Timothy 2:12 was teaching error. The error had to be stopped. But "she" will be saved by "the" childbearing (the Messiah) if "they" continue on in faith, love, sanctity with self-restraint (restraint to stay away from false doctrine). If "she" isn't "a woman" from verse 12, who is the "she"?
this is not talking about a specific woman, your thinking is very warped. Again, if you cannot prove what sthis woman you claim is supposedly teahing, then you have no case. You waste my time like this because we cannot move forward in this discussion. Answer this question and i will carry on with you.
I asked you who the "she" is and you refuse to answer. If it is not a specific woman "a woman" then who is it? If you cannot answer this question, then you will not be allowed to comment any longer.
The she is not single to a specific person. in verse15 it says ... 15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if THEY continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. how can you think this is talking about a specifi woman?
I honestly don't understand why everyone is so adamantly arguing with this woman over stupid head coverings. When in most churches women do not wear such things and are not being punished for it.
dejablue88 1 month ago
You need to stop reading the talmud
CrushBook 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Local naughty women online benaughtyman.info
xzbzsdhfhnds 1 year ago
So let me see if I get this straight....before the death and resurrection of Christ, Jewish men had to wear coverings on their heads because of their shame of their sin, and Paul radically does away with that tradition...but Jewish women still had to remain veiled and basically be ashamed to be born women and carry all the blame for sin, and Paul does NOTHING to do away with this for the women as he does for the men...I'm sorry, God forgive me, but can we say the words DOUBLE STANDARD???
MsWarrior02 1 year ago
@MsWarrior02
Women had a double reason to wear the covering. It had nothing to do with being ashamed of being a woman. If they removed their covering their husband would divorce them. Paul allowed women to cover to keep their marriages and when the tradition that would cause their divorce was done away with, they would be free from the tradition to cover without risking a divorce. It was not a double standard as men only had one reason to cover and they did not risk being divorced.
inhistime2007 1 year ago
It is interesting that you would choose to quote a Jewish man to discern what Christians ought to do. We are to veil because of the angels. Satan tempted the woman, and that was Satan's showing how he disregarded the Godly order of God covering man, Man covering woman. Myself, I am a woman who has come out of great darkness, and the headcovering has set me free in many ways. Those who eschew the covering in the west, have never tried it for themselves. Christianity is an experiential faith
SilverMoonSpa 1 year ago
@SilverMoonSpa the quote was not given "what Christians ought to do" but was a quote showing what the headcovering meant. It is a covering because of the shame of sin. Is that appropriate for Christians who have had their sin covered by the blood of Jesus? There is no other spiritual covering but Jesus Christ and His blood. Nothing is needed when we have Jesus. The meaning of the physical covering is clearly not Christian. We are pure before God and don't need a symbol of our old shame.
inhistime2007 1 year ago
I can't believe that people believe this stuff.
tribunalfunk 1 year ago
It is about head coverings which would of course cover the hair. The tradition said that a woman's head (and hair) must be covered and Paul said her hair has been given naturally by God as a covering. Same for men. He also has a natural head covering.
inhistime2007 1 year ago
one thing that i don't get is everyone seems to be talking about hair coverings when this scripture is talking about head coverings and the scripture says what our head covering is .... our hair?
kiekie84 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Should women usurp the authority of men, let alone teach. This verse has always bothered me. It has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with Gods Word! I believe it applies today as it did then!
1 Timothy 2:
[12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
[13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
[14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Rylucero 2 years ago
John Lightfoot's comments explain the culture of that day. There are many times that we need to understand that culture to understand the hard sayings of the bible. We cannot import our 21st century culture into the bible. All respectable bible teachers know that the biblical culture is important to know and we need to seek out resources that show us what the culture of that day understood as normal that we have a hard time understanding today.
inhistime2007 3 years ago
John Lightfoot's words are the word of God? HOw interesting.
NOthing should be used to teach what the bible says, except the bible itself.
It is not a cultural thing. It's about glorifying the man or glorifying God.
Paul states that they have no other practice....and he says this includes the churches of God, not just this one. (1 Corinthians 11:16)
adaneth 3 years ago
The head covering was certainly a cultural thing. If it wasn't then women would wear headcoverings today.
Also Paul does not say that that they have no "other" practice. Check out the Greek. The Greek says no "such" practice. The ESV and and others say "If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
They did not have the custom of headcoverings although the culture of that day insisted on women being covered.
inhistime2007 3 years ago
We need culture to understand the bible, but we can't use our own culture to explain the bible as you did when you said that it must not have been what Paul was teaching, or we would see many Christian women wearing a covering today.Just because something is the norm does not mean it's right.
adaneth 3 years ago
Yes, indeed we need to understand the culture to understand these hard passages. That is why I disagreed with your point that we could understand cultural passages without referencing the culture of that day.
My point about today is that the head covering has not transcended culture. If it had nothing to do with culture then it would be practiced consistently in the church. The only churches practicing the covering practice legalism.
inhistime2007 3 years ago
Perhaps you can instruct me on why Paul said that if a man covered his head, that he dishonored his head which was already defined by Paul as the head of a man is "Christ"? How does wearing a head covering shame Christ?
inhistime2007 3 years ago
Well, if you want to get into the culture of it for that time. Some women wore their hair up, some down. Some of the women who
worshipped Isis wore their hair down for their worship of her. So maybe then he was talking about wearing your hair up or down.
See, nobody really knows what was going on back then. We really don't have hard facts of that culture written in print.
adaneth 3 years ago
1 Cor. 11 isn't about wearing the hair up or down. It deals with head coverings. Because it deals with the cultural issue of head coverings we should find out what the head covering symbolized. It is documented in Jewish literature.
inhistime2007 3 years ago
Why do you think it is talking about about some physical object on your head? Give me scripture to show me,
because I've been looking. Why do you think Paul say in 1 Corinthians 11 that long hair is a women's glory because it was given to her for a covering. In Jewish culture, men covered their heads with a little cap. Not the same.
adaneth 3 years ago
1 Cor. 11:6 If a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off... This verse doesn't make sense if the reference is not to a head covering. Also if a head covering is not what was meant in verse 4 then the men needed to have their head shaved in order to pray. This isn't followed anywhere else in scripture, nor is it historical. The fact is that a head covering was required for Jewish men during prayer. Paul references this custom & the custom for women to be fully covered.
inhistime2007 3 years ago
1 Cor. 11:15 the Greek isn't feminine. It is generic. Hair is given to everyone equally - male and female for a covering. Check out the Greek. I would recommend that you watch the entire video because it is well presented with all the biblical arguments that are easy to follow.
inhistime2007 3 years ago
----umI did use the concordancewhich uses the Greek for both KJV and NASB, which are the only two literal translations of the bible.
----Paul states clearly in 1 Corinth 11:15 that IF a woman has LONG hair, it is glory to her, because it is given to her for a covering.
adaneth 3 years ago
ISV:
1 Cor 11:14 Nature itself teaches you neither that it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair
1 Cor 11:15 nor that hair is a woman's glory, for hair is given as a substitute for coverings.
Both men and women have been given hair that grows until it is cut. There is no difference in nature.
inhistime2007 3 years ago
You said: [If it had nothing to do with culture then it would be practiced consistently in the church. ]
There things practiced in the church today that the first churches did not practice.
Let's see...like halloween, Easter with eggs and bunnies, Christ's birth with Santa and elves. Why, all of those must be right, because churhes are doing it today!
NOT. You bring your own twisted way of worshipping into the way you understand scripture.
adaneth 3 years ago
You have missed my point. I was talking about a view that appeared to make it mandatory for a woman to wear a head covering. The issues you brought up are not in the scripture so it is like comparing apples with oranges. Not the same. Why does Paul say that a woman is allowed to wear a head covering while a man is not?
inhistime2007 3 years ago
Something being practiced today or not has nothing to do with the fact it was right do or not.
I don't know all the answers. But I do know that God says man is the glory of God, but that woman is the glory of man. The bible says that he is the glory of God so his head should not be covered. THat's what we know. We don't know everything. We just know that God said that. But since He said that we know that covering the head or not covering is related to honoring.
adaneth 3 years ago
What scripture says is important and we need to understand if it was a cultural thing for that day or transcends culture and is for today as well.
The man is the glory of God but so is the woman. Both were created in the image of God and both are the glory of God. In addition to that the woman is also the glory of man as she was created from him.
In scripture, glory is not to be covered. Man's tradition cover's his glory as if it is shame. It should not be.
inhistime2007 3 years ago
So if the woman is uncovered praying or phrophesizing, and she is the glory of man, she should be covered so that the only thing being honored is Christ. I think that is crystal clear. The question is what Paul meant by covering???? And why did he say other or such?
adaneth 3 years ago
It isn't crystal clear. The woman does not take away from Christ. We are the glory of God and the glory is never covered. Check out the scriptures. Shame is covered. Glory is not. The only time Moses covered was when the glory was leaving his face. He did not cover his face when he had the glory of God on his face. One's glory is meant to be shown not hidden. Check the scriptures and see if I am right.
inhistime2007 3 years ago
You made it seem like Paul didn't mean to say it that way, because women today don't wear them today. I just got back from a church
this past week that had women who wore coverings. I don't wear a covering, but I am open minded to not assume that just because many people don't wear it today, that it doesn't mean we shouldn't.
adaneth 3 years ago
What I said is that if it is a sin to not wear the head covering - if it is required, we would all be wearing one. And you would be wearing one if you are a female.
inhistime2007 3 years ago
And I can't believe that you say that people who want to follow the words of Paul are practicing legalism. That is a put down to people who are trying to be obedient. If they're believers and their conscious convicts them, why would you condemn them of trying to follow what they thought were right?
Same as what Pauls says about believers who strictly think that we should not eat meat offered to idols. Was that legalism too?
adaneth 3 years ago
It is legalism if these people insist all of us must follow the cultural way because it is required. This is the definition of legalism. If one's conscience convicts them, they should follow their conscience while they search the scriptures diligently to see what is culture and what is required to please God. However in no sense of the word must those who have a weak conscience insist that all other women must be covered to please God in prayer.
inhistime2007 3 years ago
If you think we shouldnt be wearing them, but you dont condemn them, then thats biblical. But as far as putting people into groups that you dislike, because theyre wearing a covering. Thats just wrong. No one was forcing anyone here to wear a covering or condemning anyone for not wearing one.
adaneth 3 years ago 2
Paul gives women a choice whether they cover or don't cover depending on the culture and the issue of shame. It is not meant to pressure people to go against their conscience and Paul could not force a woman to uncover if her husband would be shamed if she showed her hair. It was considered an immoral thing for a woman to show her hair in public. The Jewish tradition allowed her husband to divorce her if she was caught in public without her hair being covered.
inhistime2007 3 years ago
Paul says we could eat this meat, but in case someone's conscious convicts them otherwise ...we should not cause that person to stumble. Why would you call it legalism?
One man's faith allows him to eat everything,
but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not,
and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him...
Romans 14:2-4
adaneth 3 years ago
The weak faith would cause her to be covered in worship and prayer, and Paul himself gives women permission to cover while he strictly states that a man does not have the option to cover. Yet the reason to cover is given in the passage. It is IF there is shame, then cover. In our culture for most there is no shame to show one's hair. But if one has a weak conscience, then she may cover while she studies. But again a weak brother in Christ cannot command a woman to cover her head.
inhistime2007 3 years ago
Where do you get this info? Where does it say that Paul is giving women permission to cover while not letting the men the option?
Paul says : 6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 1 Corinthians 11:6
adaneth 3 years ago
For the women it is if..then. He allows them to cover. For the men he said that covering the head for religious reasons during prayer or prophesying dishonored their head which is Christ. They must not dishonor Christ.
For the women, they must be able to make the decision (verse 10) ISV
1 Co 11:10 This is why a woman should have authority over her own head: because of the angels.
Unveiling may destroy her marriage. She must make a decision and consider the consequences.
inhistime2007 3 years ago
so if a womans hair is shorn/uncovered on the head by her hair being shorn then let her be shorn or shaven just let her be that way but if it's a shame for her to have her hair shorn or shaven then just let her be covered just let her be that way that sounds nice but look at it this way if a womans not covered by her hair let her be considered shorn cuz really they are the exact same thing
kiekie84 1 year ago
@adaneth very woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head/if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn so does this mean that the bible contradicts it's self? either we can uncover our head by shorning or shaving our hair or we can cover our head with our hair by not shorning it or shaving because it dishonoures our head which is it? could it be that we need look more closely at what these verses mean so that they don't contradict themselves
kiekie84 1 year ago
That means you either cover, or you cut or shave your hair. Its not an option to cover or not,its an option to coveror cut your hair off.
What does this have anything to do with your cultureand covering your head when you study? Dont make this difficult, it is difficult already. The only culture we should use is the culture of Pauls time in Corinth.
It has nothing to do with a man telling a woman to cover. The problem that we are dealing with is understanding the passage itself.
adaneth 3 years ago
Please see my articles on this subject at strivetoenter (dot) com Do a search for shaming the head. There are three articles there that will explain this to you from the scriptures. This format is not good for extended discussion because of the limited nature of Youtube.
inhistime2007 3 years ago
@adaneth you know what i use to cover my head when i pray and stuff... i use ... my hair....
kiekie84 1 year ago
@adaneth 5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering
kiekie84 1 year ago
shorn and shaven are the same thing and shorn and shaven also means your head is uncovered and if it's wrong for a woman to have her head uncovered by having it shorn or shaven then she shouldn't uncover it by shorning it or shaving it so basic if you want your head covered so that can you pray and stuff don't shorn your hair or shave it cuz that covers your head k?
kiekie84 1 year ago
I do not condemn those who wear something on their head, and I do not condemn those who do not. It is crystal clear that she should be covered. Paul says it. The whole passage itself is not crystal clear, and meaning of the covering is not crystal clear. But did Paul say women should be covered? Yes he did. This whole passage has been been disputed over and over. Paul says we should not condemn believers over these matters. I think you need to apologize to women who wear coverings.
adaneth 3 years ago
The passage is indeed hard. But it is understandable when one works through the words diligently and one understands the culture of the day.
I have not condemned anyone. I said that it was legalism to demand people to cover their head. If you would like to discuss this further I welcome you to my blog at strivetoenter (dot) com. This format isn't large enough for a full discussion. I have much material on my blog.
inhistime2007 3 years ago
Christianity is about witnessing to the world that men are head of their homes and women submit to them but the men love their husbands just like Christ loved the church.
Women who submit to their husbands and don't rule over them will readily show us who their husband is. I am interested to see a video of the husband coming out and showing he is brave and able to run a family to prove that this teaching is working. If I cannot see this, then its difficult to know if the teaching is true.
headachehealer 3 years ago
Women should cover their heads while in the presence of God in the Catholic Church. The "Talmud" says; Sanhedrin 58b. "If a heathen (Gentile) hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed.. Sanhedrin 57a. "A Jew need not pay a Gentile("Cuthean") the wages owed im foe work.
oremuspls 4 years ago
It never has made sense to me that we would entrust our children to women teaching Sunday School, but not allow them to speak or teach otherwise.
I can appreciate the case you are making, but I'm struggling with 1Tim 3:2 ("husband of one wife").
thrufaithalone 4 years ago
"Husband of one wife" is used to exclude polygamists. Paul doesn't use "wife of one husband" here since it was illegal for women to have more than one husband at a time. It does not exclude women married to one man since deacons also must be the "husband of one wife" yet we know that Phoebe was a deacon.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
And dont even stop there.
vs 4 HE must MANAGE HIS own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage HIS own family, how can HE take care of God's church?)
dazzarai 4 years ago
So I guess if God recognises women as head of the church then they can be head of the home too. This is not the way God intends it to be. He has ordained the man to be the head of the home, likewise the church.
dazzarai 4 years ago
So I guess if God recognises women as head of the church then they can be head of the home too. This is not the way God intends it to be. He has ordained the man to be the head of the home, likewise the church.
dazzarai 4 years ago
dazzarai-just curious - what do you do with single women?
thrufaithalone 4 years ago
"what do you do with single women?"
Good question, especially when the Bible says that it's also good for women not to get married.(1Cor 7:38)
No offense or anything, but I'm really confused over all of this. Mal 3:6 says God doesn't change, but yet Deborah was both spiritual leader and the leader of the military. The men went to her for the word of God. When has it changed?
ThusFar777 4 years ago
Also, the Bible presupposes that women are praying and prophesying in church.(1Cor 11:5).
Also, when the disciples came together to pray after Christ had ascended, the women were praying with the men, together in the upper room(Acts 1:14), but in my church we separate the men from the women during prayer meetings. When did this become biblical?
ThusFar777 4 years ago 2
I'm not trying to be contentious, but I'm trying to figure out what's biblical and what's just man's doctrines. It was the same thing with slavery. Christians didn't want to give it up and used the Bible to back it up, and even Martin Luther help on to unbiblical ideas about Jews and women.
None of us are beyond learning or being wrong.We're all prejudice and set in our ways.
ThusFar777 4 years ago 2
ThusFar777-I agree. As an ex-Catholic, I know what it was like not to question what I'd been taught; I've since learned that there is a great deal of tradition taught in all churches and need to test everything - Peace -
thrufaithalone 4 years ago
My first post didn't post...
God doesn't change( Mal 3:6), but yet Deborah was the spiritual leader and military leader. Men went to her for the word of God. Why was it ok then for a woman to spiritually lead a man and not now? I'm really just curious where we got this from or when things changed.
ThusFar777 4 years ago
ThusFar777-"when the disciples came together to pray after Christ had ascended, the women were praying with the men, together in the upper room(Acts 1:14)"
Great point - I think also given the fact that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" the controversial texts need closer examination.
thrufaithalone 4 years ago
dazzarai-I'm sorry I should have gotten this in with my last question-what is your opinion of all the single women missionaries who served because there weren't enough male missionaries such as Lottie Moon, Amy Carmichael and those that are serving as single women missionaries today? They must teach new Christians-male and female.
thrufaithalone 4 years ago
Firstly, there is no such thing as not enough men. Jesus needed 12. Are we God to say if there are not enough. Elijah THOUGHT he was the only righteous, but God said he had 7000 more that Elijah did not know about.
I believe women should spread the gospel message, but being a pastor and shepharing the flock is a role ordained for men.
dazzarai 4 years ago
So I guess if God recognises women as head of the church then they can be head of the home too. This is not the way God intends it to be. He has ordained the man to be the head of the home, likewise the church.
Question for you thrufaithalone. Has God ordained women to be head of the home?
dazzarai 4 years ago
Sorry I missed this response as well dazzarai-
Your response to my question about single women was:
"Question for you thrufaithalone. Has God ordained women to be head of the home?"
If she's single, is there any other choice?
thrufaithalone 4 years ago
(I was wrong; I did say there weren't enough male missionaries)
thrufaithalone 4 years ago
And if she is married?
dazzarai 4 years ago
I lived in torment for 18 years because of fundamentalist teaching going into the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic,hermeneutics and hellenistic literature. 3 years ago the love of Christ blew me away and I realized so many of us have been deceived. God is Love.. what I see in people trying to condemn women is actually hate and it is demonic. I love the woman who made this video. I see Christ in her.
headachehealer 4 years ago
Jesus does not condemn his people serving Him from their heart.. Knowing Jesus personally will also free you above your understanding scripture.. Too many people are condemned by scripture rather than putting their faith in Christ
headachehealer 4 years ago
This is deception. Notice that the speaker is using references to "lightfoot" and "Jewish culture". What do those things have to do with the Word of G-D? 2Timothy3:16 All scripture is inspired, not lightfoot or Jewish culture. women, obey the Bible. Cover your heads when you pray or prophesy.
barcoxx 4 years ago
The historical grammatical method of interpretation includes understanding the culture of the people that the letter was written to. All bonafide scholars recognize that the culture of the time must be understood to understand the context of the passage.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
Ok, that is very well said, what else in the Bible must we not obey? Either the Bible says what it says and we obey, or we disobey. I choose to obey.
barcoxx 4 years ago
It is not a matter of not obeying the Bible. We are certainly to obey. It is a matter of understanding it so that we know what we are to obey. We should not obey a faulty interpretation. We are to obey the truth of the word understood correctly in context.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
It is a matter of obeying the Word of G-D. I would like to know what else we shouldnt obey? really, what else? let me know. What other inspired words written by the apostles for our benefit is misinterpreted? what else is wasted on our society, no longer applicable. I am curious now.
barcoxx 4 years ago
There are many "hard passages of scripture" that have been debated over the years as they seem to contradict other clear passages of scripture. We need to work hard at these "hard" passages of scripture to fully understand them in context so that they do not contradict other passage.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
One example would be nice.
barcoxx 4 years ago
It appears that women were to have head coverings but the bible says that we are all to have unveiled face before God. 2 Cor. 3:18.
Next 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 says women are to keep silent in the church and this comes in the same passage where the entire church is allowed to prophesy and there is no "law" that says that women are to keep silent as it appears from verse 34. Lots of contradictions.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
Firstly, if the Bible has all these contradictions, why are you a Christian? or are you, if you are, your god is incompetent. As to 1COR3:18, there is nothing about head coverings. 1COR14 So Paul must be lying about such a law. I myself dont know what law he is refering to, but that does not mean it does not exist. He was talking to the 'brethren' when he refered to prophesying. I don't claim to understand everything, but I am not going to go up against The Lord. I believe.
barcoxx 4 years ago
First of all I said apparent contradictions, not real contradictions. Secondly you misread it is 2 Cor 3:18 not 1 Cor. and it talks about veiling. 1 Cor. 14 is not a lie about the law. There is an actual law but it is in the oral law of the Jews not the Bible. This is why we must work hard in the hard passages. Case proved.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
Interesting, I did read 2COR3:18, but I typed 1COR3:18 which reads: 18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;
barcoxx 4 years ago
It is always good to read the bible in context since our discussion is on the bible and the historical setting at the time of the writing of the bible, not on the wisdom of the world.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
this is excellent teaching in this video!!
so clear and well taught and thorough.
How I wish that so many could take the time to study this instead of reeling off cliched soundbytes with lack of study.
maz59 4 years ago
Thank you for your kind words!
inhistime2007 4 years ago
ringo4life: again, in today's church peddling and selling is the norm. Paul worked and preached. He accepted offerings. A laborer is worthy of hire. But Paul had his points in 2 Corinthians about not taking money from parts of the church. I get tired of televangelists trying to sell the gospel. I guess I am weary in that area.
onethingsailing 4 years ago
Peddling the word of God means to corrupt the word in order to gain personally. The Greek meaning of this word has nothing to do with selling bibles, books or DVDs. If you look at the rest of the verse, Paul says he is not doing this but he is treating the word of God with sincerity. Sincerity is the opposite of peddling. The purpose of the corruption (peddling) is for personal gain.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
I consider my way of thinking. All the time. I guess read 2 Corinthians one too many times. But I bless inhistime and do believe in paying for labor. But today we have super rich ministers that are buying their third mansion, not doing God's will by helping the poor. That grieves me and perhaps I am a little tired of that. sorry. me is a human.
onethingsailing 4 years ago
Paul preached free. I have never been paid for preaching. Many ministries like Keith Green's used to give their products freely or for donations that people could afford. I do believe in the laborer worthy of hire yes. I just wish more ministries today would follow the example of Paul in 2 Corinthians. God bless inhistime.
onethingsailing 4 years ago
I read a commentary once in which the saved through childbearing was explained. Evidently the culture back then believed that women died in childbirth due to curses or hexes put on them or something like that. What Paul was saying is that women will be saved through childbirth (they won't die all the time) if they walk uprightly basically. Wish I had the name of the commentary...
onethingsailing 4 years ago
In the DVD series I go through each different explanation for the passage. The problem with the "saved in giving birth to children explanation" is that it didn't come true. Many godly Christian women died giving birth. If you get a chance to view the entire series you will see a very simple yet profound explanation. If you don't want to buy the set, my teaching is also on my blog strivetoenter (dot) com/wim I take questions there too and you can also interact with others. Blessings!
inhistime2007 4 years ago
I think this is ridiculous. Your teaching was great, but then you cut it off and try to sell it? You are selling freedom. why can't freedom be free in the church today? it's all about the money. shame on today's church for selling the word of God.
onethingsailing 4 years ago
The teaching is free. It is on my blog and I dialog there and answer questions. The DVDs are not free because I put two years into the project and the cost has been great. Most people wouldn't even have put up the graphic presentation up for free as I have but I want the information out. Glad you liked the teaching. If you want the info free just follow my blog. If you want to see my hard work in a visual way then it is only fair to help with the cost of production.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
where is the blog? if you have it for free and for cost, then i apologize. hard work deserves a wage, yet the gospel should be free. imagine the apostle paul charging the Galatians for his letter before he sent it to them. he put in years of hard work but preached freely. follow your conscience but be let God worry about meeting your needs. great teaching though.
onethingsailing 4 years ago
Thanks! I are going through the 1 Cor. 11 passage verse by verse on my blog right now. I am in full-time ministry teaching the word of God but I receive no pay for my work. My blog is at strivetoenter (dot) com/wim You will need to put the dot in the address with no spaces as no links are allowed on You Tube. I also have just moved so have been real busy unpacking and I will be putting up more material on the blog as I get time. Blessings!
inhistime2007 4 years ago
God is not meeting your needs if you're not working on something in which he can channel his Favor.
Needs don't move God's hand. Faith moves the hand of God. If needs moved the hand of God, then there would be no poor people on Earth or lack.
RINGO4LIFE 4 years ago
Part-1
onethingsailing,
How don't belittle this women of God's work as something she should just give away free. She already shared a little of her teachings at no cost. If you want all of it, then support her vision.
If someone want to buy her messages on DVD, then she deserve her reward for her labor according to scripture.
Do you go to work and labor for free in Jesus name? NO
You go to work to make MONEY.
RINGO4LIFE 4 years ago
True. But in the Body of Christ today there is so much peddling I guess I think of the Apostle Paul and how he preached for free just to set himself apart from the peddlers. We need more of that today, especially in American Christendom. Read 2 Corinthians. I guess I long for more of that in the body of Christ, but can't make anybody do it. I don't judge inhistime, just wish the Body would do more free preaching.
onethingsailing 4 years ago
Part-1
onethingsailing
None of us was alive in Paul's day to know everything he did in terms of preaching.
Paul had other churches who support him with their MONEY and resources according to scripture while other churches didn't. Paul had needs and received gifts and offerings from others.
No church could function without the financial support and man POWER of others. Money don't grow on trees. Paul didn't preach for free, and Jesus didn't preach for free. Read the (Philippians 4).
RINGO4LIFE 4 years ago
Part-2
Jesus had a treasurer who was a crook. Jesus had money and is followers was not poor broke men. If Jesus and his followers was poor, then how could he help the poor?
The blind can't lead the blind and the poor can't lead the of help the poor. Poor don't mean lack of money. You could have money and still be poor in an area of your life.
If Jesus preached for FREE, then why would he need a treasurer?
RINGO4LIFE 4 years ago
Part-3 ---A
Treasurer is defined as: a person appointed to administer or manage the financial assets and liabilities of a society, company, local authority, or other body.
RINGO4LIFE 4 years ago
Part-3 ---B
Jesus had a treasure who was stealing money from him. My point is to show you that jesus was receiving money into his ministry. I'm not saying to charge someone $10 to pray the sinners pray for them LOL. What I'm saying is when you produce a good video series, people should pay for it because you (the producer) put all your time into it.
RINGO4LIFE 4 years ago
Part-4
You don't help the poor by giving them money, you help them by teaching them that the WILL of God is for them to prosper in all AREAS of life, by showing them how to become productive. The first people Jesus preach to was the POOR.
You need to teach the poor how to FISH. If you keep bringing them fish, without teaching them to prosper themselves, then you're helping them to remain poor in their thinking and poor in life.
RINGO4LIFE 4 years ago
Part-5 ---A
What another minister does with his money is between him and God. You don't have all the answers or knowing of what prosperous ministers do with their money, so don't make claims of what they don't do . Please stay in your lane and do your part.
RINGO4LIFE 4 years ago
Part-5 ---B
Don't worry about someone's mansion. If they have 3, then praise God and be happy for them. Don't become envois of men of God or judge them because they live prosperous lives. Don't allow what you read online to shape your thinking about them.
RINGO4LIFE 4 years ago
Part-6 ---A
Rather than waiting for someone to preach for FREE, why don't you do it in the streets for a whole year. Give away DVD's and CD's of all your ministry work for FREE for a year and lets see how long you stay in the ministry.
Do you know how much money and time it cost to produce video messages on DVD?
RINGO4LIFE 4 years ago
I did that on the streets. For 4 years. I gave away my life for free. My time for free. I gave away money, food, cd's, tapes. I didn't feel led to charge. I don't condemn inhistime. I am just stating opinion. We all have our own walks. Paul worked and preached. Others just preached. Whatever God tells you to do is the right thing to do. The Holy Spirit is must be in charge.
onethingsailing 4 years ago
You woulddo good to ignore Ringo, he is caught up in the lust for filthy lucre. The body of Christ needs to be rid of peddlers period.
dazzarai 4 years ago
Part-6 ---B
Stuff like that you don't give away my friend. Christians are the only people on the planet who don't understand that they need to pay for stuff. If you want the word of God for free, then open your bible. It will still cost you time to learn it, so you're still paying for it with time. LOL
RINGO4LIFE 4 years ago
Part-7
If you like, you could send me a PM to talk more. I don't want inhistime2007 to feel that I'm spamming her page or anything, so for that I apologize for making so many post.
RINGO4LIFE 4 years ago
Part-2
Don't hate on her ministry, support it just look you would want someone to support yours if you had one. Don't be cheap.
It cost money to buy all the studio equipment, cameras, software, burn DVD's and pay other to help put projects like this together. You support things in the world by spending your money on DVD movies, games, clothes, food, cars, and more.
Consider your way of thinking.
RINGO4LIFE 4 years ago
You are right in that putting together a production costs money. While there are some who can afford to give away products for free, we certainly wouldn't go into a bible book store and demand that each author give away their books for free if they are talking about the bible. If we did that most people couldn't afford to write books and then the world would be without some valuable resources. It cost me two years of my time and the money goes back in the ministry to help others.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
Part-3
Also, who told you the Word of God was FREE?
Last time I checked you have to buy a bible at the store. LOL
Nothing is FREE.
Salvation is not even FREE. When you get saved, it will cost you everything you own to live a life of victory. It will even cost you loosing some friends, family and more to maintain your walk with God.
RINGO4LIFE 4 years ago
This is one area that you must know the truth. Paul made it clear that the head covering shamed Christ? Can you tell me why without going into the historical usage of the head covering? If this passage is so simple than why are women not forced to wear a head covering today? And 1 Timothy 2 says nothing about preachers.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
answer this question, then you will have your answer. 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
The same reason why women are disobeying the sriptures and teahing today. We choose to do what we want to do. We disobey the bible when it goes against our desires. Women in some denominations DO adhere to this scripture. Some do not even know about it, because it is not usually taught in most churches.
dazzarai 4 years ago
We are to judge for ourselves. It is proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered. It happens in churches around the country. If you make this passage say that a woman must wear a head covering, you are left with saying that it is not proper and you must explain why we don't cover today.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
Well that is your judgement. Paul said "if you want to argue with him, we have no other custom" basically if you want to be ignorant then go ahead. I explained already why women dont cover today (although as I said some women do-you are trying to speak for all women) because some dont know better, and some refuse to aobey the scriptures.
dazzarai 4 years ago
Paul said that we have no such custom. There is no word "other" in the Greek. Women do not cover because the church does not have this custom. If by not covering they offended their husbands they were allowed to cover for that reason.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
Do you read from a greek bible? Again I will say go and read 1 Corinthians 11 again, ask God to show you what paul was saying.
the amplified will help explain this: 16Now if anyone is disposed to be argumentative and contentious about this, we hold to and recognize no OTHER custom [in worship] than this, nor do the churches of God generally.
dazzarai 4 years ago
I have asked you to explain the shaming of Christ with the head covering. You have not answered. In answer to your question, I do go through the Greek words with all reputable helps. We must be diligent to rightly divide God's word.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
I agree. I do the same when studying.
The woman came from man and even from the old testament she was to be covered by the man.
pauluses nature to express the point that men are NOT supposed to cover there heads in worship. This is Gods way. D I have to explain or understand everything he says to do? NO i obey and trust him. You intellect can only go so far with God. If he says it dishonours then it dishonours.
dazzarai 4 years ago
You didn't answer me. The bible says that the veil shames the head which is Christ according to verse 3. Why does the veil shame Christ? Can you answer without going into the history of the meaning of the veil?
inhistime2007 4 years ago
I did answer you.The viel shams Christ because the bible says so. What more do you want? This is very clear.
It is dishonoring to Christ to symbolically cover God's glory when praying
dazzarai 4 years ago
The problem you have with this is that all Christians have Christ's glory so if it is dishonoring to cover God's glory then women shouldn't wear a veil either.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
Read 1 crinthians 11 again. verse 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
dazzarai 4 years ago
Yes the woman is the glory of man but she is also the glory of God just as the man is. Paul doesn't say that she isn't the glory of God and Paul doesn't say that she wasn't created in God's image just because he mentions the man but says nothing about woman's creation in God's image. All members of the body of Christ are to shine forth the glory of Christ. Men and women are all in that glory.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
Here is the verse again: 7A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; BUT the woman is the glory of man. Do you see the but?????? I cannot help you understand yif you continue to find reason to dance around scriture. You are ever learning, never coming to the truth.
dazzarai 4 years ago
She is the glory of God but she is also the glory of the man. That is why she must have the authority to make her own decision. If she veils for reason of her sin, she shames Christ, if she does not veil, she shames her husband. She has to make that decision because the woman is the only one who has two heads.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
you choose to ignore scripture, i showed you the 2but2 yet you still dance around. tell god later why you ignored his word. This is your problem not mine.
dazzarai 4 years ago
This is unreadable.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
Sorry, I know this conversation is long past, but Strong's Greek definition for the word you call "other" is 'toioutos', meaning "truly this, that is, of this sort (to denote character or individuality): - like, such (an one)."
Thayer's says "1) such as this, of this kind or sort"
The same word is used in Mat 9:8 "But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled, and glorified God, which had given "such"-(toioutos)-power unto men."
I don't see how it means "other."
ThusFar777 4 years ago
Sorry, I know this conversation is long past, but Strong's Greek definition for the word you call "other" is 'toioutos', meaning "truly this, that is, of this sort (to denote character or individuality): - like, such (an one)."
Thayer's says "1) such as this, of this kind or sort"
The same word is used in Mat 9:8 "But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled, and glorified God, which had given "such"-(toioutos)-power unto men."
I don't see how it means "other."
ThusFar777 4 years ago
Also the same Paul who told us to judge for ourselves said that women are to have authority over their own heads. They are to make the decision. The Greek is crystal clear that the decision is in her hands. As I said, get the DVD set and we can discuss further.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
every decision is in our hands, either we obey Gods word or we dont . Simple.
dazzarai 4 years ago
No that is not true. We do not have authority to make a decision that is against God's command. In the passage women are said to have authority over their own heads. It is impossible for them to have authority to make that decision if it was against God's law.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
Are you telling me God fores us to do anything? WE do have the decision to do what every we want to. Thats why Adam and Eve fell. Godgave commands, and let the choose to obey them.
dazzarai 4 years ago
The Greek is very specific here. The word means the authority to make a decision. It is power to do something with authority. Adam and Eve did not have authority to eat the fruit while they were given free will.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
This is what the word say:
And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.
dazzarai 4 years ago
Again, scripture says that it dishonors her head (her husband) if she is not covered. That was cultural. Even today in some countries they still have their custom. Yet the church does not have this custom. Look at the Greek words. She is allowed to cover her head not commanded to do so.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
Do you do this with every scripture? Do you go into the greek to explain John 3:16 as well?
dazzarai 4 years ago
The hard passages of scripture require us to be diligent to know what is being said. It is always good to read the Greek meanings because it is the original languages but is especially helpful in the hard passages.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
Tell me what these false teachings where that the women where spreading.
dazzarai 4 years ago
dazzarai-"women are disobeying the sriptures and teahing today." (by not wearing a covering)
1Cor11:15 "her hair is given to her for a covering"
Vs 16 does say "if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God."
thrufaithalone 4 years ago 2
1 Timothy 2 (i was refering to womening teaching men) you should know that by now.
dazzarai 4 years ago
It is talking about "a woman" teaching "a man". Not about a woman teaching "men". It says nothing about a preacher.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
Your being a bit pick here, im thought you would of understood what i was saying. My point was, people dont obey 1 corinthians 11, just like they dont obey 1 tim 2:12
dazzarai 4 years ago
1 Timothy 2:12 is not a universal command and we know that because the context tells us that it is about false teaching and a false teacher in Ephesus. Show me how in context one can get the stopping of true doctrine out of this passage. Paul never stopped women from teaching truth.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
Again, I encourage you to get the set and then you will have the exegesis to understand the scriptural points. Hearing all sides first before you condemn a point is a godly thing to do.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
I have a question on our ideology of the women spreading false doctrine. What exactly was the fasle doctrines that these women where spreading?
dazzarai 4 years ago
It is stated in chapter 1 where Paul is stopping the false teaching. Go through it carefully.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
What exactly am i looking for in chapter 1? How does if relate to women teaching men? Tell me what they were teaching that was false? Because the bible sure doesnt say anything about WOMEN teaching false doctrines.
dazzarai 4 years ago
The word used for "certain men" in 1 Timothy 1:3 is generic meaning men or women. What were these certain ones teaching that was false? Verse 4 tells us.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
Verse 4 does not tell us anything about wome teaching false doctrines. If you claim that WOMEN where teaching false doctrines, then you need to substantiate that claim with some evidence. This is purely assumption.
dazzarai 4 years ago
In Verse 3 it says certain men or "ones" were teaching error. The Greek word for men is "tis" and it means people including men and women. In chapter 2 one of these "ones" is stopped just as Paul requested. The reason is stated as deception and Eve is pointed out as an example of the deception. There may have been other women too, but we do know that there was at least one woman teaching error because of chapter 2.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
Still dont believe you can come to that conclusion based on that alone. However, lets say i bagree with you. The question is this: What exactly was the ERROR being taught by this woman? Be specific.
dazzarai 4 years ago
We can only go by what the Bible says about the errors in Ephesus. Paul only gives a glimpse into the errors. 1 Timothy 4:3 gives some more errors and certainly the woman was teaching one of these errors. The fact is that deceived false teachers must be stopped from spreading their errors.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
This is ,y issue with you. You are claiming the issue is that women where stoped because of spresding errors., but you cannot say what specific errors that they were spreading. There is yet no justification to why only women would be addressed on this issue and permitted not to teach men simply because of teaching error. If you cannot be explain what they where supposedly teaching, you have no case.
dazzarai 4 years ago
You cannot say that women were stopped from teaching. Paul never say "women". He said "a woman". You are the one who added "women". If you make it women then you have no one to attach the "she" to from verse 15. In verse 15 there is "she" and "they". Who is the she?
inhistime2007 4 years ago
This is pointless, because you cannot prove what these women where supposed teaching.
dazzarai 4 years ago
The "a woman" of 1 Timothy 2:12 was teaching error. The error had to be stopped. But "she" will be saved by "the" childbearing (the Messiah) if "they" continue on in faith, love, sanctity with self-restraint (restraint to stay away from false doctrine). If "she" isn't "a woman" from verse 12, who is the "she"?
inhistime2007 4 years ago
this is not talking about a specific woman, your thinking is very warped. Again, if you cannot prove what sthis woman you claim is supposedly teahing, then you have no case. You waste my time like this because we cannot move forward in this discussion. Answer this question and i will carry on with you.
dazzarai 4 years ago
I asked you who the "she" is and you refuse to answer. If it is not a specific woman "a woman" then who is it? If you cannot answer this question, then you will not be allowed to comment any longer.
inhistime2007 4 years ago
Who is the "she" from 1 Timothy 2:15? If this isn't a specific woman mentioned as "a woman" from verse 12, then who is the "she" from verse 15?
inhistime2007 4 years ago
Are you deleting my comments now? Hmmm...
The she is not single to a specific person. in verse15 it says ... 15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if THEY continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. how can you think this is talking about a specifi woman?