New Testament Misogyny

a reply to: MrBlaq

how about plain and simply acting in love one to another...

like I already pointed out on this thread...
one can't always act in love and be obedient also.
if it's okay for the husband to love his wife and sacrifice his desires for her sake, if that is adequate for him, why is obedience demanded of the wife?

a reply to: windword

Unfortunately, we're not discussing the commandments of Jesus "Christ". We're discussing Paul's model of gender roles in a Christian marriage. I don't think that Jesus ever told a woman to submit herself to authority of her husband, As a matter fact, when he encountered a woman who had been remarried several time, he told her to go and "sin no more", which would require her to leave her husband. Jesus, in fact, encouraged men to leave their families and follow him. So much for sacrificing for one's wife.

The Bible states All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness 2Tim 3:16

Since the Apostle Paul was surely inspired of the Spirit of God, and wrote several instructions
concerning wives & husbands, especially when referring to Pastors & Deacons.

Are we to reject any inspired teaching that flesh repels against?

Another issue, is why is trying to obey God in any capacity for our limited 60
to 70 years of life such a difficult proposition for some, in light of the fact
the rewards for obedience to be received in Eternity can't even be compared?

I believe the Sprit of God teaches God's saints to focus on Eternity vs 'God why I gotta do
this, God why I gotta do that mentality.

This is nothing more than COMPLAINING just like the Israelite did after God delivered them from
Egypt. Which seems odd since the New Covenant is a better covenant than what the Israelite's had.

originally posted by: MrBlaq

I have a question for everyone who has tried the old "out of context" argument. In what context is it that makes subservience and subjection not disgusting for a man to do to his wife? Is there a magical verse that alters the definition of subservience? I have previously given the definition of and synonyms for subjection and subservience. Please read them before telling me how a person, never mind a self appointed "apostle", claiming that this is what God wants, could do that to someone they love. Or find this acceptable today or ever. No context is going to change what was said and meant. No cryptic or difficult to understand message is behind the doctrine of the inferiority of women. It's plain and simple and is its own context. There is no justifying inequality, and trying to use other verses to make it not misogynistic doesn't work because you still have the fact that what was said was said and was meant how it was said.

This is just my limited understanding. But no man or woman would ever
be willing to follow any of the commandments of Christ if their not
changed of God through a spiritual transformation/sanctification.

Do you mean "by God"?

Christ had 2 commandments that were about love and love that fulfill all commandments. But Jesus isn't the misogynist.

Seems to be the issue appears antagonistic when some seek
to understand and follow Christ in their own understanding
and/or outside of a born of God experience.

It's no different than Nicodemus baffled at the feet of Christ,
or the roman Pilate questioning Christ what is truth?

Seek and find. Repeat process until full and seek again when hungry.

And be a gentleman to women, your wife is a queen and not a servant.

Those last two sentences are not directed at anyone specific just what passes for wisdom in my warped mind.

a reply to: dawnstar

You stated one can't always act in love and be obedient also.

In my understanding obedience to Christ is an act of love.

If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 14:15

And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it. 2 John 1:6

It just takes faith to believe that obeying Christ is truly for our good.

originally posted by: MrBlaq
a reply to: windword

Unfortunately, we're not discussing the commandments of Jesus "Christ". We're discussing Paul's model of gender roles in a Christian marriage. I don't think that Jesus ever told a woman to submit herself to authority of her husband, As a matter fact, when he encountered a woman who had been remarried several time, he told her to go and "sin no more", which would require her to leave her husband. Jesus, in fact, encouraged men to leave their families and follow him. So much for sacrificing for one's wife.

The Bible states All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness 2Tim 3:16

Since the Apostle Paul was surely inspired of the Spirit of God, and wrote several instructions
concerning wives & husbands, especially when referring to Pastors & Deacons.

Surely he was not inspired by the Spirit of God. Are we talking about the same lying scumbag from Acts? Because he was not inspired just a charlatan. The 12 did not acknowledge him as an apostle and James even had to summon him to Jerusalem because he was teaching false doctrine.

Are we to reject any inspired teaching that flesh repels against?

Yes. If it's wrong definitely. I don't care that Paul said all scripture is...whatever and at that time scripture was just the OT so...

Another issue, is why is trying to obey God in any capacity for our limited 60
to 70 years of life such a difficult proposition for some, in light of the fact
the rewards for obedience to be received in Eternity can't even be compared?

If you are a good person you don't obey the laws of good vs evil because of the rewards. That's selfish, understandable, but selfish.

Do good just to do good, not for a prize.

I believe the Sprit of God teaches God's saints to focus on Eternity vs 'God why I gotta do
this, God why I gotta do that mentality.

This is nothing more than COMPLAINING just like the Israelite did after God delivered them from
Egypt. Which seems odd since the New Covenant is a better covenant than what the Israelite's had.

Then stop complaining.

originally posted by: deignostian

I have a question for everyone who has tried the old "out of context" argument.

In what context is it that makes subservience and subjection not disgusting for a man to do to his wife?

Is there a magical verse that alters the definition of subservience? I have previously given the definition of and synonyms for subjection and subservience.

Please read them before telling me how a person, never mind a self appointed "apostle", claiming that this is what God wants, could do that to someone they love.

Or find this acceptable today or ever.

No context is going to change what was said and meant. No cryptic or difficult to understand message is behind the doctrine of the inferiority of women. It's plain and simple and is its own context. There is no justifying inequality, and trying to use other verses to make it not misogynistic doesn't work because you still have the fact that what was said was said and was meant how it was said.

I'm still waiting for an answer, where are all the "out of context" claimants now? Logic is a mofo huh?

a reply to: MrBlaq

1st Peter 3
3 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2 while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
4 but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6 even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

so, wives, obey your husband in ALL THINGS.... regardless of weather they are good christians, or selfish heathens.
but then women, go and sin no more...

which is the greater sin?
to disobey your husband when he is telling you to overdose your kid so he will quiet down and stop interrupting his sleep, or risk killing your kid... just wondering here...

by the way, I don't know how much of this thread you have read but in case you missed it, I'm the one who came to the conclusion that I couldn't be a christian, unless my husband allowed it!!!

hear ye, hear ye, all ye demons, satan, and the like...
god's having a two for one special, win the husband, get the wife free, no matter how much she wishes it to be different...

and that is what is wrong with the doctrine.

a reply to: deignostian

Surely he was not inspired by the Spirit of God. Are we talking about the same lying scumbag from Acts? Because he was not inspired just a charlatan. The 12 did not acknowledge him as an apostle and James even had to summon him to Jerusalem because he was teaching false doctrine.

So we are to conclude from your assessment that the Apostle Peter
was also a false prophet?

According to your opinion, we'd have to, UNTIL we simply read what the
Apostle Peter spoke of Paul.

Please Read;

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 2Pet 3:15-16

If you deny Peter's testimony, then such a line of exposition would eventually
reject all the inspired scripture, and we'd be left with nothing but a toilet rag,
thankfully that's not the case.

What other men moved by the Spirit of God do you disagree with?

I wonder if God ever wanted a daughter.

He has had many Sons, and an only begotten Son but never a daughter.

Lilth maybe?

a reply to: deignostian

I'm still waiting for an answer, where are all the "out of context" claimants now? Logic is a mofo huh?

That's only because many times when Christ taught, he pulled many
scriptures 'out of context' in revealing truth to his Disciples.

Man seeks to understand spiritual truths with his own wisdom, while Christ
was led and taught by his Father.

originally posted by: MrBlaq
a reply to: deignostian

Surely he was not inspired by the Spirit of God. Are we talking about the same lying scumbag from Acts? Because he was not inspired just a charlatan. The 12 did not acknowledge him as an apostle and James even had to summon him to Jerusalem because he was teaching false doctrine.

So we are to conclude from your assessment that the Apostle Peter
was also a false prophet?

Makes no difference to me what you conclude.

Everyone knows "Peter's" epistles are Pseudepigraphal.

According to your opinion, we'd have to, UNTIL we simply read what the
Apostle Peter spoke of Paul.

you don't have to do anything.

Please Read;

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 2Pet 3:15-16

If you deny Peter's testimony, then such a line of exposition would eventually
reject all the inspired scripture, and we'd be left with nothing but a toilet rag,
thankfully that's not the case.

What other men moved by the Spirit of God do you disagree with?

I don't know who wrote that, no one does. What is known is that 1&2 Peter weren't written by Peter and probably were written so people could do what you are doing with them right now.

originally posted by: MrBlaq
a reply to: deignostian

I'm still waiting for an answer, where are all the "out of context" claimants now? Logic is a mofo huh?

That's only because many times when Christ taught, he pulled many
scriptures 'out of context' in revealing truth to his Disciples.

Man seeks to understand spiritual truths with his own wisdom, while Christ
was led and taught by his Father.

I don't think that is quite right. Christ was a walking Gospel and would not take things out of context being the Son of God and all.

But I didn't take anything out of context and nobody can say what context makes...you know the question.

a reply to: deignostian

I don't think that is quite right. Christ was a walking Gospel and would not take things out of context being the Son of God and all. But I didn't take anything out of context and nobody can say what context makes...you know the question.

Have the writers of the New Testament ever quoted the Old Testament out of context?

Consider the context of the very first Old Testament scripture quoted in the New Testament.

Mary the mother of Jesus is pregnant, and the marriage has not yet been consummated.
The situation demands an explanation, so Mary tells Joseph the truth.
Neither Joseph nor you would have believed Mary.

The context demands that we not believe her. Only the most gullible, blinded-by-love man
would have bought such a fantastic story. So a supernatural revelation is required to convince one of this truth.

"That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins." (Mat 1:20-21)

We come now to the first Old Testament scripture quoted in the New Testament.

"Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is God with us" (vs 23).

Now was this scripture really written about Christ as Matthew says it was? Is that the context in which we find it?

This verse (Mat 1:23) is quoted from Isa 7:14. It certainly does not follow today's commonly accepted rules for scriptural interpretation of context. The context shows that this statement is addressed to king Ahaz, the king of Judah.

a reply to: MrBlaq

The Bible states All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness 2Tim 3:16

That' some hubris, even for Saul/Paul, the self proclaimed apostle! I highly doubt that even Paul, in his pride, thought that the letters that he was writing were to be taken as God breathed scripture. Otherwise, he would have said, "I'm not lying" so many times! LOL

However, that's not my problem. I know what Paul's letters say. My point is that Paul's model for Christians marriage is misogynistic. Pure and simple.

Any relationship that required one person to submit to the authority of another is not an equal relationship. If the person that is required to submit is required to do so because of they happen to be of female gender, then that's misogyny. No way around it.

originally posted by: MrBlaq
a reply to: windword

Unfortunately, we're not discussing the commandments of Jesus "Christ". We're discussing Paul's model of gender roles in a Christian marriage. I don't think that Jesus ever told a woman to submit herself to authority of her husband, As a matter fact, when he encountered a woman who had been remarried several time, he told her to go and "sin no more", which would require her to leave her husband. Jesus, in fact, encouraged men to leave their families and follow him. So much for sacrificing for one's wife.

The Bible states All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness 2Tim 3:16

You know that the NT didn't exist at the time that was written that it could be incuded in that statement, right? He was talking about the Tanakh not the not yet existent NT.

And it's Paul... the "all things to all men" lying scumbag. Meaning it's bs.

Since the Apostle Paul

There were 12 Apostles with Matthias replacing Judas.

Paul can't be an apostle because 12=12 and you can comb the scriptures all you want only Paul (and Luke, a Greek with no authority) thinks Paul was an apostle.

Jesus didn't and none of the 12 either. There are requirements for being an Apostle and Paul met none (read Acts).

Then Revelation, where Jesus doesn't seem to have even heard of this Paul, but mentions false apostles.

I wonder who that could be?

a reply to: MrBlaq


Another out of context for you..

The wise men find Christ, worship him, present him with presents "and being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way" (Mat 2:12).

After the wise men depart, "the angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream saying, Arise, take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt and be you there until I bring you word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him" (vs 13).

Now we come to our next out-of-context prophecy; notice: "And when he arose he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son" (vs. 14 and 15).

This was a quote from Hos 11:1 which reads: "When Israel was a small child, then I loved him and called my son out of Egypt." In context, Hosea is simply saying that as Israel was being called out of Egypt, they were in the process of departing from God: "they sacrificed unto Baalim and burned incense to graven images" (vs 2).

Amazing, Matthew once again, without explanation, applies this verse to Christ's return from Egypt. Surely we would wonder WHY DOES MATTHEW NOT EXPLAIN HIMSELF? BECAUSE HE SURELY TOOK THIS OUT OF CONTEXT.

-smiles-

originally posted by: MrBlaq
a reply to: deignostian

I don't think that is quite right. Christ was a walking Gospel and would not take things out of context being the Son of God and all. But I didn't take anything out of context and nobody can say what context makes...you know the question.

Have the writers of the New Testament ever quoted the Old Testament out of context?

Yes. And misinterpreted it several times.

Consider the context of the very first Old Testament scripture quoted in the New Testament.

Mary the mother of Jesus is pregnant, and the marriage has not yet been consummated.
The situation demands an explanation, so Mary tells Joseph the truth.
Neither Joseph nor you would have believed Mary.

The context demands that we not believe her. Only the most gullible, blinded-by-love man
would have bought such a fantastic story. So a supernatural revelation is required to convince one of this truth.

"That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins." (Mat 1:20-21)

We come now to the first Old Testament scripture quoted in the New Testament.

"Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is God with us" (vs 23).

Now was this scripture really written about Christ as Matthew says it was? Is that the context in which we find it?

This verse (Mat 1:23) is quoted from Isa 7:14. It certainly does not follow today's commonly accepted rules for scriptural interpretation of context. The context shows that this statement is addressed to king Ahaz, the king of Judah.

I'm done discussing context because it is pointless. I didn't take anything out of context here and I don't plan on ever doing so. So...

a reply to: deignostian

Then Revelation, where Jesus doesn't seem to have even heard of this Paul, but mentions false apostles. I wonder who that could be?

I'm going to assume you're reading a strange Bible, or no Bible at all.

Allow me to show you where the Son of God makes it very
clear that he KNOWS Paul.

Please Read ACTS chapter 9:1-5, I've posted the scriptures for your perusal.

Verse 1..And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

Verse 2..And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

Verse 3..And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: verse

Verse 4..And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? verse

Verse 5..And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Verse 6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

You real issue is not with me, but with the Word of God.
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Isa 8:20

This is my 2nd Admonition.
Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.

I wish you well.

a reply to: MrBlaq

Have the writers of the New Testament ever quoted the Old Testament out of context?

About context, can you show me the Old Testament scripture that Paul is referring to here?

1 Corinthians 15:3
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

a reply to: MrBlaq

nothing like brow beating the rebellious women into submission!!

is there a group or church that teaches men how to do this or something? just asking because I recognize the tactic... only the guy who tried it on me before was much better at it.