Remarrying after a Divorce....is it forbidden?

[firehill]

It doesn't matter. The intent is clear and it is saying that wives are to be in submission to their husbands. You know Firehill, your doctrine sounds a lot like this off-the-wall teacher from Ohio. She has a web-site something theology feather. She is good at perverting scripture by twisting the meaning of Greek words. You don't by any chance know her do you? Her name is Paula. If you got mixed up in her stuff, it's no wonder why you are so confused. Anyway, if you don't know who I am speaking of, my apologies for mentioning it. Your doctrine just sounds so much like hers, I was just wondering.

What you see as the intent is clear to you. The supposed hierarchy is still UPSIDEDOWN. The word kephale is still debated amongst scholars. I have no idea who feather is. He you go again bring up erroneous ideas.

It is not my doctrine by the way. Again I refer to the earliest sources and they do not provide the meaning of

[firehill]

Firehill:And the husband is submitting to his wife as all christians are bound to do. Eph 5:21

Butero:Not in the same manner. The Pastor is a member of Christ's church, but in his church he leads. The Deacons and Bishops are likewise members of Christ's church, but they still are in authority over the laity. We all submit to one another, but that doesn't change the fact their is a chain of command.

The pastor is not the

[firehill]

Butero:I don't know if you noticed Firehill, but while EricH ageed with you about the Greek Word, he is saying he disagrees with your interpretation, that it still means wives are to submit to their husbands, at least that is how it appears to me. If you are reading this EricH, feel free to set me or Firehill straight on your intent.

I never said that since the verb is borrowed from v.21 that therefore wives are not to submit to husbands. This is the third time you bring up an erroneous idea.

[EricH]

Firehill:And the husband is submitting to his wife as all christians are bound to do. Eph 5:21

Butero:Not in the same manner. The Pastor is a member of Christ's church, but in his church he leads. The Deacons and Bishops are likewise members of Christ's church, but they still are in authority over the laity. We all submit to one another, but that doesn't change the fact their is a chain of command.

The pastor is not the

[firehill]

Butero's response to the 'upsidedown supposed hierarchy' in 1 Co 11:3:

Big deal. It doesn't change the obvious meaning.

The obvious meaning to who? You. So what. I bet you'd say that the context as no warrant either, you know the context (vv.1-16) of WORSHIP not authority structure.

Actually the context of I Corinthians 11 is the proper order in Worship

Thanks for providing that clarification.

[firehill]

OC

Hello firehilll

So what does that mean I mean it doesn't change God's order at all which is found clearly in the verse.

God is head of Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ is head of the man

Man is head of the woman

So in your "upsidedown hierarchy" Would you list for me how you think the chain of authority goes?

Because I haven't a clue.

OC

You can't provide the chain of authority because the earliest sources don't even list the meaning of 'head' as authority or 'rule'. There is no chain of authority. There is never one given in the Bible. If you notice in context Paul speaks about the woman coming from the man therefore the notion of 'head' is source.

[Openly Curious]

Butero's response to the 'upsidedown supposed hierarchy' in 1 Co 11:3:

Big deal. It doesn't change the obvious meaning.

The obvious meaning to who? You. So what. I bet you'd say that the context as no warrant either, you know the context (vv.1-16) of WORSHIP not authority structure.

Actually the context of I Corinthians 11 is the proper order in Worship

Hello EricH,

I believe we should worship God as we should but I think that we have to worship God within our roles that God has given to us. I mean we all must worship Him in spirit and in truth. which that means to me that I have to be living the truth when I worship Him or be in the truth. And to me to rebell against the proper order in which God placed us in is to not be in the truth don't you think.

Jesus taught us this in His example as He was subject to the Father and the church is subject to Christ and the woman is subject to the man. For that is God's divine order of things. So not to take on the roles we have been given is to be in disobedience and not the truth. Truth is everyone of us is under authority of somekind and we are taught to submit to it.

The proper order of worship is also found in 1 Timothy chapter 2 relating to prayer and sobriety in the church services. This is God's order to go against it is to be in disobedience and not the truth.

Each of us has a specific role in which to carry out within the body of Christ and in the home we have a ministry in both the Lord has given to us. some are mothers, some are dads, some have no children we are wives, husbands in the church we are teachers helpers singers preachers ushers deacons and so on. But we have roles or ministries in which to fulfill in who we are as a person in whom God created us specifically to be and it is a blessing to serve in the home and the church in the role he gave us to fulfill women shouldn't be intimitated for being a woman nor men for being men. everything works in harmony if we follow God's divine order. if we don't then how can we say we are worshiping God in spirit and truth. When the feminist are destroying God's order and the men are not taking responsibility as head of the home and being a godly example before His family leading them in the ways of the Lord. Like Joshua said as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.

I am glad to say that I can see Christ in my husband and He is a blessing in my life and when I see Christ in him it is easy to submit to him not because he lords over me but because i love him and want to serve him. Jesus said if you love me keep my commandments.

I really don't know why I said all that EricH but I did. I guess I don't understand fully what you are meaning by your answer I guess. But in a church service the word says and teaches us about orderly worship everything must be done decently and in order so their is authority even in worship that must be adhered unto.

But when we come into God's house we must remember both men and women that both are coming under the authority of Christ as He is the head of the church. And the man and women are the body of Christ and both are under submission in God's house. that is why the verse talks about it not being male nor female barbarian sythinian Jew or Greek. Because when we all come into His house to worship Him our nationalities don't matter our gender doesn't matter because we all are subject to Christ as we are the body and He is the head of that body.

OC

[firehill]

The meaning of the text is plain for anyone to read. To make the absurd claim that to change the order around somehow discredits or changes the text is nonsense. Anyone that can read can see what is being said.

Also Firehill, you never did say if you knew who Paula Feather is from Ohio and if you are mixed up in her material.

Yes, what is written is there, but not your interpretation of what is actualy written. I already answered your erroneous question about some Paula.

"If an author wanted to make a point about AUTHORITY, he would use two specific words--exousia ("authority"; Matt 28.18, Rom 13.1-3) and/or archon ("ruler"; Rom 13.3). He only used 'head' when dealing with issues of origination, completion, consummation.

In the passage under discussion, the only mention of the word 'authority' is in verse 10--and it is the women who possesses it!

NONE of the SCORES of published lexicographers of ancient Greek even LIST "authority, ruler" as a meaning for this word (WS:WAB:97-110, 118-132). It only begins to show up with those minor usages after Constantine!

Also, it is not clear from the I Cor 11 passage that God the Father is in view--the more inclusive term 'God' may indicate that a source relationship is VERY intentional here. In other words, a 'source' motif--similar to adam-eve--would be more correct if it ran like this: "Godhead was the source of an enfleshed-Godperson".

Additionally, it should be noted that, linguistically, one simply cannot move from an author's intention (e.g. using a word with a central meaning of 'source of origin, source of completion' AS OPPOSED TO a word with a central meaning of 'authority, ruler'), to some theoretical 'conclusion' that the author was consciously intending BOTH MEANINGS at the same time. This is certainly counter-intuitive (without an indication of a play on meanings--like physical-head and source-head in I Cor 11), and one that would require a large number of passages that made that linkage of concepts EXPLICIT and PART OF THE SEMANTIC substructure of the language. That the majority of cases in which a author used 'source' to describe a person who ALSO had 'authority' is oblique at best and irrelevant at worst, to the issue. What must be shown is that the preponderance of authors used the word 'head' without using the word 'authority, ruler' and DREW DIRECT IMPLICATIONS in the 'authority' sphere--NOT the spheres of honor, respect, similarity, continuity, homage, etc (spheres that would be implications of 'source or origin').

And, when you have a semantic distance as great as between "source" and "authority" you MUST show how the literal meaning 'stretches' to the metaphorical meaning. "Fork in the road" can be derived from a physical fork, as can most other metaphorical extensions. In some cases, we know we can 'lose' the literal in favor of the metaphorical, but in this case BOTH USAGES co-exist in the literary data. It is incumbent, then, for someone to show how 'authority' can be an extension (in such a vast array of situations!) of "source" or "one who completes". It is not enough to cite statistical correlation.

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

[firehill]

It doesn't matter. The intent is clear and it is saying that wives are to be in submission to their husbands. You know Firehill, your doctrine sounds a lot like this off-the-wall teacher from Ohio. She has a web-site something theology feather. She is good at perverting scripture by twisting the meaning of Greek words. You don't by any chance know her do you? Her name is Paula. If you got mixed up in her stuff, it's no wonder why you are so confused. Anyway, if you don't know who I am speaking of, my apologies for mentioning it. Your doctrine just sounds so much like hers, I was just wondering.

What you see as the intent is clear to you. The supposed hierarchy is still UPSIDEDOWN. The word kephale is still debated amongst scholars. I have no idea who feather is. He you go again bring up erroneous ideas.

It is not my doctrine by the way. Again I refer to the earliest sources and they do not provide the meaning of

[firehill]

Firehill:And the husband is submitting to his wife as all christians are bound to do. Eph 5:21

Butero:Not in the same manner. The Pastor is a member of Christ's church, but in his church he leads. The Deacons and Bishops are likewise members of Christ's church, but they still are in authority over the laity. We all submit to one another, but that doesn't change the fact their is a chain of command.

The pastor is not the