Feminism is anti-Christ

[Emily~Anne]

By the way, if the curse is lifted, I guess all the men are free to quit their jobs. They no longer have to labor to eat. Women will be glad to know they can give birth free from pain, and I guess the mortuaries will be going out of business. I am also looking forward to seeing snakes walking upright.

[apothanein kerdos]

Paul meant what he wrote: 'the man is the head of the woman'. You cannot get around it. In order to be consistent you must face the fact when your opinion of what 'head' means is inserted into the 1 Co 11 passage then you have a teaching from Paul that states ALL men are the authority of ALL women. You are not being consistent if you don't. This is one place where the gender hierachalist position crumbles.

This is, in all honesty, a stupid argument. It can easily be argued that aner and gune refer to "Husband" and "wife." This, put in the context of the passage, makes more sense.

Here's my main contribution to the thread -

Everyone keeps arguing that kephale means "source" or "origin." This commits the error of "semantic obsolescence." In Classical Greek, even in Classical Greek lexicons (such as LSJ), kephale DOES mean "source." However, the New Testament was composed quite a few centuries after the Classical period, and was written in Koine Greek, not Classical Greek. By the time the Bible was written in Koine Greek, kephale had changed from "source" to "authority."

Thus, any argument saying that kephale means "origin" is based upon an earlier meaning of the word and not the meaning of the word at that time.

In fact, I can take this further if you want and prove how this continues to perform an appeal to an unlikely meaning (another exegetical fallacy). Just say the word and I'll continue.

Please continue A.K. We need some sanity in this thread.

Then I shall.

People who use kephale as a justification for an egalitarian position go on to commit the fallacy of an appeal to an unlikely meaning (I must mention that D.A. Carson is the one who has coined these fallacies, though they are also in common use for logical fallacies, he is the one that first applied them to exegetical studies).

Even if we ignore my previous point, that kephale as "source" can only work in Classical Greek, the debate can still continue. For instance, even when we look to the LSJ lexicon (again, a Classical Greek lexicon) we find that the only time it documents kephale meaning origin is in Fragmenta Orphilocorum (400 B.C.). This, it should be noted, is the only time kephale is used in its singular form to mean "origin." In Classical Greek for kephale to be used as "source" it is always written in its plural form (kephalai). Again, the only time we see it used to mean "origin" in its singular form is from a document that was written 400 years before Christ. That would be the equivalent to using Old English to determine the meaning of words today.

In other words, there isn't enough evidence to dictate that, "This word means this." One reference, which could easily be a misuse of the word or a grammatical error on part of the scribe, is not enough to justify using kephale to mean "source." Considering we only have ONE manuscript, dated 400 years or more before Christ, that uses kephale to mean source (remember, all other instances are plural), it makes no sense to take this one Classical Greek meaning, which could have been a mistake on the author, and apply it to every instance of kephale in the New Testament Koine writing.

And this post will go ignored by the egalitarians on here. Firehill won't touch it.

Amazing how the egalitarians got silent after this.

None of them have even taken a hack at it.

[firehill]

Paul meant what he wrote: 'the man is the head of the woman'. You cannot get around it. In order to be consistent you must face the fact when your opinion of what 'head' means is inserted into the 1 Co 11 passage then you have a teaching from Paul that states ALL men are the authority of ALL women. You are not being consistent if you don't. This is one place where the gender hierachalist position crumbles.

This is, in all honesty, a stupid argument. It can easily be argued that aner and gune refer to "Husband" and "wife." This, put in the context of the passage, makes more sense.

3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head

[apothanein kerdos]

I don't have time to respond to everything right this moment but I will get to your requests, AK. wink.gif

Regarding v.11 notice that v.12 is the qualifier. '12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.' Therefore ALL men come from a woman their mother. In this sense as woman came from man ALL men come from women therefore

'in the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.' You see you are misunderstand what Paul meant by woman is not independant of man nor man independent of woman. The qualifier wasn't marriage but ORIGIN!!! wink.gif

I have to go but I'll be back.

Okay. So in the church, since that is the direct context, women are to submit to men. The context is within a church setting, so you haven't really done anything Firehill except limit even more.

Now onto kephale.

[Floatingaxe]

I don't have time to respond to everything right this moment but I will get to your requests, AK. wink.gif

Regarding v.11 notice that v.12 is the qualifier. '12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.' Therefore ALL men come from a woman their mother. In this sense as woman came from man ALL men come from women therefore

'in the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.' You see you are misunderstand what Paul meant by woman is not independant of man nor man independent of woman. The qualifier wasn't marriage but ORIGIN!!! wink.gif

I have to go but I'll be back.

Okay. So in the church, since that is the direct context, women are to submit to men. The context is within a church setting, so you haven't really done anything Firehill except limit even more.

Now onto kephale.

We submit to our male leaders, and our female leaders as unto the Lord.

[apothanein kerdos]

I don't have time to respond to everything right this moment but I will get to your requests, AK. wink.gif

Regarding v.11 notice that v.12 is the qualifier. '12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.' Therefore ALL men come from a woman their mother. In this sense as woman came from man ALL men come from women therefore

'in the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.' You see you are misunderstand what Paul meant by woman is not independant of man nor man independent of woman. The qualifier wasn't marriage but ORIGIN!!! wink.gif

I have to go but I'll be back.

Okay. So in the church, since that is the direct context, women are to submit to men. The context is within a church setting, so you haven't really done anything Firehill except limit even more.

Now onto kephale.

By the time Firehill gets done, women won't be able to do anything.

This is true.

The passage is sandwiched between two chapters dealing with interactions within the church. I was trying to say that "man and woman" was "husband and wife" and how the two should act within the church. But Firehill is accurate, it could mean men and women within the church.

As for floatingaxe...until you have something of substance, you're being ignored by me.

[Openly Curious]

I don't have time to respond to everything right this moment but I will get to your requests, AK. wink.gif

Regarding v.11 notice that v.12 is the qualifier. '12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.' Therefore ALL men come from a woman their mother. In this sense as woman came from man ALL men come from women therefore

'in the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.' You see you are misunderstand what Paul meant by woman is not independant of man nor man independent of woman. The qualifier wasn't marriage but ORIGIN!!! wink.gif

I have to go but I'll be back.

Okay. So in the church, since that is the direct context, women are to submit to men. The context is within a church setting, so you haven't really done anything Firehill except limit even more.

Now onto kephale.

We submit to our male leaders, and our female leaders as unto the Lord.

This doesn't make any sense to me floatingaxe I mean if there is equality as you believe in Christ and everybody is on the same ground then why is there submission expected in the church to either gender seeing that Christ is the head and only authority. Just seems in your view on things these leaders would be the hierarchy. The believers should be free to do as they wish in following the Lord Jesus Christ you know because of the new order you mentioned. confused

OC

[Floatingaxe]

Butero~

Does your wife think you're missing?

[Floatingaxe]

Butero~

Does your wife think you're missing?

No. My wife is not feeling well and is resting. Does your husband think you are missing?

Nah...he's still at work!

I pray your wife improves soon.

[None]

Butero,

I do believe the Bible is God breathed but to say that man didn't put in his own personalty and perceptions, relating to the time period he was living in and the culture of that time period, is naive. God never changes over time, it's man who does.

Peter and Paul touched base on not putting stumbling blocks in front of would-be believers; this is the reason I believe they felt it necessary to recommend keeping such traditions. God breathed? I believe God gave the go-ahead on the matter of no stumbling blocks. Yes.

In spite of the fact that Scripture does not say that a wife is to obey her husband

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman He said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

1Pe 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection( to subordinate, obey) 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;

What is not clear?

We've already discussed that upotassoMAI is to voluntarily arrange oneself under. The word that means obey, upakouo, is NOT used. It IS used when addressing children and slaves. Thus, Paul deliberately told wives to voluntarily submit, while he told children and slaves to obey.

but lets look at Gen. 3:16.

To the woman God warns "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow (toil, hardship, pain