Feminism is anti-Christ

[firehill]

Amazing...no one will deal with the kephale argument. All I'm getting is useless dribble from the egalitarians.

That's exactly what is being dealt with on a point by point basis ACCORDING to what Paul WROTE. I will address your requests as I've said. Most importantly we are beginning with what Paul WROTE. So if your interested then attemp a response to my last post on Ephesians 5. All I hear is SILENCE!

[Scarletprayers]

Amazing...no one will deal with the kephale argument. All I'm getting is useless dribble from the egalitarians.

That's exactly what is being dealt with on a point by point basis ACCORDING to what Paul WROTE. I will address your requests as I've said. Most importantly we are beginning with what Paul WROTE. So if your interested then attemp a response to my last post on Ephesians 5. All I hear is SILENCE!

All I hear is tap dancing.

[apothanein kerdos]

Amazing...no one will deal with the kephale argument. All I'm getting is useless dribble from the egalitarians.

That's exactly what is being dealt with on a point by point basis ACCORDING to what Paul WROTE. I will address your requests as I've said. Most importantly we are beginning with what Paul WROTE. So if your interested then attemp a response to my last post on Ephesians 5. All I hear is SILENCE!

You didn't even come close to dealing with it!

You brought up that stupid argument of, "Well, he never says word for word that man is the head of the household, so yay!"

That's already been dealt with.

Man has authority over his wife

The wife has authority over the children

Therefore, man has authority over his children

This is how the argument is properly structured. Your argument is:

Man has authority over his wife

The wife has authority over the children

Therefore, the husband does not have authority over his children

This, logically, doesn't work. It's a logical error. It's a stupid argument.

Deal with kephale, or admit you're wrong. It means "authority." You're done.

[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.

Still hasn't been touched.

[firehill]

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!!!

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.

I am accurate.

For now I'll give in response to your kephale post:

We'll begin here then in 1 Co 11 in a little while since you don't want to discuss my last post on Ephesians 5. We can always go back to that though. To be precise KEEP IN MIND the statement I made above. That is, 'The qualifier wasn't marriage but ORIGIN!!! wink.gif'

As I had said, in 1 Co 11, Paul wrote that 'the man is the head of the woman'.

I'll be back.

[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.

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.

Still hasn't been touched.

See my last post.

Catcha laters.

[Emily~Anne]

Just thought I'd post these:

Genesis 2:18 (King James Version)

18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Genesis 2:23 (King James Version)

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Timothy 2:9-14 (King James Version)

9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

1 Corinthians 11:3 (King James Version)

3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Ephesians 5:22-33 (King James Version)

22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Colossians 3:18-21 (New International Version)

Rules for Christian Households

18Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

20Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.

21Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.

Titus 2:3-5 (King James Version)

3The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

4That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

5To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

1 Peter 3:1-7 (King James Version)

1Likewise, 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;

2While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4But 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.

5For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

6Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

7Likewise, 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.

And in response to anymore warped kephale arguments, (Note that I shortened AK's post to this specific part, AK wrote more)

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.

[Kabowd]

If wives are not called to obey their husbands, and the marriage relationship serves as a picture of Christ and the Church, does this mean the Church is not called to obey Christ?

[apothanein kerdos]

I dealt with your Ephesians post Firehill.

You're stalling for time. I'm dealing with the word kephale, period. You're stalling because you can't find a website that counters what I'm saying.

If this were a scored debate, you would have lost long ago. Since we're debating truth, though, you lost the moment you posted.

[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.

God never cursed man. He only cursed the serpent and the ground.

You're right, we must still be in the Garden of Eden.

Here's scripture:

Genesis 3:14-19

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,

"Cursed are you above all the livestock

and all the wild animals!

You will crawl on your belly

and you will eat dust

all the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity

between you and the woman,

and between your offspring and hers;

he will crush your head,

and you will strike his heel."

16 To the woman he said,

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;

with pain you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you."

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'

"Cursed is the ground because of you;

through painful toil you will eat of it

all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,

and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow

you will eat your food

until you return to the ground,

since from it you were taken;

for dust you are

and to dust you will return."

Interesting how only this part of verse 16 applies: To the woman he said,

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;

with pain you will give birth to children.

But not this part of the same verse: Your desire will be for your husband,

and he will rule over you.