Feminism is anti-Christ

[apothanein kerdos]

It's been established that Paul spoke of 'man and woman' in 1 Co 11 and not 'husband and wife'. Therefore if Paul didn't mean that 'the head of the woman is man' just like he wrote 'For man did not come from woman, but woman from man' then in light of the fact that Ephesians 5 says that Christ is the head of the church which includes EVERY man and EVERY woman how is it then that Christ is the authority (according to the gh's view of what head means) in 1 Co 11 of EVERY secular man outside of the church and christian but not every secualr woman outside the church and christian?

I'm not really following your question at all, firehill, even after reading it twice.

The context of 1 Cor. 11 is the church, as established both in verses 1 and 2. Christ is the head over all things to the church according to Eph. 1:22 (cf. Col. 1:18). He is not yet established His earthly rule and so is not the head of every man and woman in creation.

But 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.

I was tired when I typed it but nonetheless you got part of it. The context is church worship but this doesn't change what v.3 says. In Eph 5 it is written that Christ is the head of the church which includes ALL christian men and women. Now in 1 Co 11 (hopefully eveyone has been reading all my posts that established that Paul is speaking of man and woman not husband and wife!) Paul wrote that the head of EVERY man is Christ. Paul did not specify that he meant only those in Christ. It is especialy noted that he is speaking of ALL men and women by vv. 8 & 9 'For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man' and 12 'For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.' But everything comes from God.

Now since it has been established that Paul is speaking of ALL men and ALL women because of ORIGIN (see my earlier posts) therefore my question is since Christ is the head of the church (Eph 5 which includes EVERY man and woman of the body) how is it then that in v.3 of 1 Co 11 Christ is ONLY the head of EVERY man, SECULAR or otherwise?

Is that better?

No, it doesn't work. Again, 1 Corinthians 11 is dealing WITHIN THE CHURCH. The context demands this.

Regardless, as I've stated, you're essentially done in this debate. You still haven't dealt with kephale because you can't find a website that responds to what I said. Instead, you're now stuck with repeating yourself.

[firehill]

It's been established that Paul spoke of 'man and woman' in 1 Co 11 and not 'husband and wife'. Therefore if Paul didn't mean that 'the head of the woman is man' just like he wrote 'For man did not come from woman, but woman from man' then in light of the fact that Ephesians 5 says that Christ is the head of the church which includes EVERY man and EVERY woman how is it then that Christ is the authority (according to the gh's view of what head means) in 1 Co 11 of EVERY secular man outside of the church and christian but not every secualr woman outside the church and christian?

I'm not really following your question at all, firehill, even after reading it twice.

The context of 1 Cor. 11 is the church, as established both in verses 1 and 2. Christ is the head over all things to the church according to Eph. 1:22 (cf. Col. 1:18). He is not yet established His earthly rule and so is not the head of every man and woman in creation.

But 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.

I was tired when I typed it but nonetheless you got part of it. The context is church worship but this doesn't change what v.3 says. In Eph 5 it is written that Christ is the head of the church which includes ALL christian men and women. Now in 1 Co 11 (hopefully eveyone has been reading all my posts that established that Paul is speaking of man and woman not husband and wife!) Paul wrote that the head of EVERY man is Christ. Paul did not specify that he meant only those in Christ. It is especialy noted that he is speaking of ALL men and women by vv. 8 & 9 'For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man' and 12 'For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.' But everything comes from God.

Now since it has been established that Paul is speaking of ALL men and ALL women because of ORIGIN (see my earlier posts) therefore my question is since Christ is the head of the church (Eph 5 which includes EVERY man and woman of the body) how is it then that in v.3 of 1 Co 11 Christ is ONLY the head of EVERY man, SECULAR or otherwise?

Is that better?

No, it doesn't work. Again, 1 Corinthians 11 is dealing WITHIN THE CHURCH. The context demands this.

Regardless, as I've stated, you're essentially done in this debate. You still haven't dealt with kephale because you can't find a website that responds to what I said. Instead, you're now stuck with repeating yourself.

Yeah and the context specificaly SAYS 8 & 9 'For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man' and 12 'For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.' But everything comes from God. ALL men and ALL women!

I'm not finished responding to your requests. But as it stands your ignoring the SPECIFIED context of 1 co 11! And you don't like that WRITTEN SPECIFIED context. It's not that bad AK! Man and woman were not created within the church! I already noted that the context is also church worship which DOES NOT change what is written in v.3. Let the Written word speak for itself, please.

[apothanein kerdos]

It's been established that Paul spoke of 'man and woman' in 1 Co 11 and not 'husband and wife'. Therefore if Paul didn't mean that 'the head of the woman is man' just like he wrote 'For man did not come from woman, but woman from man' then in light of the fact that Ephesians 5 says that Christ is the head of the church which includes EVERY man and EVERY woman how is it then that Christ is the authority (according to the gh's view of what head means) in 1 Co 11 of EVERY secular man outside of the church and christian but not every secualr woman outside the church and christian?

I'm not really following your question at all, firehill, even after reading it twice.

The context of 1 Cor. 11 is the church, as established both in verses 1 and 2. Christ is the head over all things to the church according to Eph. 1:22 (cf. Col. 1:18). He is not yet established His earthly rule and so is not the head of every man and woman in creation.

But 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.

I was tired when I typed it but nonetheless you got part of it. The context is church worship but this doesn't change what v.3 says. In Eph 5 it is written that Christ is the head of the church which includes ALL christian men and women. Now in 1 Co 11 (hopefully eveyone has been reading all my posts that established that Paul is speaking of man and woman not husband and wife!) Paul wrote that the head of EVERY man is Christ. Paul did not specify that he meant only those in Christ. It is especialy noted that he is speaking of ALL men and women by vv. 8 & 9 'For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man' and 12 'For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.' But everything comes from God.

Now since it has been established that Paul is speaking of ALL men and ALL women because of ORIGIN (see my earlier posts) therefore my question is since Christ is the head of the church (Eph 5 which includes EVERY man and woman of the body) how is it then that in v.3 of 1 Co 11 Christ is ONLY the head of EVERY man, SECULAR or otherwise?

Is that better?

No, it doesn't work. Again, 1 Corinthians 11 is dealing WITHIN THE CHURCH. The context demands this.

Regardless, as I've stated, you're essentially done in this debate. You still haven't dealt with kephale because you can't find a website that responds to what I said. Instead, you're now stuck with repeating yourself.

Yeah and the context specificaly SAYS 8 & 9 'For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man' and 12 'For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.' But everything comes from God. ALL men and ALL women!

I'm not finished responding to your requests. But as it stands your ignoring the SPECIFIED context of 1 co 11! And you don't like that context. It's not that bad AK!

Because he's trying to make a point about how men and women should act within church. Are you seriously telling me that Paul, the first Christian philosopher/logician (aside from Jesus Christ, who was God in human flesh), has a lapse in his thinking? In chapter 10, 12, and 13, he's dealing with how the church should be governed, specific roles, gifts, etc. When, then, would chapter 11 deal with the overall function of men and women and not within the church? Even the direct context deals with roles in the church. Your interpretation makes literally no sense.

You're done.

[Giaour]

I just have to say this.

I am a woman who has been married for 24 years and it is my honor and privilege to serve and submit to my husband.

The rewards I receive are amazing.

I get treated like a queen.

I am blessed by submitting!

[firehill]

I had to edit:

It's been established that Paul spoke of 'man and woman' in 1 Co 11 and not 'husband and wife'. Therefore if Paul didn't mean that 'the head of the woman is man' just like he wrote 'For man did not come from woman, but woman from man' then in light of the fact that Ephesians 5 says that Christ is the head of the church which includes EVERY man and EVERY woman how is it then that Christ is the authority (according to the gh's view of what head means) in 1 Co 11 of EVERY secular man outside of the church and christian but not every secualr woman outside the church and christian?

I'm not really following your question at all, firehill, even after reading it twice.

The context of 1 Cor. 11 is the church, as established both in verses 1 and 2. Christ is the head over all things to the church according to Eph. 1:22 (cf. Col. 1:18). He is not yet established His earthly rule and so is not the head of every man and woman in creation.

But 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.

I was tired when I typed it but nonetheless you got part of it. The context is church worship but this doesn't change what v.3 says. In Eph 5 it is written that Christ is the head of the church which includes ALL christian men and women. Now in 1 Co 11 (hopefully eveyone has been reading all my posts that established that Paul is speaking of man and woman not husband and wife!) Paul wrote that the head of EVERY man is Christ. Paul did not specify that he meant only those in Christ. It is especialy noted that he is speaking of ALL men and women by vv. 8 & 9 'For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man' and 12 'For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.' But everything comes from God.

Now since it has been established that Paul is speaking of ALL men and ALL women because of ORIGIN (see my earlier posts) therefore my question is since Christ is the head of the church (Eph 5 which includes EVERY man and woman of the body) how is it then that in v.3 of 1 Co 11 Christ is ONLY the head of EVERY man, SECULAR or otherwise?

Which comes down to Christ being the head over ALL men but NOT SECULAR women. Christ's first foremost relationship is with the church not ALL men outside or inside of him. And that is the point of this question!

Is that better?

[Ovedya]

...1 Corinthians 11 is dealing WITHIN THE CHURCH. The context demands this.

Please read this again and again, and again, and again.

He is absolutely correct, firehill. You are reading too far into it.

[firehill]

It's been established that Paul spoke of 'man and woman' in 1 Co 11 and not 'husband and wife'. Therefore if Paul didn't mean that 'the head of the woman is man' just like he wrote 'For man did not come from woman, but woman from man' then in light of the fact that Ephesians 5 says that Christ is the head of the church which includes EVERY man and EVERY woman how is it then that Christ is the authority (according to the gh's view of what head means) in 1 Co 11 of EVERY secular man outside of the church and christian but not every secualr woman outside the church and christian?

I'm not really following your question at all, firehill, even after reading it twice.

The context of 1 Cor. 11 is the church, as established both in verses 1 and 2. Christ is the head over all things to the church according to Eph. 1:22 (cf. Col. 1:18). He is not yet established His earthly rule and so is not the head of every man and woman in creation.

But 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.

I was tired when I typed it but nonetheless you got part of it. The context is church worship but this doesn't change what v.3 says. In Eph 5 it is written that Christ is the head of the church which includes ALL christian men and women. Now in 1 Co 11 (hopefully eveyone has been reading all my posts that established that Paul is speaking of man and woman not husband and wife!) Paul wrote that the head of EVERY man is Christ. Paul did not specify that he meant only those in Christ. It is especialy noted that he is speaking of ALL men and women by vv. 8 & 9 'For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man' and 12 'For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.' But everything comes from God.

Now since it has been established that Paul is speaking of ALL men and ALL women because of ORIGIN (see my earlier posts) therefore my question is since Christ is the head of the church (Eph 5 which includes EVERY man and woman of the body) how is it then that in v.3 of 1 Co 11 Christ is ONLY the head of EVERY man, SECULAR or otherwise?

Is that better?

No, it doesn't work. Again, 1 Corinthians 11 is dealing WITHIN THE CHURCH. The context demands this.

Regardless, as I've stated, you're essentially done in this debate. You still haven't dealt with kephale because you can't find a website that responds to what I said. Instead, you're now stuck with repeating yourself.

Yeah and the context specificaly SAYS 8 & 9 'For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man' and 12 'For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.' But everything comes from God. ALL men and ALL women!

I'm not finished responding to your requests. But as it stands your ignoring the SPECIFIED context of 1 co 11! And you don't like that context. It's not that bad AK!

Because he's trying to make a point about how men and women should act within church. Are you seriously telling me that Paul, the first Christian philosopher/logician (aside from Jesus Christ, who was God in human flesh), has a lapse in his thinking? In chapter 10, 12, and 13, he's dealing with how the church should be governed, specific roles, gifts, etc. When, then, would chapter 11 deal with the overall function of men and women and not within the church? Even the direct context deals with roles in the church. Your interpretation makes literally no sense.

You're done.

I'm not finished responding to your requests. But as it stands your ignoring the SPECIFIED context of 1 co 11! And you don't like that WRITTEN SPECIFIED context. It's not that bad AK! Man and woman were not created within the church! I already noted that the context is also church worship which DOES NOT change what is written in v.3.

Let the Written word speak for itself, please.

Goodnight!

[apothanein kerdos]

I'm not finished responding to your requests. But as it stands your ignoring the SPECIFIED context of 1 co 11! And you don't like that WRITTEN SPECIFIED context. It's not that bad AK! Man and woman were not created within the church! I already noted that the context is also church worship which DOES NOT change what is written in v.3.

Let the Written word speak for itself, please.

Goodnight!

Now you're just repeating yourself because you can't respond.

As I said:

Because he's trying to make a point about how men and women should act within church. Are you seriously telling me that Paul, the first Christian philosopher/logician (aside from Jesus Christ, who was God in human flesh), has a lapse in his thinking? In chapter 10, 12, and 13, he's dealing with how the church should be governed, specific roles, gifts, etc. When, then, would chapter 11 deal with the overall function of men and women and not within the church? Even the direct context deals with roles in the church. Your interpretation makes literally no sense.

Paul was a philosopher. His writing style of appearing to natural law to prove a point within a specific context is common. In Romans 1 he appeals to nature for proof for God. Does this mean a person can come to salvation simply by looking at nature? Of course not - Paul was using a natural law and overall concept in order to explain a specific context (that all men know they are guilty of sin). In Acts 17 he appeals to the unknown god in order to prove God. Does this mean the unknown god should be worshiped? Of course not - he's appealing to an overall idea in order to prove a specific point. He's doing the same in this context. He's saying that women should be subjected to man's authority in the church, and proceeds to appeal to natural order to do this. The passage is not to say that all men are above all women, and especially is not saying that Christ is the head of all men (as some do not follow Him) - it is using a natural concept (that man was created first) to prove an ecclesiological point (that women should not have authority above men in church).

[Ovedya]

I was tired when I typed it but nonetheless you got part of it. The context is church worship but this doesn't change what v.3 says.

No! The context is the church period. Not just worship, but in every aspect.

In Eph 5 it is written that Christ is the head of the church which includes ALL christian men and women. Now in 1 Co 11 (hopefully eveyone has been reading all my posts that established that Paul is speaking of man and woman not husband and wife!) Paul wrote that the head of EVERY man is Christ. Paul did not specify that he meant only those in Christ.

I fail to see the significance of your drifting from Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11, and then back again. It makes absolutely no sense at all to me.

Paul did not specify only those in Christ? Who do you think he is writing to? Verse 1, "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." Do you seriously think he meant this for unbelievers? Verse 2, "But I praise you because in all things you have remembered me and hold fast the things that I have handed down, even as I have handed them down to you." Do you think that Paul is teaching unbelievers? Do you thyink that Paul ius handing down teachings to an unbelieving group of people?

Verse 3 [begining of discourse regarding the recognition of authority and proper order within the church]: "But I want you to know that the Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ.

Verses 4-6 [Regarding the head coverings being a sign of submission]: Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered disgraces his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is one and the same as she who is shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her hair also be cut off; but if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, let her be covered."

Notice that the word "head" is not metaphorical in verses 4-6. Paul is talking about a literal head. therefore "head" cannot be merely metaphorical in verse 3. Since Paul's discourse is regarding submission to authority, and head covering being a sign of that submission, he must necessarily be talking about authority at the beginning of the discourse. Secondly, verse 4 starts with "every man." Do you think that he is talking about "every man" both within and without the church? Verse 5 starts with "every woman." Do you think he's writing about "every woman" both within and without the church. He cannot be talking about every man and every woman within and without the church. He's talking about the church ONLY

It is especialy noted that he is speaking of ALL men and women by vv. 8 & 9 'For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man' and 12 'For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.' But everything comes from God.

Wrong again. Paul is talking about Adam and Eve, not EVERY man and EVERY woman.

Your question has no established foundation because your understanding of the verses in 1 Cor. 11 is completely wrong. It cannot be answered because to do so we would have to submit to your erroneous interpretation.

[None]

I was going to respond to Butero but he called me "someone like that" which was direct rudeness.

Ephesians 5

The husband is the head of the wife (the qualifying statement which begins with 'AS' comes next and there is NO OTHER as Paul was inspired to write the ONLY qualifier that he did) AS Christ is the head of the church, his body.

Therefore:

The husband is NOT the head of the wife AS Christ is the head of the church, HIS CHILDREN. WRONG! We are not Christ's children. (Does anyone know the number of times we are called 'children of God' in the NT? That would be great if someone could provide that count.) The question is then on what scriptural GROUND is the husband the HEAD OF his children? The question is not on what scriptural ground is the husband an authority over his children! We are starting with the WRITTEN Ephesians 5 GROUND ya know. Obviously the ground work for parental authority is not laid (WRITTEN) in Ephesians 5. Another question is, since Paul ONLY used the term HEAD (Greek, kephale) in Eph 5 in relation to the husbands of the wife AS Christ of the church why are so many of you adding a use of a Greek term (kephale, translated 'head') in relation to the husband over HIS CHILDREN? Paul continued on in chapter six about the instructions of the child to OBEY his parentS and therein if Paul wanted to he could have used the term HEAD but he DID NOT. WHY? It would have been so simple for him to do so, yes? Was Paul not INSPIRED?

Children cannot be the BODY of the husband but the wife is metaphoricaly speaking. Can anyone explain how the head/body metaphor can be applied to husband/child and wife/child when it cannot even be applied to Christ/child since Christ has not one child and since we are God's children NOT Christ's? In conclusion then the gender hierarchalist must admit that IF kephale means 'authority' then AT THE VERY LEAST the husband is the head OF the wife (head OF the body, wife) in a MUCH DIFFERENT SENSE then he would be the head over his children. BUT then another question naturaly arises. Why would there be any difference at ALL if it were simply True that 'the husband is THE HEAD OVER the home?' The popular statement is thrown around yet it cannot even be simply true since there is a difference between a head/body that is, husband/wife relationship metaphor as used in Eph 5 and children instructed to OBEY their parents as Paul WROTE immediately after Eph 5. This is True simply because there is a difference between a marital and parentla relationship. Back to basics. We need to get elementary. Since the SIMPLE false statement 'the husband is the head of the home' cannot even be simply True then why is it parroted?

The false parroted statement that 'the husband is the head of the home' is born out of the misunderstanding of Ephesians 5 to begin with since therein is a head/body metaphor. Therefore this must be addressed. Where else did the gender hierarchalist get the idea from besides from a misunderstanding of 1 Co 11 WHEREN the VERY term HEAD is used? Duh! So these things must be addressed.

I hope any will respond to this also since no one has yet.

I believe we've stated our cases accurately. That's why they will be ignored. What you're saying makes sense but goes against the letters Paul and Peter(and Timothy too) wrote to the churches, even though they made it clear in several verses that they were only stating their own opinion. Usually when a person makes a statement regarding their opinion they are making it clear they are not speaking for God. When the prophets spoke for God they made it 110% clear by saying phrases like "This is what the Lord God says...".

The NT writers, to make it clear when they were "backed" by God's Word, would quote old scriptures, like Isaiah or Psalms.

God makes no mistakes, man does.

I can play the "accuracy card" here as far as every single verse in the Bible being the perfect Word recorded(no mistakes):

1 Kings 15:5

5)For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD's commands all the days of his life