Split: Feminisim is Anti-Christ

[apothanein kerdos]

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

[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

[apothanein kerdos]

Oh give me a break. You're asking a bold question there but are you bold enough to answer mine?

KJV

5)Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD,

and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life,

save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite

It's a valid question. If you believe the Bible is man's opinion, how do you know God exists? Tell me how you know God exists, that Jesus is God, that He died for your sins, and how He rose again WITHOUT using the Bible.

As for you "question":

You're ignoring Hebraic writing style. Generally, when listing the sins of someone, it lists the worst sin a person can commit. Thus, when the author of kings writes this, he refers to the worst sin David committed (which caused the downfall of Israel really) and not all of his sins. We know of only two sins that David committed in his tenure as kind...but we can be assured that he sinned on a daily basis. The writers, however, dealt with what was known and the major sins. If we are to take your interpretation, then David's sins, all of them, should have been listed. Thus, your argument really doesn't make any sense. It lists the biggest sin of David.

Now, can you answer my question?

[Guest lmwal931]

scripture is inerrant. there are no mistakes. but sometime it can be difficult. it may be symbolic. it may be very difficult to understand. the HOLY SPIRIT leads us into the truth of scripture.

is

e.g. paul can be difficult. sometimes he ^ very facetious. like when he says women can't talk in church. he also says for men to love their wives like christ loves the church. we can't love as much as CHRIST does.

marriage is a 2-way street. it takes 2 to raise children. i tell my wife she is much smarter. and she is. JESUS was humble. john the baptist was humble. if you follow our LORD, you are always humble. my wife is more than a equal partner. i cherish her. she is forever my bride.

i believe the HOLY SPIRIT is the BRIDE OF CHRIST. and i am adamant about it. the baptist said he was the friend of the BRIDEGROOM. somtimes people are ugly about this but i aint gonna lie about it.

[Marnie]

i believe the HOLY SPIRIT is the BRIDE OF CHRIST. and i am adamant about it. the baptist said he was the friend of the BRIDEGROOM. somtimes people are ugly about this but i aint gonna lie about it.

Huh ...Why do you believe such. So you dont believe the Church is the Bride.

The New Jerusalem is the Bride of Christ according to my Bible.

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. Rev. 21:2, KJV

[rtwo]

i believe the HOLY SPIRIT is the BRIDE OF CHRIST. and i am adamant about it. the baptist said he was the friend of the BRIDEGROOM. somtimes people are ugly about this but i aint gonna lie about it.

Huh ...Why do you believe such. So you dont believe the Church is the Bride.

The New Jerusalem is the Bride of Christ according to my Bible.

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. Rev. 21:2, KJV

So are you saying the Church is not the Bride.

Well, the occupants of the holy city would, presumably, be the Church. So I might suggest that the "new Jerusalem" of Rev. and the Church are one and the same.

I'm also curious, lmwa, why you are "adamant" about the Spirit being the bride, when there is absolutely nothing in Scripture to support such a position?

[TheoMike]

The Bride of Christ is all believers, from every Dispensation; inhabitants of the New Jerusalem, in other words.

[Openly Curious]

The Bride of Christ is all believers, from every Dispensation; inhabitants of the New Jerusalem, in other words.

John said and describe the New Jerusalem "AS" a bride meaning as the Holy City was coming down from heaven it appeared to him as a bride in all of her beauty coming down the isle to meet her bridegroom at the end as a bride is decked out in all of her beauty and splendor. And this was the way the Holy City appeared in John's mind as he saw it in all of it's beauty as the foundations was sparkling and all as it was descending what a sight it must have been to have seen it and then have to write about it and describe it.

The church inhabits this glorious city of God as the church is the Bride of Christ that will inhabit this city where the streets are pure gold and the lamb is the light. I agree with you.

OC

[None]

Oh give me a break. You're asking a bold question there but are you bold enough to answer mine?

KJV

5)Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD,

and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life,

save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite

It's a valid question. If you believe the Bible is man's opinion, how do you know God exists? Tell me how you know God exists, that Jesus is God, that He died for your sins, and how He rose again WITHOUT using the Bible.

As for you "question":

You're ignoring Hebraic writing style. Generally, when listing the sins of someone, it lists the worst sin a person can commit. Thus, when the author of kings writes this, he refers to the worst sin David committed (which caused the downfall of Israel really) and not all of his sins. We know of only two sins that David committed in his tenure as kind...but we can be assured that he sinned on a daily basis. The writers, however, dealt with what was known and the major sins. If we are to take your interpretation, then David's sins, all of them, should have been listed. Thus, your argument really doesn't make any sense. It lists the biggest sin of David.

What you are refering to as David's "biggest sin" is your own opinion. His "biggest sin", killing Uriah(according to you), had a punishment from God killing the child(one child) that came about from this sin. The sin of direct disobedience in numbering, when God specifically told him not to, had a punishment from God of God's angel going around and slaying EVERYONE, until David begged God to stop His angel.

Downfall? All sin is downfall but, apparently, the numbering sin made God a bit more angry to send out His angel like that on everyone.

Now, can you answer my question?

"If you believe the Bible is man's opinion, how do you know God exists?"- you

How cruel of you to warp what I said. I clearly stated that when some of the prophets, including Moses and even David, spoke for God, they made it certain the audience they spoke to knew it by saying something like, "Thus sayeth the Lord your God..."etc. Accounts that were written, geneologies, history; all these, I believe, were God approved. Just as when Moses, seeing that the men in his camp couldn't control their evil ways, allowed them a certificate of divorce. Jesus made it very clear that that was NOT God breathed but a rule Moses made for his people.

The Bible is FLOODED with God's Breath, I'd never deny that, especially when Jesus speaks, how can I NOT believe in God.

"My sheep hear my voice and they know me." I know God's voice when I hear it.

the HOLY SPIRIT leads us into the truth of scripture

Exactly.

[Smalcald]

What is feminism? What do we mean by that term?