1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

"Husband of one wife"

Discussion in 'Christian Debate Forum' started by Berean, Aug 27, 2019.

  1. Grailhunter

    Grailhunter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,000
    Likes Received:
    3,811
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Wiggle all want. No conversion regarding favoritism in the actual scriptures. Not even close....the Greek word is very specific and well defined. Your argument keeps proving me right. Respecter of persons And in motion the lack of respect of persons has caused the greatest unfairness and the greatest atrocities.....keep going I am loving it! Denying the scriptures and reality! Is that what they call delusional?
     
  2. A_Man

    A_Man Active Member

    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    39
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Your line of argument is probably not going to have too many takers around here since people on this forum are able to read. They can actually read the definitions you quoted and the historical definition from the dictionary entry I quoted. You certainly do stick to your guns...

    James 2
    1 My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. 2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, 3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” 4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called? (KJV)

    A lot of us read the passage in the antiquated King James language and were able to figure out that 'respect of persons' has to do with favoritism/partiality. It is pretty clear from context in the KJV, which I quote below.

    James 2
    2 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
    2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
    3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
    4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
    5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
    6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
    7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
    8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
    9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

    Definitions of words in the KJV, which was written over 400 years ago, do not always correspond with how the words are used before.

    Your conversation reminds me of this question I was asked from a girl in college, "If Jesus is so good, why did He want the children to suffer?" I explained to her that in KJV English, "Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me" means to allow the little children to come to Him. Your point is quite similar, as the definitions you quoted show. The fact that one of the definitions repeats KJV English 'respect of person' in the definition does not prove your point.

    There are also laws in the Old Testament against favoring the rich or the poor in court and there are prophecies against oppressing the poor in other books.
     
  3. Grailhunter

    Grailhunter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,000
    Likes Received:
    3,811
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    The Greek word for favoritism----ευνοιοκρατία---meaning; to show favor or partiality. It does not occur in the scriptures.....They had a word for it and did not use it. Changing the meanings of the Greek words is one of many ways to misinterpret the scriptures. From your past posts, we know what you justify. Bank robbers justify what they do....Hitler I am sure justified what he did...You justify the subjugation of women. Ever consider being a Jew?
     
  4. A_Man

    A_Man Active Member

    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    39
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Finding another word that means partiality in Greek doesn't prove your point. Did you use Google scholar's modern Greek translation? Look at the definitions you offered for evidence. In school they teach you to use context clues if you do not know what a word means. James 2 is full of context that shows you what the phrase the KJV translates 'respecter of persons' means. We come across this in the KJV when Peter says that God is not a respecter of persons in regard to the Gentiles in Cornelius' house. It is also obvious from context what this means. You are disagreeing with committees of translators, including the KJV translators back when 'respecter of persons' meant someone who showed partiality or favoritism.

    It is silly. Do you think anyone is dumb enough to fall for what you are arguing. Can't you just admit when you are wrong? It's not that big of a deal to do so.

    You bring up Hitler and then make a negative comment about Jews in the same paragraph.
     
  5. Grailhunter

    Grailhunter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,000
    Likes Received:
    3,811
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    The Greek word is respect.But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. The Geek word for favoritism does not appear in the Bible.

    Google....lol Jewish studies at American University in Washington DC and a bunch of linguistic books. Hebrew University of Jerusalem, my Master's degree in theology is from Canyon University. No need for google.
     
  6. A_Man

    A_Man Active Member

    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    39
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    That's really surprising considering the content of your recent posts posts. My bachelors is in Linguistics. My masters and PhD are in another field. One of the things emphasized in my Morphology class, which was taught by a lexicographer, is that definitions of words are understood by what they mean in context. The context of the passage I quoted an Acts 10 show us that the word refers to favoritism.

    I wonder why you would invest that much time in education in theology if you have such a dim view of the faith.
     
  7. Grailhunter

    Grailhunter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,000
    Likes Received:
    3,811
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Definitely the means of the context....respect means respect..
    Part of the topic is cultural conditioning. The more energy and effort you put into justifying the unfairness and cruelty of your beliefs, prove my point. And also why it has taken so long for Christianity to work its way out of this mind set. What you have done is what I anticipated. People reading will see, to what extent a persons will go to, to justify the wrong things they believe and do. As I said…..
    Without respect, men can argue with me about ruling over their wives.
    Without respect, men can argue with me about the moral righteousness of slavery.
    Without respect, men can argue with me about human rights.
    Without respect, a man can expect his mother, sister, and his wife to know their place.
    Without respect the whole “love one another” is just a cliché. Hey I’ll pray for ya! Have a nice day! Sorry for your loss! Christianity is love! Love ya brother! Easy to say, no danger, no commitment, very shallow. How can love abide without respect?
    Truth is about religion, religion is about truth....no insult to the religion to say truth. Fundamental right and wrong, if you knew the spirit of Christianity, you would not be arguing this with me....But not unexpected.
     
  8. A_Man

    A_Man Active Member

    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    39
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    The Bible is not against respect in the modern sense. The KJV speaks against partiality 'respect of persons' in early modern English. I don't know if you are not reading or if for some reason you cannot perceive. This is something simple any average person should be able to see in Acts 10 or James 2...or by looking up the dictionary definitions we have addressed.
     
  9. Grailhunter

    Grailhunter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,000
    Likes Received:
    3,811
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Again cultural conditioning...what was said and what was done." How do you like that. No better way to define the word and put it in motion.
    1800+ years....How many millions of women lived as second rate citizens in their perspective cultures. Do to those that believe as you. Is that love? Is that Christianity? Is that the character of God?

    1800+ years....How many millions of women lived as second rate member of the church? Do to those that believe as you. Is that love? Is that Christianity? Is that the character of God?

    The problem was lack of respect of others and Christian history is a testament to that. Women....children....slaves....etc.

    It is the word....it is the history....and it is the proof.

    I invite anyone reading this to look up the Greek definitions of respect and decide for yourself. And then look at the history of how Christianity applied love.
    Love without respect. Again love is not a picture of slavery. Love is not a picture of subjugated women.
     
  10. A_Man

    A_Man Active Member

    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    39
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Cultural conditioning? I find your comments to be ethnocentric. Maybe that's not the right word since I mean your-own-culture-centric but that's not a term in common use. I am thinking of Shalom Schwart's values research. There are cultures where obedience is highly valued, as opposed to values like self-direction in the US. The laws God gave do not always correspond with western values, self-direction, hedonism achievement. That does not make God, or the Bible, wrong. The Bible was written over thousands of years, and Israelites were surrounded by nations whose values were really... dark. There was child sacrifice, ritualized sexual immorality and various forms of perversion, in addition to witchcraft.

    You are obviously rather egalitarian. The Bible teaches wives to submit to their husbands. You probably have a problem with that. I do not. I consider our culture to have gone too far in the wrong direction where women not respecting (in the modern sense) their husbands properly is a widespread problem. Of course, there are plenty of bad husbands who do not love their wives as they should, and this is bad as well. But the standard is not western ideas of morality, and if they conflict with what God has revealed, that does not make western morality all correct. We live in a very libertine society where 'free speech' is often expressed as blasphemy.

    As far as politics go, I don't see any reason to think that democracy is God's ideal for mankind. It doesn't work everywhere. When the majority of people in a society think that you should remove someone's hand for stealing a chicken, democracy might not work out well for that society. A benevolent dictator would be better for the people than a malevolent democracy. Socrates was executed by a vote. God worked through a nation that had monarchies and predominantly male eldership-type systems, through raising up judge being raised up (which were usually men) and other variations of those systems.

    We live in an evil age. We await a just monarchy to come.

    Wives are to be subject to their own husbands, and the husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. You can call this 'subjugation'-- a word that sounds bad to the ears of Americans and other westerners who prize the word 'freedom' so much. But opposing those teachings is not loving, btw, because love rejoices with the truth. Freedom is so important, that you mention it and people get on board. Go invade a country far away that isn't bothering us, and it is to protect our 'freedom.'

    Love does not equal conforming to your concept of morals and ethics on all issues.

    [/QUOTE]
     
  11. Grailhunter

    Grailhunter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,000
    Likes Received:
    3,811
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    [/QUOTE]Ok, you are really invested into this domination of women thing. I could not have asked for more. Thank you for your participation. You have been a wonderful illustrator of my post. Look forward to talking to you on another topic sometime. But for now, count me out.
     
  12. 101G

    101G Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,315
    Likes Received:
    3,397
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    GINOLJC, TO ALL.
    as in any topic, one needs to get to the root of the problem? "A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE". a statement was made, and in observation, one can see the problem. "Wives are to be subject to their own husbands". not to the local church pastor, or the deacons ect.... but to their "OWN" husbands. one need to let that sank in. this is for the married. knowing this, it shed light on 1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." question, "who was not permitted to speak in the churches?" wives. how do we know this? because the very next verse tells us. 1 Corinthians 14:35 "And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." BINGO, there it is "husband at home". the only woman who have a husband is a married one. so 1 Corinthians 14:34 was not directed at all women in the church, only the married one. so why was the married one not permitted to speak? because their DUMB husbands didn't teach them the word of God AT HOME FIRST, nor church etiquette as to when and what to speak. for a husband and wife should be one in thought and mind. other words the husband don't get up and speak one thing, and his dumb wife follows speak something different about the same subject, that "CONFUSION". hence why a HUSBAND suffer not his wife to teach but be in subjection ....... to LEARN. Learning God word is a charity, "IT BEGANS AT HOME". so get home right first before you can shine out in church.

    PICJAG.
     
  13. A_Man

    A_Man Active Member

    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    39
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    ntries think they 'have arrived' morally when it comes to issues related to marriage, family, freedom, etc. But families are falling apart and soce

    'Domination of women' and wives submitting to their husband are not quite the same thing. Many people in western societies think their concepts of family, freedom, and equality are more moral than God's, but families are split apart, and much of society is sexually immoral.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2019
  14. A_Man

    A_Man Active Member

    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    39
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Paul writes about women prophesying in I Corinthians 11. the idea that women might have been able to prophesy in the church meeting is not new. St. john Chrysostom seems to allow for that in his commentary on the passage. But he also seems to have had little experience with the actual phenomenon that Paul describes.


    But, be that as it may, I wonder if the Greek there for 'ask their own husbands at home' could refer to asking fathers as well as husbands. The word could be translated 'men' as well. Does 'idios' in 'tous idios andras' make 'andras' mean husbands rather than just man? That is something I would want to ask someone who had a really strong feel for the language who wasn't just tied to surfae tools like Strong's concordance. I used to now someone I asked questions like that who used to chair a Classics department, but he passed away.
     
  15. CharismaticLady

    CharismaticLady Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,787
    Likes Received:
    3,128
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    I don't expect very many men to agree with what I am about to say, and especially the men who don't accept a woman teaching them. I am pasting here a response I already gave in another post.

    The Church was very young, and Jewish women were uneducated in the Torah. And with women on one side and all the men on the other, Paul didn't want a lot of questions by the women calling out to their husband on the other side, but to ask them at home. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. However, these two verses broke up the context of what Paul was saying about Prophecy, and it is believed that these two verses were added at a later date in Alexandria. Read the context without the interruption. If Paul did write against a lot of questions by the women to their husbands, it would have been at the end, not in the middle of Paul's thoughts on prophecy. And as @A_Man stated, women prophets could speak the word of the Lord. Both the office and the gift were not just to men. So, with those two verses in the middle of his commands to prophets, he would be including women prophets also, and against their speaking out when that is not the case. Who the Spirit inspires a Word is up to the Spirit, not to Paul, or any man. Read the flow of the contextual verses without the interruption:

    29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? 37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. 39 Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

    As for Paul's letter to Timothy, let us first refer to his letter to the Corinthians, chapter 7 where he distinguishes between what are commandments of the Lord, and what are his own thoughts.

    6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.

    8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.


    10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. 12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say:


    To Timothy, Paul's prodigy, he is merely giving his own thoughts, not the Lord's.

    8 I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; 9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

    It is interesting, even today in Jerusalem at the wailing wall, you only see men there, no women. Remember, Paul was trained as a Pharisee first. And he even circumcised Timothy.
     
  16. A_Man

    A_Man Active Member

    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    39
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    I have a friend who studied Hebrew in Israel used to teach Hebrew at a Bible college. He told me the women on one side of the synagogue and men of the other may not have been practiced in the time period under discussion.

    The synagogues changed after the temple was destroyed. Based on what I read, the practice of having someone designated as 'rabbi' as leader of the synagogue was not the custom. the legal cult took over the religion after the temple was destroyed. The synagogues in the time we read about had archisynagogue as administrator, and elders.
     
  17. Grailhunter

    Grailhunter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,000
    Likes Received:
    3,811
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Jewish; Temple --- synagogue
    Christian; churches --- home churches --- catacomb churches
     
  18. CharismaticLady

    CharismaticLady Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,787
    Likes Received:
    3,128
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    The churches could have had them separated, like the Amish do. They are doing it for some scriptural reason. Possibly these verses of 1 Cor. 14:34-35
     
  19. Grailhunter

    Grailhunter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,000
    Likes Received:
    3,811
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    CharismaticLady are you talking about Christian Churches? Biblical era churches? The Bible refers to Churches as groups and congregations, not buildings. The Bible does not discuss the construction of Christian churches, history does not see it either.

    The discussion of where they met is a good topic. Home churches were popular and services many times revolved around a meal. Paul addressed this. In those circumstances women organized the meeting and men spoke at the table. Gentile Christians were not meeting in the Temple or synagogues.....not circumcised. Now whether women sat at the table with men is a question, one that the Bible does not address. Some could argue that women and children did not sit at the table because that custom can be seen into the late 1800's at even regular meals...in some places. Not out west....the family sat around the table.

    Jewish Christians is a whole different issue...would Jewish Christians meet in the Temple or Jewish synagogue? Good topic.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2019
  20. CharismaticLady

    CharismaticLady Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,787
    Likes Received:
    3,128
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    1st century congregations met in homes. The first "church building" had been a pagan temple when paganism was against the state law.
     
Loading...