[quote]dmaddox wrote:
God originally wanted Man and Woman to be equal.
The New Testament talks about the woman should be submissive to the man, but it also talks about the Man loving the woman as Christ loved the church and gave up his life for it. Man is to protect woman, and love her so much that he is willing to die for her. To me the man has a lot more to live up to. Man has a tendensy to want to lord over the woman. That is not what was intended.
Why do you think Proverbs 31 was written?
Man and Woman in marriage are to be one flesh. That is one cohesive person. One is not better than the other.
On the topic of a woman teaching in the Chruch. There are woman in the Bible that are over the people/church in both the Old and New Testament. These are very rare circumstances though. There are maybe half a dozen women in the Bible that are over people, and this took over 3000 years for these women to come up in the church. I have issues with women preaching from the pulpit, but have no issues with a woman teaching in say a Sunday School setting.
For example sake I will say there is a woman in my Sunday School class that will not keep her mouth shut. She always has to let people know what she is thinking about the topic. She talks and talks and talks, but really does not have a point. I think she just likes to hear herself talk. I think these are the women that Paul was talking about in the New Testament.[/quote]
I confess that I am not prepared to offer a firm opinion one way or another. I’m not even sure what form I would give to the Song. It is a yet unresolved area of non fatal doctrine…[/quote]
And I contend there might just be some other areas of yet unresolved non-fatal doctrine…[/quote]
The doctrine of the indwelling relation of intimacy of Christ and His church and it’s beautiful counterpart in the new Adam in believers is fatal, and it is fully resolved in the the clear precepts of the system.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Here’s Philo Thelos’ other book setting us Christian right.
Description? "This author’s research demonstrates that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality as a consensual life-style. Find out what the Bible really says about homosexuality. "
Wowzers…[/quote]
Wrong thread.
Forget Philos. Deal directly with Push Winchester Harder on this thread.[/quote]
How is it the wrong thread? Wasn’t both his name, and his book “Divine Sex,” raised as some authority? I think it’s rather pertinent to see just what else this individual has concluded about proper Christian morality. So not only can one screw his wife’s girl-friends, but also her boy-friends, apparently. [/quote]
Slotharino, I think I’m gonna run witcha on this one…but first…tell me what you think about the first 11 chapters of Genesis, hombre.
And I know it’s not the wrong thread because…Wasn’t both your name, and your thoughts and especially the thoughts of the Catholic Church about the Book of Genesis as mythology raised as some authority? I think it’s rather pertinent to see just what else you have concluded about proper Christian foundations.
So not only can one modify the Scriptures so as to make the Virgin Mary divine (among many other things), but also can screw the Book of Genesis, apparently. [/quote]
You will have to abandon your critique of the Catholic Church’s, and my own, understanding of Genesis. Unless, of course, you’re prepared to advance this illustration as a reasonable illustration of the earth. I will provide the verses concerning the firmament, how the celestial lights are IN the firmament, how the firmament seperated the primeval water into a celestial water and lower water. The firmament holding up the celestial water, and the basin shaped earth resting upon the other. If you’re not willing to defend such as fact, neither of us is a literalist.
I confess that I am not prepared to offer a firm opinion one way or another. I’m not even sure what form I would give to the Song. It is a yet unresolved area of non fatal doctrine…[/quote]
And I contend there might just be some other areas of yet unresolved non-fatal doctrine…[/quote]
The doctrine of the indwelling relation of intimacy of Christ and His church and it’s beautiful counterpart in the new Adam in believers is fatal, and it is fully resolved in the the clear precepts of the system.[/quote]
Agreed.[/quote]
OK, but being a point man you are not seeing that in the system, marriage and sex are comprehended into that new and everlasting covenant as an integral component. Christ>Church/husbanD>wifE, like the first Adam only better. 2 sides of the same coin. One for this life, one forever, but both utterly spiritual.
Being a point man you pick the points from each covenant that you like best. Jesus > spiritual for salvation and Moses/David/Solomon etc > carnal law for sex and marriage. The system won’t work that way. The points may appear to, to someone who wants them to bad enough, but that’s not the system. I didn’t design it, I’m jist the messenger.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< Your “system” is inadequately constructed to handle all that I had do say about the patriarchs of the OT.[/quote]
It’s not my system, but yes it is. However it is true that we do get glimpses of the grace to come. The book of Hebrews and the first 5 chapters of Romans are breathtaking treasure houses for elucidating the system in that light.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Any viable reason why a man of David’s “poor character” with his overwhelmingly “perverse” and sinful life would have ever made into the Hebrews 11 Hall of Fame?
Could not one of the monogamous men of his day been a better choice for his slot?[/quote]
David was a stellar specimen under that dispensation at that stage of the system. In fact he very prophetically foretold the covenant to come in his dealing with his own sin. With what he had to work with no greater man of God ever lived.
Ya know what’s confounding you? And please hear this in the spirit I mean it in. Marriage and sex was very less significant in the old covenant than it is in the new or even in the garden. It was cheap, mechanical and formal. With some glimpses of what was to come. It isn’t until the fulfillment in the new that it was restored to the deep divine meaning it had before the fall, again, only better.
You have it in your mind that they had something modern believers don’t when it’s just the opposite. I have what they longed for, the whole system including that spirit filled intimacy that not even Solomon had with the Shulamite Woman.
We have it man. The whole shebang. Why are you limiting yourself and that precious woman of yours to second best?
