Christian Forums

Quote from: phoebe on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 12:07:28

Quote from: grace on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 11:12:19

Quote from: phoebe on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 10:55:57

Quote from: grace on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 09:28:10

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 22:47:58

Quote"the husband will be held accountable to the Lord for his spiritual leadership of the family or lack of. Not the wife."

Show me the money.

The fall is that event in the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve disobeyed the command of God and ate of The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2 and 3). Since Adam represented all of mankind, when He sinned, all of mankind fell with Him (Rom. 5:12). Adam was held responible for all mankind....why wasn't Eve if they shared the headship?

Because we are responsible for our individual actions. Adam alone, pre-woman, was given the responsibility of protecting Garden. He didn't. He was responsible for his own actions. That failure let in evil. Ultimately, the fall of all mankind. Eve had her own consequences. Adam was not living with Eve as one, he apparently did not trust her with the instructions from God as God gave them. He seemed to have felt the need to embellish those instruction in order to control her actions.

If we are accountable for our own actions..which to agree I believe this. Why are we held accountable for what Adam did? No! The resposiblilty was given to Adam. He is the one recorded that sin entered the world.

This is getting funny now! You say they were not one? I believe Gen. 3:6 shows that they were there together in the garden....they both took of the tree..look like they were one to me. If Adam and Eve were mutual..wouldn't God give her the same instructions as Adam? Did God give more importance to Adam than Eve?

"He seemed to have felt the need to embellish those instruction in order to control her actions."  What are you saying here?

I'm saying that in ch. 2 God gives th man instructions not to eat of that tree. God makes woman. In ch. 3, the woman says they were told not to even touch it. Draw your own conclusions that the man is innocent in this if you must. First, the man didn't protect the Garden. He let evil enter. Then it seems that he told the woman that if they touched it they would die. Not what God had said! If the woman had outright lied about this, knowing that was not the instruction, I believe God would have treated her the same as the man. But he did not. He gave her a promise of redemption.

Don't blow it off. Think about it. Study those first few chapters in Genesis deeply.

They may kick me off the board for this, but phoebe, you really need help... Yo have twisted scripture to mean something it doesn't. You have driven yourself so hard to justify your stance that you have perverted the scriptures.. You are on DANGEROUS ground..

I am done with this thread...

I believe I have said all I can say as well....We are just going around the mullberry bush.

I have enjoyed the input, this has made me dig deeper and ground myself firmer in His Word!

Quote from: Mystery Man on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 17:58:27
LOL, I think i do.  In fact , I know I do.  

Everyone that is in Christ is suppose to submit unto each other. This is because in Christ there is neither male nor female In Christ.   But not in a marriage !  The man is the head , as Christ is the head of the Church.

The man is the head of the woman, Christ is the head of the man, and God is the head of Christ.

Simple !

No, I think you need to study the matter a bit more, because from your post, it is quite clear that you do submit to your wife. By asking her opinion, by saying that what she thinks is important to you, that you listen to what she has to say, you have admitted to submission. Assuming of course that I have understood your post correctly, and that what I understand you to have said is true.

Submission isn't about making decisions, it's about care and concern, and putting the best interests of others first. It is irrelevant who makes the final decision.

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 10:49:52

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 09:31:45
If it's so darn clear, then why do most people totally ignore the full message of the passage, and focus only on the submission of wives? When taught, it should be taught in its fullness, that of being full with God's Spirit living in us, resulting in the submission of everyone to each other? Paul didn't single out wives. Nor should we. When we do, we teach a false message.

I have mentioned before about what God tells husbands to do and that is up to the husband to obey. Forgive me if I am wrong but this thread is about wives and not husbands. Of course we can talk about husbands loving their wives etc if you like or maybe start anoother thread about it but this one is called wives submitting to their husbands, so that is what I have been talking about. I am a wife so I am responsible for what God tells me to do. My husband is responsible for what God tells him to do. it is not my responsibility to tell my husband what to do(although sometimes it is tempting  but to obey God myself.
The passages that you talk about concerning mutual submission arent directed to husbands and wives  or marriage. There are many instructions given for marriage but this isnt one of them.No where does it tell husbands to submit to wives. I may not like it, you may not like it but it is there nonetheless.

In EPH 5, there are 2 verses about women and 9 about men.  For all your accusations of us ignoring scripture, you seem pretty quick to write off what it calls men to do.  Men are supposed to serve their wives.

Women submit to men, men serve women...sounds mutual to me.

In Christ,
KP

Quote from: grace on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 17:19:26
I believe I have said all I can say as well....We are just going around the mullberry bush.

I have enjoyed the input, this has made me dig deeper and ground myself firmer in His Word!

Totally agree . The verses given to husbands and wives are so clear. It is up to each of us whether we ignore them or whether we obey them. For me it is a matter of loving and obeying God and loving and trusting my husband, not whether I personally like them or not. if we choose to follow Gods teaching then He gives us the means to carry them out.
There are parts of the BIble that are hard to comprehend and that are difficult to understand, but in my opinion this isnt one of them. The verses are simple and clear, so I dont see what the problem is. We know what we are supposed to do and it is up to us as to whether we can or will do them, whatever our individual feelings are on the matter.

It is not a popular teaching in the society in which we live and definatetly isnt politically correct, but since when are we supposed to be politically correct, and since when is God politically correct?  

Mac I have to agree, this is pointless as if someone doesnt want to see something, they never will, even if the evidence and verses are staring them in the face. This is why it is a waste of time really, and I too will bow out.

Quote from: k-pappy on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 18:04:34

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 10:49:52

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 09:31:45
If it's so darn clear, then why do most people totally ignore the full message of the passage, and focus only on the submission of wives? When taught, it should be taught in its fullness, that of being full with God's Spirit living in us, resulting in the submission of everyone to each other? Paul didn't single out wives. Nor should we. When we do, we teach a false message.

I have mentioned before about what God tells husbands to do and that is up to the husband to obey. Forgive me if I am wrong but this thread is about wives and not husbands. Of course we can talk about husbands loving their wives etc if you like or maybe start anoother thread about it but this one is called wives submitting to their husbands, so that is what I have been talking about. I am a wife so I am responsible for what God tells me to do. My husband is responsible for what God tells him to do. it is not my responsibility to tell my husband what to do(although sometimes it is tempting  but to obey God myself.
The passages that you talk about concerning mutual submission arent directed to husbands and wives  or marriage. There are many instructions given for marriage but this isnt one of them.No where does it tell husbands to submit to wives. I may not like it, you may not like it but it is there nonetheless.

In EPH 5, there are 2 verses about women and 9 about men.  For all your accusations of us ignoring scripture, you seem pretty quick to write off what it calls men to do.  Men are supposed to serve their wives.

Women submit to men, men serve women...sounds mutual to me.

In Christ,
KP

Men love your wives, women submit to your husbands. easy and clear. Love isnt submission, it is love.

chosenone...please read ephesians five for yourself, and please refrain from accusing me of ignoring scriptures.

Thank you.

In Christ,
KP

Quote from: k-pappy on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 18:04:34

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 10:49:52

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 09:31:45
If it's so darn clear, then why do most people totally ignore the full message of the passage, and focus only on the submission of wives? When taught, it should be taught in its fullness, that of being full with God's Spirit living in us, resulting in the submission of everyone to each other? Paul didn't single out wives. Nor should we. When we do, we teach a false message.

I have mentioned before about what God tells husbands to do and that is up to the husband to obey. Forgive me if I am wrong but this thread is about wives and not husbands. Of course we can talk about husbands loving their wives etc if you like or maybe start anoother thread about it but this one is called wives submitting to their husbands, so that is what I have been talking about. I am a wife so I am responsible for what God tells me to do. My husband is responsible for what God tells him to do. it is not my responsibility to tell my husband what to do(although sometimes it is tempting  but to obey God myself.
The passages that you talk about concerning mutual submission arent directed to husbands and wives  or marriage. There are many instructions given for marriage but this isnt one of them.No where does it tell husbands to submit to wives. I may not like it, you may not like it but it is there nonetheless.

In EPH 5, there are 2 verses about women and 9 about men.  For all your accusations of us ignoring scripture, you seem pretty quick to write off what it calls men to do.  Men are supposed to serve their wives.

Women submit to men, men serve women...sounds mutual to me.

In Christ,
KP

It isn't exactly mutual submission, 23 and 24 are clear about that.  It is a husband demonstrating leadership by serving their wife and putting her needs first.  Wives are to submit to said husbands.  True leadership is what is required of men, and it isn't a small task.  It also hasn't been done well historically by men. 

I believe the "mutual submission" argument doesn't address verses 23 and 24 well at all.

Quote from: Mystery Man on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 06:32:24

Quote from: Volkmar on Mon Feb 02, 2009 - 22:35:07

Quote from: zoonance on Mon Feb 02, 2009 - 10:35:47
I don't see him ever even submitting to anybody but the Father.  Certainly not to the apostles (the closest members in his "congregation")  Nor do I find Paul submitting leadership to ... anybody.

Jesus constantly "submitted" to his disciples...the most notable being when he washed their feet (not to mention going to the cross for them and us).

Paul learned mutual submission while he was a "rank and file" member of the church in Antioch.  However, I would not hold Paul up as a perfect example in every instance--and that probably goes a long way in understanding why God allowed Paul's "thorn in the flesh" to persist, saying, "my grace is sufficient".  (Barnabas and Apollos seemed to be members of the small club who could tell Paul to "take a flying leap" when Paul was notoriously out of line.  Why is it that so many Believers confuse Paul with Jesus?)


V

So your suggesting that the disciples "asked" Jesus to wash their feet, and the disciples asked Jesus to die for them ?  Thus submitting unto the desires of the disciples.

Talk about a twist !

Your logic and understanding is twisted...

"Asking" is not necessary for "submission".  Everytime the word "hypotasso" is used it is in the middle voice--"submit yourself".  It isn't something that is done because another person ask or demands it...it's voluntary and flows out of the transforming love that we experience from Christ.


V

Quote from: zoonance on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 12:10:59

Quote from: Volkmar on Mon Feb 02, 2009 - 22:35:07

Quote from: zoonance on Mon Feb 02, 2009 - 10:35:47
I don't see him ever even submitting to anybody but the Father.  Certainly not to the apostles (the closest members in his "congregation")  Nor do I find Paul submitting leadership to ... anybody.

Jesus constantly "submitted" to his disciples...the most notable being when he washed their feet (not to mention going to the cross for them and us).

Paul learned mutual submission while he was a "rank and file" member of the church in Antioch.  However, I would not hold Paul up as a perfect example in every instance--and that probably goes a long way in understanding why God allowed Paul's "thorn in the flesh" to persist, saying, "my grace is sufficient".  (Barnabas and Apollos seemed to be members of the small club who could tell Paul to "take a flying leap" when Paul was notoriously out of line.  Why is it that so many Believers confuse Paul with Jesus?)


V

If you are suggesting that I can't tell the difference between Jesus and Paul, you are quite mistaken.  I have been one of the loudest voices that we are christians, not paulians.    However, Paul did say to imitate him as he imitated Christ.  Course, I am also confident that in his dealing with men and women, this inspired apostle was way off.

Zoo,

Sorry, sometimes I totally miss your satire.


V

Quote from: Mac on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 17:07:22

Quote from: phoebe on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 12:07:28

Quote from: grace on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 11:12:19

Quote from: phoebe on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 10:55:57

Quote from: grace on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 09:28:10

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 22:47:58

Quote"the husband will be held accountable to the Lord for his spiritual leadership of the family or lack of. Not the wife."

Show me the money.

The fall is that event in the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve disobeyed the command of God and ate of The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2 and 3). Since Adam represented all of mankind, when He sinned, all of mankind fell with Him (Rom. 5:12). Adam was held responible for all mankind....why wasn't Eve if they shared the headship?

Because we are responsible for our individual actions. Adam alone, pre-woman, was given the responsibility of protecting Garden. He didn't. He was responsible for his own actions. That failure let in evil. Ultimately, the fall of all mankind. Eve had her own consequences. Adam was not living with Eve as one, he apparently did not trust her with the instructions from God as God gave them. He seemed to have felt the need to embellish those instruction in order to control her actions.

If we are accountable for our own actions..which to agree I believe this. Why are we held accountable for what Adam did? No! The resposiblilty was given to Adam. He is the one recorded that sin entered the world.

This is getting funny now! You say they were not one? I believe Gen. 3:6 shows that they were there together in the garden....they both took of the tree..look like they were one to me. If Adam and Eve were mutual..wouldn't God give her the same instructions as Adam? Did God give more importance to Adam than Eve?

"He seemed to have felt the need to embellish those instruction in order to control her actions."  What are you saying here?

I'm saying that in ch. 2 God gives th man instructions not to eat of that tree. God makes woman. In ch. 3, the woman says they were told not to even touch it. Draw your own conclusions that the man is innocent in this if you must. First, the man didn't protect the Garden. He let evil enter. Then it seems that he told the woman that if they touched it they would die. Not what God had said! If the woman had outright lied about this, knowing that was not the instruction, I believe God would have treated her the same as the man. But he did not. He gave her a promise of redemption.

Don't blow it off. Think about it. Study those first few chapters in Genesis deeply.

They may kick me off the board for this, but phoebe, you really need help... Yo have twisted scripture to mean something it doesn't. You have driven yourself so hard to justify your stance that you have perverted the scriptures.. You are on DANGEROUS ground..

I am done with this thread...

Really.    I "need help", "twisted scripture", have "driven" myself (whatever that means) "so hard" that I "perverted scripture", and I am "on DANGEROUS ground". You say that as if it were fact. But it is only your opinion.

No, that's what I WAS. NOW I am on SOLID ground!

But thank you so much for your kind words. I am encouraged all the more for having participated in this discussion with everyone, whether in agreement or not, in this serious discussion that must be had of God's view of women as women, as wives, and as man's 'ezer kenegdo.

No... It's not just his opinion.. I stepped out of this discussion as much as I could because of the way you twist the scriptures and demand that you are the only one who understands them Phoebe.... really. 

I continue to think that the word implies the man is the head, the wife is to submit to him as unto the LORD, he is to love her as Christ loved the church... and marriage has only ONE head.  Beause... that is REALLY WHAT THE WORD SAYS.  Peace

Mac... I'm not a mod, but I didn't see where you said anything that might warrant getting banned.   

I think you added greatly to this discussion from what I have read.  Your interpretation of the word is sound. 

Keep the faith.  You have to know, that when someone has been so dogmatic about a topic this way... as Phoebe has for all these 37 endless pages...  You are not going to convince them. I've seen it before.  They NEED to believe what they do.  It may not even be the reality they live, but they believe that is the way things are.    You gotta let it go. 

Quote from: k-pappy on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 18:19:45
chosenone...please read ephesians five for yourself, and please refrain from accusing me of ignoring scriptures.

Thank you.

In Christ,
KP

have read it many times and I certainly wasnt accusing you of anything.

Quote from: kensington on Thu Feb 05, 2009 - 01:05:55
Mac... I'm not a mod, but I didn't see where you said anything that might warrant getting banned.  

I think you added greatly to this discussion from what I have read.  Your interpretation of the word is sound. 

Keep the faith.  You have to know, that when someone has been so dogmatic about a topic this way... as Phoebe has for all these 37 endless pages...  You are not going to convince them. I've seen it before.  They NEED to believe what they do.  It may not even be the reality they live, but they believe that is the way things are.    You gotta let it go. 

wise words kensington

Quote from: Volkmar on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 23:02:52

Quote from: Mystery Man on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 06:32:24

Quote from: Volkmar on Mon Feb 02, 2009 - 22:35:07

Quote from: zoonance on Mon Feb 02, 2009 - 10:35:47
I don't see him ever even submitting to anybody but the Father.  Certainly not to the apostles (the closest members in his "congregation")  Nor do I find Paul submitting leadership to ... anybody.

Jesus constantly "submitted" to his disciples...the most notable being when he washed their feet (not to mention going to the cross for them and us).

Paul learned mutual submission while he was a "rank and file" member of the church in Antioch.  However, I would not hold Paul up as a perfect example in every instance--and that probably goes a long way in understanding why God allowed Paul's "thorn in the flesh" to persist, saying, "my grace is sufficient".  (Barnabas and Apollos seemed to be members of the small club who could tell Paul to "take a flying leap" when Paul was notoriously out of line.  Why is it that so many Believers confuse Paul with Jesus?)


V

So your suggesting that the disciples "asked" Jesus to wash their feet, and the disciples asked Jesus to die for them ?  Thus submitting unto the desires of the disciples.

Talk about a twist !

Your logic and understanding is twisted...

"Asking" is not necessary for "submission".  Everytime the word "hypotasso" is used it is in the middle voice--"submit yourself".  It isn't something that is done because another person ask or demands it...it's voluntary and flows out of the transforming love that we experience from Christ.


V

Because their feet were dirty ?  They needed their feet washed ?  No !

He was teaching them.  He was the one who was in authority to teach and give examples.  A teacher in a school teaches students.  The students are to submit to the teachers knowledge.  This is how they learn.

The disciples were learning, and the teacher was Jesus Christ.  He is the one who had the knowledge to teach.  He was the one in authority to teach them.  He set the example for them , in order for them to learn.  Jesus Christ did not submit unto them whatsoever !  They submitted unto him.

An observation I'd like to make about this issue is that we have been focusing only on Eph. 5.  The arguments against a wife submitting to her husband are because of words such as "likewise" when referring to the husband.   You all need to look at some of the other verses relating to this topic, too, that don't put it in a context like that.  Colossians 3, for example, says  "18Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them."  It lays it out pretty simply.

And what about I Peter where it says "6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror."   Have any of you looked up that specific word "obey" in this passage from the original language?   It actually uses a pretty strong word.

There are others, as I'm sure you're all aware of.

It would be interesting, as someone else suggested, to start a thread on what the husband's role is in all of this.  There's actually a lot more detail about that in some places.

Quote from: His Princess on Thu Feb 05, 2009 - 06:48:15
An observation I'd like to make about this issue is that we have been focusing only on Eph. 5.  The arguments against a wife submitting to her husband are because of words such as "likewise" when referring to the husband.   You all need to look at some of the other verses relating to this topic, too, that don't put it in a context like that.  Colossians 3, for example, says  "18Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them."  It lays it out pretty simply.

And what about I Peter where it says "6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror."   Have any of you looked up that specific word "obey" in this passage from the original language?   It actually uses a pretty strong word.

There are others, as I'm sure you're all aware of.

It would be interesting, as someone else suggested, to start a thread on what the husband's role is in all of this.  There's actually a lot more detail about that in some places.

Certainly, it can not possibly mean what it says.  Peter and Paul were clueless.

 

I'm only laughing because my husband said I could.   

I think people are threatened by the word "Submit" because it represents "subservient" to them.

Quote from: kensington on Thu Feb 05, 2009 - 14:43:37


I'm only laughing because my husband said I could.  

I think people are threatened by the word "Submit" because it represents "subservient" to them.

Or if we say that women are to submit to our husbands, we are thought to be some sort of door mat. My husband would laugh at that because I can be a real tiger at times (in a quietish sort of way of course)and am anything but a door mat!
I cant understand why being submissive when necessary is thought to make us somehow second class or something, or not good enough.It really doesnt.

Since I met my husband my self image has rocketed, he has made me feel better about myself than I ever have. Doesnt sound as if I feel second class (which of course I am not). There is such strength in submission, (especially for a female tiger) 

The word "Submit" has gotten a bad rap...  especially since the term "Women's Lib" and the term "abuse" hit the main stream media. 

We can't submit... that is to subvert, and we must be free and equal in all areas of our lives, our jobs, our homes, romance, and in the church. 

I don't buy it. 

Quote from: kensington on Thu Feb 05, 2009 - 16:28:25
The word "Submit" has gotten a bad rap...  especially since the term "Women's Lib" and the term "abuse" hit the main stream media. 

We can't submit... that is to subvert, and we must be free and equal in all areas of our lives, our jobs, our homes, romance, and in the church. 

I don't buy it. 

I agree, it is the society we now live in that can destort as well.

Quote from: Mystery Man on Thu Feb 05, 2009 - 06:38:39

Quote from: Volkmar on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 23:02:52

Quote from: Mystery Man on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 06:32:24

Quote from: Volkmar on Mon Feb 02, 2009 - 22:35:07

Quote from: zoonance on Mon Feb 02, 2009 - 10:35:47
I don't see him ever even submitting to anybody but the Father.  Certainly not to the apostles (the closest members in his "congregation")  Nor do I find Paul submitting leadership to ... anybody.

Jesus constantly "submitted" to his disciples...the most notable being when he washed their feet (not to mention going to the cross for them and us).

Paul learned mutual submission while he was a "rank and file" member of the church in Antioch.  However, I would not hold Paul up as a perfect example in every instance--and that probably goes a long way in understanding why God allowed Paul's "thorn in the flesh" to persist, saying, "my grace is sufficient".  (Barnabas and Apollos seemed to be members of the small club who could tell Paul to "take a flying leap" when Paul was notoriously out of line.  Why is it that so many Believers confuse Paul with Jesus?)


V

So your suggesting that the disciples "asked" Jesus to wash their feet, and the disciples asked Jesus to die for them ?  Thus submitting unto the desires of the disciples.

Talk about a twist !

Your logic and understanding is twisted...

"Asking" is not necessary for "submission".  Everytime the word "hypotasso" is used it is in the middle voice--"submit yourself".  It isn't something that is done because another person ask or demands it...it's voluntary and flows out of the transforming love that we experience from Christ.


V

Because their feet were dirty ?  They needed their feet washed ?  No !

He was teaching them.  He was the one who was in authority to teach and give examples.  A teacher in a school teaches students.  The students are to submit to the teachers knowledge.  This is how they learn.

The disciples were learning, and the teacher was Jesus Christ.  He is the one who had the knowledge to teach.  He was the one in authority to teach them.  He set the example for them , in order for them to learn.  Jesus Christ did not submit unto them whatsoever !  They submitted unto him.

And you totally miss the point and what Jesus himself said about what He did.

Reading glasses aren't too expensive at WalMart....


V

Focus on the Family was on this subject the last couple of days.  (I only caught the last few minutes.)   Some of you all won't agree with allister begg.



http://listen.family.org/daily/A000001776.cfm

Quote from: phoebe on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 10:55:57

Quote from: grace on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 09:28:10

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 22:47:58

Quote"the husband will be held accountable to the Lord for his spiritual leadership of the family or lack of. Not the wife."

Show me the money.

The fall is that event in the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve disobeyed the command of God and ate of The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2 and 3). Since Adam represented all of mankind, when He sinned, all of mankind fell with Him (Rom. 5:12). Adam was held responible for all mankind....why wasn't Eve if they shared the headship?

Because we are responsible for our individual actions. Adam alone, pre-woman, was given the responsibility of protecting Garden. He didn't. He was responsible for his own actions. That failure let in evil. Ultimately, the fall of all mankind. Eve had her own consequences. Adam was not living with Eve as one, he apparently did not trust her with the instructions from God as God gave them. He seemed to have felt the need to embellish those instruction in order to control her actions.

          Eve had a choice as we all do!

Quote from: HeRestoresMyHeart on Tue Feb 10, 2009 - 08:26:34

Quote from: phoebe on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 10:55:57

Quote from: grace on Wed Feb 04, 2009 - 09:28:10

Quote from: phoebe on Tue Feb 03, 2009 - 22:47:58

Quote"the husband will be held accountable to the Lord for his spiritual leadership of the family or lack of. Not the wife."

Show me the money.

The fall is that event in the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve disobeyed the command of God and ate of The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2 and 3). Since Adam represented all of mankind, when He sinned, all of mankind fell with Him (Rom. 5:12). Adam was held responible for all mankind....why wasn't Eve if they shared the headship?

Because we are responsible for our individual actions. Adam alone, pre-woman, was given the responsibility of protecting Garden. He didn't. He was responsible for his own actions. That failure let in evil. Ultimately, the fall of all mankind. Eve had her own consequences. Adam was not living with Eve as one, he apparently did not trust her with the instructions from God as God gave them. He seemed to have felt the need to embellish those instruction in order to control her actions.

          Eve had a choice as we all do!

I reckon they were both equally to blame myself.

Just a thought to add in.

I think a fundamental problem in all this is a failure to understand what submission is.

It is not the husband or male or whichever term you prefer exercising dominion over the wife or female by right, mandate or fiat. It is about the wife/female electing to yield.

Submission is a CHOICE.

My advice for what it is worth, is that any woman considering marrying a person they would not submit to is marrying the wrong person. Submission isn't something that is beaten into you or forced upon you, it is an act of humbleness that is chosen.

This is what Paul says Christ will do once he has destroyed all competing power and authority. Jesus will take what is his and hand it over to the Father and become subject to the Father. It is what he did leading up to the cross, submitting to the Father's will.

Jesus was equal to the Father and gave up that equality.

I think most people miss the mark on this. I think any teaching that women are not equal is false, women are equal but are expected to yield that equality to their husband, just as the husband is expected to yield to Jesus, and Jesus to the Father.

Quote from: zoonance on Tue Feb 10, 2009 - 07:51:48
Focus on the Family was on this subject the last couple of days.  (I only caught the last few minutes.)   Some of you all won't agree with allister begg.



http://listen.family.org/daily/A000001776.cfm

I won't have time to even listen to this myself! (sometimes I have time at lunch)  Did anybody else hear his messages?  What would be some of Allistair's strong points in making his conclusions from scripture on this subject?

Quote from: kensington on Thu Feb 05, 2009 - 16:28:25
The word "Submit" has gotten a bad rap...  especially since the term "Women's Lib" and the term "abuse" hit the main stream media. 

We can't submit... that is to subvert, and we must be free and equal in all areas of our lives, our jobs, our homes, romance, and in the church. 

I don't buy it. 

I posted two definitions of submit...and was laughed at and accused of ignoring scriptures.  So, please for this discussion, post what you think "submit" means.

Thank you.

In Christ,
KP

To submit is to give your self to...   Nothing is taken from you... you give it. 

Quote from: k-pappy on Wed Feb 11, 2009 - 15:55:55

Quote from: kensington on Thu Feb 05, 2009 - 16:28:25
The word "Submit" has gotten a bad rap...  especially since the term "Women's Lib" and the term "abuse" hit the main stream media. 

We can't submit... that is to subvert, and we must be free and equal in all areas of our lives, our jobs, our homes, romance, and in the church. 

I don't buy it. 

I posted two definitions of submit...and was laughed at and accused of ignoring scriptures.  So, please for this discussion, post what you think "submit" means.

Thank you.

In Christ,
KP

Kap - I assume you mean "submit" of Eph. 5:22.

hupotasso, often translated as "submit", means support. It also mean "to be attached to".

"wives, submit to your husbands" is absent from any Greek text.

It is a participle, not an imperative, and is correctly translated as the phrase "supporting one another."

The verb is "be filled" at the beginning of vs. 21.



The English word "submit" is hupeiko, not hupotasso, with dative "submit to".

So, it reads "Be filled with the Spirit, while you are supporting one another out of respect for the Anointed One, wives, with your own husbands, as with the Lord."

Be filled with respect for each other. Be attached to each other, support each other for growth. This is how we live "filled."

Quote from: phoebe on Fri Feb 13, 2009 - 00:25:12

Quote from: k-pappy on Wed Feb 11, 2009 - 15:55:55

Quote from: kensington on Thu Feb 05, 2009 - 16:28:25
The word "Submit" has gotten a bad rap...  especially since the term "Women's Lib" and the term "abuse" hit the main stream media. 

We can't submit... that is to subvert, and we must be free and equal in all areas of our lives, our jobs, our homes, romance, and in the church. 

I don't buy it. 

I posted two definitions of submit...and was laughed at and accused of ignoring scriptures.  So, please for this discussion, post what you think "submit" means.

Thank you.

In Christ,
KP

Kap - I assume you mean "submit" of Eph. 5:22.

hupotasso, often translated as "submit", means support. It also mean "to be attached to".

"wives, submit to your husbands" is absent from any Greek text.

It is a participle, not an imperative, and is correctly translated as the phrase "supporting one another."

The verb is "be filled" at the beginning of vs. 21.



The English word "submit" is hupeiko, not hupotasso, with dative "submit to".

So, it reads "Be filled with the Spirit, while you are supporting one another out of respect for the Anointed One, wives, with your own husbands, as with the Lord."

Be filled with respect for each other. Be attached to each other, support each other for growth. This is how we live "filled."

Oh... I'm sorry... I didn't realize he was speaking directly to you... my bad.   Oh wait... He was speaking to me... 

Quote from: kensington on Thu Feb 12, 2009 - 21:36:47
To submit is to give your self to...   Nothing is taken from you... you give it. 

Your definition is unique to you and does not match the dictionary:

yield
buckle
capitulate
surrender
to yield oneself to the power or authority of another; to be subjucated: to submit to a conqueror.

In Christ,
KP

Quote from: k-pappy on Fri Feb 13, 2009 - 06:56:34

Quote from: kensington on Thu Feb 12, 2009 - 21:36:47
To submit is to give your self to...   Nothing is taken from you... you give it. 

Your definition is unique to you and does not match the dictionary:

yield
buckle
capitulate
surrender
to yield oneself to the power or authority of another; to be subjucated: to submit to a conqueror.

In Christ,
KP

How can you say their definition is wrong, and then post what it is, and the two definitions match exactly ?

<shaking my head in disbelief>

Quote from: k-pappy on Fri Feb 13, 2009 - 06:56:34

Quote from: kensington on Thu Feb 12, 2009 - 21:36:47
To submit is to give your self to...   Nothing is taken from you... you give it. 

Your definition is unique to you and does not match the dictionary:

yield
buckle
capitulate
surrender
to yield oneself to the power or authority of another; to be subjucated: to submit to a conqueror.

In Christ,
KP

This defination is spot on and isnt it what we have been saying all along ?To yield to is a very good meaning of submission. Also as kensington said it is a choice as to whether we submit and it takes a strong person to be able to subit to Godly authority in my view not a weak one.