Kobojunkie:
So, Paul suggested it and so Christians glorify his opinions, is that it?

2. I am afraid this is nothing of what Paul in fact meant at all. He said nothing of respect or honor but simply submission. It is possible to submit without necessarily respecting a one and it is equally possible to respect a one without submitting, so aren't you putting words in Paul's mouth here, aside from misconstruing his opinion?

3. I am afraid there is no such thing as you have there in bold given that God never handed authority of the such to any husband. There is no scriptural background for this belief which you hold to there.

I don't understand what you mean by there is no scriptural background. The verses below from the book of Ephesians 5:22-25, is apostle Paul instructing the Church in Ephesus on how they're to conduct themselves in marriage in the same way as Christ is with the Church. (Christ is known as the Groom and the Church is His bride), all of which I expatiate on below

Ephesians 5:22-25 KJV
[22] Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. [23] For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. [24] Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. [25] Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

The understanding of a word is usually based on context. The scripture I quoted didn't just say "submit" but makes reference to how she is to submit:" as unto the Lord.

He explains further by saying "for the husband is the HEAD of the wife AS CHRIST is the HEAD of the Church." And in verse 24 he gives more clarity on how she is to submit: "Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

Now how does the church submit to Christ.

The church submits to Christ as the head of the church by honouring him in everything we do, respecting him above anyone else and following his leadership in all things we do.

(Keep in mind that the context of the analogy on Christ's relationship with the church here, is Christ as the head of the church, not Christ as the son of God)

His reference to the husband as the head of the wife is a clear indication of authority being on the husband and where else does authority come from if not from God?

What other instructions for authority on the husband are you searching for?

What other scriptural background are you expecting.

A special ten commandments for marriage written with the finger of God and given to Moses?

A prophecy from Isaiah or Ezekiel on marriage?

Or is it a new politically correct prophecy that will be in line with the feminist's ideology, or with the opinion of the world?

What other scripture are you looking for to give you the structure or blue print for a Christian marriage other than the teachings of the New testament?

If you don't accept the teaching of St Paul as an authority in the Christian faith, what other Scripture are you waiting for as a Christian, i.e if you are a practicing Christian?

Christianity is a way of thinking which then makes it a way of life and its standards are not the same as that of the world. In the same way, and the word of God, in general, does not conform to the ways and thinking of the world, hence why it is not easily acceptable to the canal mind. This is why the teachings in that scripture is meant as a guide for practicing Christians

The Christian faith is not just built on the words and sacrifice of Christ, which is our foundation, but also on the teachings of his apostles who He called for that very purpose. These very teachings of apostle Paul and the other apostles guided the early Church in the Christian faith. The Church today considers them to be scripture.

Every scripture you see in the Bible is one of three things: a prophecy from God, stories of the acts of heroic men of faith or the teachings of someone who we believe hears from, or receives instructions from God. The apostles didn't operate like the prophets of the old testament but they still heard from God and received instructions from Him with which they used to guide and instruct the followers of Christ on the will of God.

This why the new Covenant that we practice as Christians is according to the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and their teachings and revelations through their apostolic letters known as epistles. These are the materials which guides the Christian faith and which we consider as scripture, and they are found in the New Testament.

If the teachings of apostle Paul in the Bible, which is according to the Gospel of Christ, isn't scripture to you, and you don't see it as profitable to instruct and guide you as a Christian, then I don't know what else will be.

Shalom!

Leonel55:
■ I don't understand what you mean by there is no scriptural background. The verses below from the book of Ephesians 5:22-25, is apostle Paul instructing the Church in Ephesus on how they're to conduct themselves in marriage in the same way as Christ is with the Church. (Christ is known as the Groom and the Church is His bride), all of which I expatiate on below

The verses you quoted directly contradict the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ, the Gospel and Law in the Kingdom of God as presented by Jesus Christ, the one who is King and Law.

So, assuming Paul indeed wrote those words, then question is are his words Law onto you or is Jesus Christ Law because you cannot serve two masters in the Kingdom of God.

Kobojunkie:
The verses you quoted directly contradict the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ, the Gospel and Law in the Kingdom of God as presented by Jesus Christ, the one who is King and Law.

So, assuming Paul indeed wrote those words, then question is are his words Law onto you or is Jesus Christ Law because you cannot serve two masters in the Kingdom of God.

What teachings and what commandments of Christ are you referring to? You have to be specific. Quote the scripture, Gospel or law that you're talking about and explain how Paul's teaching contradicts it.

Leonel55:
■ What teachings and what commandments of Christ are you referring to? You have to be specific. Quote the scripture, Gospel or law that you're talking about and explain how Paul's teaching contradicts it.

Matthew 23 vs 8 through 10 for starters. And Luke 20 vs 34 - 36 which reaffirms God's judgment in Genesis 3 vs 16b.

Lanretoye:
They can submit to pastor in church but will be claiming equal right with husband at home...wetin pastor do to deserve the submission that a husband doesnt deserve.[b]it is a good thinking to compare your boss at work to your pastor in the church nah,see reasoning.when you get laid off for insurbodination at work,your pastor will feed your family and pay your children's school fees.mtchew...maximu[/b]m respect for all men that go through thick and thin to make sure the family never lack.
Its so good to serve your husband with a disposable plate and serve your pastor with the best dish in the house.

What does a boss have to do with a spouse? Can you see the way you've twisted it? You began the thinking, but you don't like its applications and implications.

That's sad.

You can submit to anyone else but your wife. Only you know why.

kkins25:
I've been thinking about this alot, and can't seem to understand what "submission" means.

What does it mean for a wife to submit to me? Also, can women provide what "to submit" means to them?

Is submitting to a man similar to submitting to God in the sense that man has the last and final say? Does this mean, the man's will should supersede that of the woman? Does submitting mean, taking care of? Please, explain it to me like I'm a dumb 5 year old.

Marriage is not for 5 year olds marriage is for grown ups and grown ups know what submission is.

So grow up first, then you may know. And if you still don't know then you need to grow up some more. And if you have grown up and you see grey hairs and you still dont know, then it means you are not meant to marry.

Kobojunkie:
Matthew 23 vs 8 through 10 for starters. And Luke 20 vs 34 - 36 which reaffirms God's judgment in Genesis 3 vs 16b.

I'll go ahead and line out the quotations you claim contradict Paul's teaching just to show that you are just making random assertions without having a clear understanding of the argument that you are making or a scripture that's valid to the argument:


1) Matthew 23 vs 8-10

"23:8 'You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers.
23:9 You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.
23:10 Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have only one Teacher, the Christ."

The scripture you gave above is quoted out of context, and even as quoted, does not contradict the teaching of Paul nor does it say that you shouldn't follow what he teaches.

You first quotation comes after Jesus spoke to the crowd and to his disciples in verses 1 to 7 about the scribes and the Pharisees and their hypocrisy on the things that they want the people to do that they themselves aren't doing, and how they seek to be greeted and called Rabbi in the streets. And he told his listeners to do the things they (the saducees and Pharisees) teach but not what they do.

Where did Paul or any of the apostles ask to be called any of those titles? How does that quotation contradict Paul. It's one thing to teach according to God's instruction and revelation which Paul did, it's another thing entirely to want to be called "teacher" or any of those titles.

2) Luke 20 vs 34-36

20:34 Jesus replied, 'The children of this world take wives and husbands,
20:35 but those who are judged worthy of a place in the other world and in the resurrection from the dead do not marry
20:36 because they can no longer die, for they are the same as the angels, and being children of the resurrection they are children of God.


The 2nd scripture above that you quoted is completely out of context and out of point, as it talks about life after death, which is the resurrection. It just mentions wives and husbands, representing human relations on earth, and the resurrection, representing the relationship that exists after resurrection. It has no reference whatsoever as to how a husband and wife are to function in marriage, nor does it reference the events of Genesis 3 vs 16b that you claim it "reaffirms."

For clarity I'll also line out Genesis 3 vs 16 (a and b)

3:16 To the woman he said: I shall give you intense pain in childbearing, you will give birth to your children in pain. Your yearning will be for your husband, and he will dominate you

How do the two quotations even connect or relate?

You clearly have no valid or relevant scripture to back your claims. You're simply arguing from your feelings.

BRATISLAVA:


What does a boss have to do with a spouse? Can you see the way you've twisted it? You began the thinking, but you don't like its applications and implications.

That's sad.

You can submit to anyone else but your wife. Only you know why.

i don understand your reasoning,abeg pass

Leonel55:
■ I'll go ahead and line out the quotations you claim contradict Paul's teaching just to show that you are just making random assertions without having a clear understanding of the argument that you are making or a scripture that's valid to the argument:...The scripture you gave above is quoted out of context, and even as quoted, does not contradict the teaching of Paul nor does it say that you shouldn't follow what he teaches....You first quotation comes after Jesus spoke to the crowd and to his disciples in verses 1 to 7 about the scribes and the Pharisees and their hypocrisy on the things that they want the people to do that they themselves aren't doing, and how they seek to be greeted and called Rabbi in the streets. And he told his listeners to do the things they (the saducees and Pharisees) teach but not what they do.
■ Where did Paul or any of the apostles ask to be called any of those titles? How does that quotation contradict Paul. It's one thing to teach according to God's instruction and revelation which Paul did, it's another thing entirely to want to be called "teacher" or any of those titles.
....The 2nd scripture above that you quoted is completely out of context and out of point, as it talks about life after death, which is the resurrection. It just mentions wives and husbands, representing human relations on earth, and the resurrection, representing the relationship that exists after resurrection. It has no reference whatsoever as to how a husband and wife are to function in marriage, nor does it reference the events of Genesis 3 vs 16b that you claim it "reaffirms."
■ For clarity I'll also line out Genesis 3 vs 16 (a and b) How do the two quotations even connect or relate? You clearly have no valid or relevant scripture to back your claims. You're simply arguing from your feelings.

I will summarise for you and then you tell me how you were able to read and not see the following:

▦ What God declared in Matthew 23 vs 8 - 10, Luke 20 vs 34 = 36 & Genesis 3 v 16

---

A. Jesus Christ alone is the Head(Master) over each man and each woman who belongs to Him in the Kingdom of God
B. Men and Women are equals in the Kingdom of God
C. There are no special rules that apply to married men and women in the Kingdom of God
D. Marriage has no place in the Kingdom of God as all our brothers and sisters in the eyes of God

▦ What the author of Ephesians 5 vs 22 - 33 instead states

---

A. The husband of a woman and Jesus Christ are both heads over a wife
B. Man is not equal in the Kingdom of God
C. There are special rules that apply to married men and women in the Kingdom of God
D. Marriage holds a special status in the Kingdom of God.

Kobojunkie:
I will summarise for you and then you tell me how you were able to read and not see the following:

▦ What God declared in Matthew 23 vs 8 - 10, Luke 20 vs 34 = 36 & Genesis 3 v 16

---

A. Jesus Christ alone is the Head(Master) over each man and each woman who belongs to Him in the Kingdom of God
B. Men and Women are equals in the Kingdom of God
C. There are no special rules that apply to married men and women in the Kingdom of God
D. Marriage has no place in the Kingdom of God as all our brothers and sisters in the eyes of God

▦ What the author of Ephesians 5 vs 22 - 33 instead states

---

A. The husband of a woman and Jesus Christ are both heads over a wife
B. Man is not equal in the Kingdom of God
C. There are special rules that apply to married men and women in the Kingdom of God
D. Marriage holds a special status in the Kingdom of God.

You're still quoting out of context. The Kingdom of God and Kingdom on Earth are two different things entirely.

A. Jesus Christ alone is the Head(Master) over each man and each woman who belongs to Him in the Kingdom of God.

Oh, this is bogus. What does this even imply? Jesus alone is the Head over each man, but in what context? Government wise? No. Society wise? Of course, not. This doesn't reflect everyday hierarchical arrangements. It specifically refers to life after resurrection.

B. Men and Women are equals in the Kingdom of God

Yes. Key phrase "In the kingdom of God".

C. There are no special rules that apply to married men and women in the Kingdom of God

Yes. Key phrase "In the kingdom of God"

D. Marriage has no place in the Kingdom of God as all our brothers and sisters in the eyes of God

Yes. Key phrase "In the kingdom of God"

Luke 20 vs 34 = 36, specifically references ressurection after death. But, you equate that to today.

"But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the [age of] resurrection from the dead"

Leonel55:
■ I'll go ahead and line out the quotations you claim contradict Paul's teaching just to show that you are just making random assertions without having a clear understanding of the argument that you are making or a scripture that's valid to the argument: The scripture you gave above is quoted out of context, and even as quoted, does not contradict the teaching of Paul nor does it say that you shouldn't follow what he teaches. You first quotation comes after Jesus spoke to the crowd and to his disciples in verses 1 to 7 about the scribes and the Pharisees and their hypocrisy on the things that they want the people to do that they themselves aren't doing, and how they seek to be greeted and called Rabbi in the streets. And he told his listeners to do the things they (the saducees and Pharisees) teach but not what they do.
■ Where did Paul or any of the apostles ask to be called any of those titles? How does that quotation contradict Paul. It's one thing to teach according to God's instruction and revelation which Paul did, it's another thing entirely to want to be called "teacher" or any of those titles.
■ The 2nd scripture above that you quoted is completely out of context and out of point, as it talks about life after death, which is the resurrection. It just mentions wives and husbands, representing human relations on earth, and the resurrection, representing the relationship that exists after resurrection. It has no reference whatsoever as to how a husband and wife are to function in marriage, nor does it reference the events of Genesis 3 vs 16b that you claim it "reaffirms."
■ For clarity I'll also line out Genesis 3 vs 16 (a and b)...How do the two quotations even connect or relate? You clearly have no valid or relevant scripture to back your claims. You're simply arguing from your feelings.

First things first, do you understand what the term out-of-context means? It means to quote an idea outside of the original context it is intended for. The context in this case is the Kingdom of God and Jesus Christ made clear His teachings apply as far as those who are of the Kingdom of God to which God's Law which He came to give is meant. The writer of Ephesians pretended to speak concerning the Kingdom of God, did he not?

1. Are you insinuating that because Jesus Christ spoke those words in a certain context, they no longer apply at all, or what? Are you asserting Jesus Christ lied when He declared that His Words are everlasting in the last verses of Luke 24.

2. Oh, so you think it is only when you are literally referred to as Master, Rabbi, Teacher, Father, e.t,c, that you set yourself against God?

3. So, you do agree with what is written which is that marriage is not of the Kingdom of God but of the earth. So why do you believe what Ephesians 5 attempts by suggesting there are special rules for the married in the Kingdom of God — a kingdom that is not of this earth— where Jesus Christ said there exists no such?

4. Genesis 3 vs 16b is where the Almighty condemned marriage to no longer be of Him but of this world of men.

kkins25:
■ You're still quoting out of context. The Kingdom of God and Kingdom on Earth are two different things entirely.

What was quoted out-of-context?

Kobojunkie:
First things first, do you understand what the term out-of-context means? It means to quote an idea outside of the original context it was meant to apply. The context in this case is the Kingdom of God and Jesus Christ made clear His teachings apply as far as those who are of the Kingdom of God to which the Law which He came to give is meant. The writer of Ephesians pretended to speak concerning the Kingdom of God, did he not?

1. Are you insinuating that because Jesus Christ spoke those words in a certain context, they no longer apply at all, or what? Are you asserting Jesus Christ lied when He declared that His Words are everlasting in the last verses of Luke 24.

2. Oh, so you think it is only when you are literally referred to as Master, Rabbi, Teacher, Father, e.t,c, that you set yourself against God?

3. So, you do agree with what is written which is that marriage is not of the Kingdom of God but of the earth. So why do you believe what Ephesians 5 attempts by suggesting there are rules for those in the Kingdom of God — a kingdom that is not of this earth— where marriage is concerned?

4. Genesis 3 vs 16b is where the Almighty condemned marriage to no longer be of Him but of this world of men.

Mumu

Kobojunkie:
First things first, do you understand what the term out-of-context means? It means to quote an idea outside of the original context it was meant to apply.

Is this your own understanding of it, or there's a scholarly consensus on the matter?

kkins25:
■ Is this your own understanding of it, or there's a scholarly consensus on the matter?

You tell me.

Kobojunkie:
First things first, do you understand what the term out-of-context means? It means to quote an idea outside of the original context it is intended for. The context in this case is the Kingdom of God and Jesus Christ made clear His teachings apply as far as those who are of the Kingdom of God to which God's Law which He came to give is meant. The writer of Ephesians pretended to speak concerning the Kingdom of God, did he not?

1. Are you insinuating that because Jesus Christ spoke those words in a certain context, they no longer apply at all, or what? Are you asserting Jesus Christ lied when He declared that His Words are everlasting in the last verses of Luke 24.

2. Oh, so you think it is only when you are literally referred to as Master, Rabbi, Teacher, Father, e.t,c, that you set yourself against God?

3. So, you do agree with what is written which is that marriage is not of the Kingdom of God but of the earth. So why do you believe what Ephesians 5 attempts by suggesting there are rules for those in the Kingdom of God — a kingdom that is not of this earth— where marriage is concerned?

4. Genesis 3 vs 16b is where the Almighty condemned marriage to no longer be of Him but of this world of men.

Are you a phd holder?

Ronaldo723:
■ Are you a phd holder?

Were any of the Prophets or apostles Phd holders?

Kobojunkie:
1. Think instead of the Kingdom of God as a country where all those who are born-again become citizens of and the teachings and commandments of Jesus --- God's Law --- as the National Constitution by which they are to be all abide by. There are no special laws in the Kingdom of God designed to govern the affairs of only the marriage. What only exists are laws to government remarriage(depending on conditions of divorce).

Can you please explain how this "Kingdom of God" is supposed to function and co-exist with today's society? Does this mean, when you join the kingdom of God, you become exempted from the rule of law of society and follow that taught only by Jesus in the man-written bible?

If one brother and one sister decide to become "mates," do they have certain obligations to each other as per rules in Kingdom of God? Don't tell me marriage doesn't exist. We are not discussing Heaven.

Kobojunkie:
Were any of the Prophets or apostles Phd holders?

I’m not asking base on that just answer the question Miss

Kobojunkie:

Also, Paul's supposed opinion expressed in Ephesians 5 vs 22 - 33 directly violates the teachings of Jesus Christ which is rather the standard for those who are of the Kingdom of God to live by. So, why present it as though the biblical standard?

So Paul was a deceiver then right?

Something is wrong with you upstairs.

I know you must be a lady and a conc feminist. It is only feminists that hate that passage of Paul.

kkins25:


Don't tell me marriage doesn't exist. We are not discussing Heaven.

She's a feminist. She goes about arguing senselessly with people anytime discussion of this nature comes up. Very senseless person.

Kobojunkie:
You tell me.

You are fond of twisting biblical context to fit narratives I've not even heard before. I'm just hearing this earthly "Kingdom of Heaven" for the first time. I mean, apart from the movie.That was a classic.

You know very well that the bible isn't univocal. This is scholarly consensus! As someone who clamors for reading the bible as it is and not imbibe one's interpretations into it, you seem to be sneaking in some of your interpretations into the text every now and then. Don't preach against what you also do, kobo. What is the Kingdom of God? A state of being? Then ressurection is a sham? No? Then your bible isn't bibling.

Ronaldo723:


Are you a phd holder?

Yep. Ph.D. in twisting the bible once in a while...

kkins25:
■ Can you please explain how this "Kingdom of God" is supposed to function and co-exist with today's society? Does this mean, when you join the kingdom of God, you become exempted from the rule of law of society and follow that taught only by Jesus in the man-written bible?
■ If one brother and one sister decide to become "mates," do they have certain obligations to each other as per rules in Kingdom of God? Don't tell me marriage doesn't exist. We are not discussing Heaven.

1. To become a citizen of any country means to swear to abide by the Constitutional law of your new homeland even when in foreign lands, is it not? Well, the same applies as far as those who become citizens of the Kingdom of God by virtue of being born-again.

■ The same obligations they had before they became mates continue to apply. Their choice to mate — a practice that is of this world — is just that, their choice. It does not change anything about what their obligations were before that as far as the Kingdom of God. There are no laws for the married alone, except in the case of remarriage after a divorce.

So, will you please answer my question regarding the context issue?

kkins25:
■ You are fond of twisting biblical context to fit narratives I've not even heard before. I'm just hearing this earthly "Kingdom of Heaven" for the first time. I mean, apart from the movie.That was a classic.
■ You know very well that the bible isn't univocal. This is scholarly consensus! As someone who clamors for reading the bible as it is and not imbibe one's interpretations into it, you seem to be sneaking in some of your interpretations into the text every now and then. Don't preach against what you also do, kobo.
■ What is the Kingdom of God? A state of being? Then ressurection is a sham? No? Then your bible isn't bibling. Yep. Ph.D. in twisting the bible once in a while...

1. You tell me I twist but you never seem able to point out the exact twist you accuse me of. How come?

2. Again, you seem always quick with accusations but slow with evidence for these many accusations of yours. How come? If I read and apply it as is written, why do you seem incapable of pointing out these special interpretations you accuse me of? Start here and now.

3. Is citizenship in a nation a state of being?

My mistake!

DoWhatThouWilt:
■ So Paul was a deceiver then right?

I never met Paul nor do I worship the man called Paul like you lot are known to. The one I worship is Jesus Christ, and clearly, what is written in Ephesians 5 vs 22 - 33 directly contravenes the declarations of Jesus Christ.

Ronaldo723:
■ I’m not asking base on that just answer the question Miss

My response was to highlight the irrelevance of such a question in this situation.

Kobojunkie:
I have never been a feminist. Is a Buddhist a feminist?

You are a conc feminist that is why simple Bible passage that is easy to understand is so complicated to you.

Kobojunkie:
I never met Paul nor do I worship the man called Paul like you lot are known to. The one I worship is Jesus Christ, and clearly, what is written in Ephesians 5 vs 22 - 33 directly contravenes the declarations of Jesus Christ.

Yes, so Paul was a deceiver then right?

His words are not to be taken serious...right?

DoWhatThouWilt:
■ You are a conc feminist that is why simple Bible passage that is easy to understand is so complicated to you.

Why not prove instead that you understand what is written rather than resort to calling me what I am not as though I am meant to be offended by it in some way?

I am a follower of Jesus Christ, by the way, not a feminist!

DoWhatThouWilt:
■ Yes, so Paul was a deceiver then right? His words are not to be taken serious...right?

I am afraid I cannot relate to whatever it is you may be dealing with there. I only take the Words of Jesus Christ, the one who is master over me, seriously.

Kobojunkie:
Why not prove instead that you understand what is written rather than resort to calling me what I am not as though I am meant to be offended by it in some way?

I am a follower of Jesus Christ, by the way, not a feminist!

You are a conc feminist. End of story. That's why you get triggered by such passages found in the Bible to the point that you make statements indirectly referring to Paul as a deceiver.