₦airaland Forum

Jeromejnr:
So we are going to be applying both human common sense and scriptures:

Common sense- Poverty obviously is not a good thing, It's not a pleasant experience and in the aspect of perfection, the default goal of every human is perfection. And for perfection to happen there has to be success in a series of events. Success=Prosperity.

Prosperity=Prosper which comes from the Latin Prosperus ("Doing well". Doing well according to human language in the aspect of career or finances means making profits. Making Profits=Making More money.

Making more money=Prosper, Prosper=Prosperity. Prosperity is the opposite of Poverty. So there we can also say Poverty is never anyone's perfect will.

Scriptures:

Poverty is a curse from God which came as a result of disobedient to God's will. "Deut 28: 16...".

God said in Deut 5:29 "Oh, that their hearts would be inclined to fear me and keep all my commands always, so that it might go well with them and their children forever!"

Go well=Do well which is also "Doing well" as I said in the illustration above and doing well = Prosper.

Now God also said:
Deut 30:19 "This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live"

He gave man options either you obey and follow Him or not. The consequences of your actions is either life. Life=Blessings, Death=Curses.

And He advised to choose life. Him advising to choose life means it is His good, pleasing and perfect will for us to enjoy His blessings.

And noticed in the two scriptures He talked about their children living long and everything being well with them.

The "Oh" at the beginning shows His heart cry and desire, His passion to see His good, pleasing and perfect will come to pass.

So yes poverty can never be His good, pleasing and perfect will.

But someone might say, that's just the old testament. God might have changed it now.

Back to scriptures:

Mal 3:6

“For I am the Lord, I do not change;.."

Heb 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

So God's character and nature of being good and doing good can not and will never change.

Thank you.

You know I love you bro, and so you wouldnt mind this lickle bit of shown tough love
Sorry I am not going to break up your post whilst addressing it

#1 There is good success and bad success, not blatant success
#2 You've put out a dim view of what ''Prosperity'' is, what happened to 3 John 1:2?

3 John 1:2
Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth

#3 children living long? How long is long? How long did Jesus live? Is 33 years long enough for you?
#4 Skip the old testament. Skip if God might have changed now
Skip Mal 3:6 “For I am the Lord, I do not change;.." and Heb 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

What of 2 Corinthians 8:9?

2 Corinthians 8:9
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor,
so that you through his poverty might become rich

Or what of 2 Corinthians 6:10?

2 Corinthians 6:10
Our hearts ache, but we always have joy.
We are poor, but we give spiritual riches to others.
We own nothing, and yet we have everything

How about Revelation 2:9?

Revelation 2:9
"I know about your suffering and your poverty--but you are rich!
I know the blasphemy of those opposing you.
They say they are Jews, but they are not, because their synagogue belongs to Satan.

I am guessing you're now seeing how ''...poverty CAN BE good, pleasing and perfect''
- God found it good, pleasing and perfect that He used it as part of His plan for the world

God allowed the prodigal son to come back to his senses because of poverty.
Poverty was good, pleasing and perfect for him, as it played a part in bringing him back to his senses

I'll close with Luke 12:31

Luke 12:31
Seek the Kingdom of God above all else, and he will give you everything you need.

Muchas gracias for your co-op.

Jeromejnr:
Okay, so now that you are ready to talk,

Am like that battery, Ever Ready

Jeromejnr:
what do you want me to explain clearly?.

Throw more light, explain or expatiate the remark
Tell what you meant with it,
Write at length or in detail what you meant by ''...poverty is not good, pleasing and perfect''

Jeromejnr:
Guy, e be like say you like me. If you wan be my friend, tell me o, I am a very friendly person. I will give you my number sef.

Now I know you're not just a comedian but you also do clowning on the side

Jeromejnr:
BTW, if you think you could try to trap me in you debates, just forget it.

Trap you?
I leave those skills for the best in the game. You!
You're very good at entraping people like you tried with italo and twice with me too

Jeromejnr:
I watch what I say and I'm very good at defending myself.

I dont doubt you, as you're a very bright guy
Am sure you've realised and seen the faux pas in that ''...poverty is not good, pleasing and perfect'' remark of yours
but fear of losing face, ego etcetera should in case there are holes in your explanation prevents you from throwing more light on the remark

Jeromejnr:
My train of thought is revealed in the remark itself.

My brother, why are you behaving like this now.
Sebi we are learning off each other, isnt it. No be competition ooo
Just expatiate the remark
Tell what you meant with it, make an attempt
write at length or in detail what you meant by ''...poverty is not good, pleasing and perfect''

freecocoa:
Okay then, I'd like to give it a try

freecocoa:
I'm not a parent yet,

I guessed as much, but didnt want to make the assumption you are

freecocoa:
but I can't remember getting away with whatever my parents didn't wilfully support, whatever they disproved of, I didn't get away with doing

Maybe you're economical with the truth here or it's just innocent forgetfulness
Let's jog your memory with few examples:
Like staying up late beyond lights out or bed time
Like returning home later than the home curfew
Like not regularly tidying up your room

freecocoa:
How does the parent analogy fit with God?

The parent analogy fits with God because believe it or not, God too is a Parent, a Father.

freecocoa:
Now, the bible says

Now, the bible in a fallen world, says...

freecocoa:
a woman must be sold off to her r*pist, another part says that the man is not for the woman, but the woman is for the man, neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man,

I take this as innocent and wild exuberance, the money is a penalty, not a sale
You've made reference to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 but not Exodus 22:16-17 where the father has the final say, whether the man after paying the penalty can have the woman, his daughter

freecocoa:
another verse said that the woman brought death/sin to world

Wrong!. No verse says that the woman brought death/sin to world
as a matter of fact and truth, death came into the world through sin,
and sin actually came into the world via Adam

freecocoa:
therefore her pain shall be multiplied during childbirth

Pain in the mind (i.e. anguish etcetera) and the body.

freecocoa:
and her desire shall be only for her husband (funny the man can desire as much woman as he wants)

You've just referenced Genesis 3:16
but you need to compare it with Genesis 4:7, in order to get a proper handle on what is going on about this desire and overruling thing freecocoa

freecocoa:
the bible warms about strange women, a LovePeddler, or any woman who isn't a man's wife, it called her a deep ditch and a narrow pit, she lies in wait as a prey, increasing transgressors amongst men, apparently, a woman is responsible for a man choosing sleeping with her, I find it quite convinient that nothing was said about strange men

The bible is full of stories about strange men and even males who engage in sexual activity for payment etcetera, so nothing like a convenient silence here
Hang on, are you familiar with Proverbs 31:10-31 at all?
If yes, there you are, if not then dust up a Bible and check it out a father's advice to a son

freecocoa:
Now what do you have to say about these?

As seen from the above responses, I've tried to reduce the volume of what I have to say or can say about the whole lot and also tried doing it without it being overwhelming

freecocoa:
P.S, I didn't include where the verses are from

Dont worry about that, as you've probably noticed I can handle and live with it,
- the original texts, Hebrew and Greek, werent even in verses in the first instance anyway

freecocoa:
because I'd love to read someone say, those aren't in the bible

Sounds like a non-sexual fetish to me, anyway to each his or her own

Jeromejnr:
With all this your weird comments, are you not bothered about the way people will be looking at you

Pretend not knowing, play the ignorance game, do whatever you like
just know that, it is on record you said:
''...you first need to understand that poverty is not good, pleasing and perfect''

I have asked you the umpteenth time what your train of thought was when you made the remark,
but alas, instead of explaining, defending or backing up the remark, you're playing hide and seek with me

Jeromejnr:
Guy u funny o.

You are funnier

Jeromejnr:
Didn't you see the "...." In front of the good. Why does that mean in the English language?

Honestly I saw your escape route ''...'' AFTER the good, but thought, no, no, no, he wouldnt try that
but I can see that apart from that poverty prayer you tried cornering italo with, you still have a few more tricks up your sleeve

Jeromejnr:
So Mr Man, you are not making any progress.

If you've been forced to edit your post after reconsidering or after reflection and now settled with just ''good...'' then it is progress

Note I havent played or showed my trump card yet, which will show how that your remark wasn't well thought through before making it

Jeromejnr:
Mr. Man, my take on if Poverty is "good...." Has been clearly shown in my topic

My dear Mr Man, did you not read where I said try and be unambiguous
Your take on if ''Poverty is "good...."'' is not water-tight clear
Why, are you afraid to repeat your stand or repeat your quote on poverty showcasing your ''take''

I can see you are now settling with only ''good'', and have left out ''pleasing'' and ''perfect''
LOL we are making progress, there is hope, being that I am seeing a light at the end of this tunnel you burrowed yourself in

Jeromejnr:
So let me ask you, is poverty good, pleasing and perfect?

Please dont bother asking, as there is no absolute answer to the question
this is why I needed you to explain and defend this remark you made
What was your train of thought when you wrote it?

I know, if poverty is good, pleasing and perfect
but I wont answer you back, not until you stop fidgeting and start explaining or defending the remark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr6sMxUSD88
^{by Derek Walker}

@INTROVERT @SUGARBEE - this is complementing some parts in Jeromejnr's original post

[size=18pt]1 Corinthians 14:34-35:
Should Women be Silent in Church?[/size]

[size=16pt]VIDEO'S TRANSCRIPT:[/size]
One controversy concerns the role of women in church ministry. One scripture in particular seems to exclude women from any public ministry:

'Let your women keep SILENT in the churches,
for it is NOT PERMITTED FOR THEM TO SPEAK;
but they are commanded to be under obedience,
as THE LAW also SAYS.
And IF they want to learn something,
let them ask their own husbands at home,
for it is SHAMEFUL FOR WOMEN TO SPEAK IN CHURCH.'
(1 Corinthians 14:34,35)

Some would explain this away as a special command to the unruly women at Corinth to straighten-up, rather than a general command to all women everywhere. But if we treat one scripture this way, what is to stop us treating every scripture this way? Surely the New Testament is written for the whole church.

The subject of the passage is: 'THE WOMEN IN THE CHURCHES (plural)'. This means-'all women.' Moreover the command is based on 'the law' which means it applies to all, rather than just to those in a particular culture or time.

Let us consider what this passage is literally saying. The word for 'silent' does not mean 'quiet' Thus it is not saying that women should have a quiet (meek) spirit. The word translated 'silent' means no word can be spoken!

It is saying WOMEN MUST BE (completely) SILENT IN CHURCH. This doesn't just disqualify them from teaching but also from testifying, praying, prophesing and moving in the gifts of the Spirit-the latter being the context of these verses (1 Cor 12:1)

The First Problem with this passage, is that it contradicts Paul's other teaching in this book.
For he says women may pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor 11:3-5).
In 1Corinthians 12, especially in v13-27 he teaches that all members of the church (men and women), are members of the body and thus have a function in the body working in co-ordination with each other, and so we can all be used in the gifts and ministries of the Spirit.

So, he says: 'if ALL (men and women) prophesy' (1 Cor 14:24)
'When you come together, EVERY ONE (men and women) of you has a psalm, has a doctrine, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation.' (v26)
'You may ALL prophesy one by one.' (v31)

So, why would he say 3 verses later that all women must be silent in church? Is he being doubleminded?
So the first problem is that in the middle of encouraging everyone to move out in ministry, he is telling all women to be silent!

This also contradicts the spirit of the New-Testament with Jesus treating women with honour, with the churches set free from all Jewish traditions (Acts15), with full equality in the church (Gal 3:28) and with the Spirit poured upon all flesh (male and female) to give power for ministry (Acts 1:8, 2:4,16-18)

A Second Problem is the discouragement upon women from even learning:
'and IF THEY WANT TO LEARN.' The tone of this is condescending to women, that not only should they not speak, it is optional for them to learn the Word (it is even mildly frowned upon as if it were not really their place.) This is clearly in contradiction to the New Testament teaching for women and contrasts with what Paul said in 1Timothy 2:11: 'LET a woman learn.' Here he encourages women to study the Word. Here he speaks against those who would discourage them.

A Third Problem is the AUTHORITY used:
'IT IS NOT PERMITTED FOR THEM TO SPEAK ..AS THE LAW ALSO SAYS.'

Which Law is this? There are 4 possibilities:
(1) The Old Testament Scripture. (The Law of Moses)
It is usually referred to by 'It is written' (1 Cor 1:19,31; 3:19,20; 4:6; 9:9; 10:11, 14:21; 15:45,51)

(2) The Teaching of Jesus (1 Cor 7:10).

(3) The Apostolic Teaching and Tradition
-that which Paul and others received by revelation from the Lord (1 Cor 7:12) Paul received special new revelations to meet the needs of a new situation (the Church Age where many Gentiles were becoming believers on an equal footing with the Jews). For example: 1 Cor 2:10-13,16; 4:1,15-17, 7:6,10,12,17,25; 11:1,2,16,17, 23; 14:36,37; 15:1,3

(4) The Oral Law of the Jews (later written as the Talmud)- the interpretation of Moses' Law by the Scribes and Pharisees. It is followed by the Orthodox Jews to this day as of equal authority to the Bible. They falsely claimed it was passed down from Moses by word of mouth. Jesus clashed with Pharisees over this law. He rejected it and came against it's legalistic spirit (Matt15:3, Mark7:3).

Now when 1 Cor 14:34,35 refers to a law of silence for women, it couldn't be:
(1) because there's no such law in the Old-Testament and he would say 'it is written';
neither is it found in the Gospels (2).
Neither is it (3) because it is clearly a pre-existing law.
Therefore by a process of elimination it must be (4) The Jewish Oral Law (the laws of the Pharisees)

This is confirmed by the phrase: 'As also SAYS the Law.' - a reference to the ORAL law rather than the WRITTEN law (scripture).
(see also Matt 5:21,27,31, 33,38,43)

Also, we know this because it agrees completely with the Talmud and applies to Orthodox synagogues today. The service is for men only. Women are discouraged from even learning, but are sometimes allowed to watch from the gallery, for their place is at home not with things too high for them! And it would be shameful for them to speak in a meeting.

TALMUDIC QUOTES illustrate this:
A Jewish Prayer:'Praise God He hasn't created me a gentile, a woman or an ignorant man.'
'The woman, says the law, is in all things inferior to the man.'
Only men could speak in public (Beraktoth 4,36; Mishnah Aboth 1,5)
No woman could give a testimony or conduct business. (Mishnah Shabbath 4,1)

Women were viewed with disregard and repression, and the Talmud contains many distasteful insults of women's character. They were to be avoided. They were not required to know or fulfil the law and so few were learned.

One said: 'May the words of the Torah be burned rather than be given to women.'
In public worship they were segregated and silenced and so had to ask questions of their husbands at home.

Clearly the writer of 1 Cor 14:34,35 reflected this Pharisaical attitude to women and used this Jewish Law to support his views.

So why would Paul say something that stands in contradiction to the immediate context and the rest of the New Testament? Why would he establish this teaching on Jewish Laws that elsewhere, both he and Jesus rejected?

The simple answer is these verses are not Paul's teaching!
Paul's letters are written in response church situations. 1 Corinthians is the most responsive of them all. Paul had received reports about what was going on (1:11, 5:1, 6:1,8 ), and the church had sent a letter to Paul with many questions (7:1,8,10,12,25; 8:1,4; 12:1; 16:1). There was disunity (1:10-12,3:3). In particular there were 2 groups of people saved from different backgrounds disputing -Jews who tended toward legalism, and Greeks who tended toward license. Paul goes through the issues and questions raised one by one.

Examples of when Paul is clearly responding to what one group has said are 6:15-20 (Greeks); 9:1-11; 11:1-16 (Jews) and 15:12,35,36.

Sometimes he refers what they are saying and then he answers them -e.g.1 Cor 4:8: 'You are already full! You are already rich! You have reigned as kings without us.' (this is what some of them had claimed) --'and indeed I wish you did reign, that we might also reign with you.' (Paul's answer - see also 4:10)

Sometimes he even quotes what they say and then answers them. The problem is that there are no punctuation or quote marks in the Greek and the translators often miss them out.

Some examples of this, are when he responds to the 'loose' Greeks as in 6:12,13:
(You say) 'All things are lawful for me.'
(I Paul) say: 'but all things are not helpful.'
(You say) 'All things are lawful for me.'
(I Paul) say: 'but I will not be brought under the power of any.'
(You say) 'Food is for the stomach and the stomach for foods.'
(I Paul) say: 'but God will destroy both it and them.'
We see the same in 10:23,24.

In questions about idols Paul challenges those who pride themselves in their knowledge but who do not hold it in love. (8:1-3) 8:4: 'We know that -'an idol is nothing in the world and that there is but one God' (again he quotes their words (their knowledge) before he answers as confirmed in v10,11.

Other examples are when he responds to the 'legalistic Jews', 7:1:
'Now concerning what you wrote to me,
(some of you said) 'It is good for a man not to touch a woman.'
(But I Paul say) 'Nevertheless because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife...'

Now we can understand what is happening in 1 Cor 14:34,35.
Paul is quoting what some Jewish converts to Christ, had written in a letter to Paul, complaining about women being involved in church services. Although they were saved they were used to male-dominated synagogue - worship and so found the equality of women in church life hard to take.

They were saying: 'Paul, these women are prophesying, praying out loud, speaking in tongues. The Oral law says it's shameful for a woman to speak in public. Tell them to shut-up!'

So as Paul is teaching on every member participating in church services, it is the natural place for him to deal with their objection. So he quotes what they say: 'Let your women keep silent in the churches, for it is not permitted for them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for women to speak in church' (v34,35)

Then he answers them: 'What, came the word of God out from you? or came it to you only? If any think himself a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write to you (not the Talmud) are the commandments of the Lord (the true authority) But if any (choose to be) be ignorant, let him be ignorant.' (v36-38) Paul replies by asserting his apostolic authority above the Talmud.

This also explains why these verses come out of the blue, interrupting the flow of thought, which is picked up again in v39,40: 'Therefore brethren, covet to prophesy and do not forbid to speak with tongues.'

The placement of v34,35 in the passage as a clear interruption and marked contrast to what Paul is teaching, serves to separate them from Paul's own views.

We conclude that Paul isn't silencing women, rather the opposite!

Those who are too quick to agree with v34,35 have unwittingly submitted to an unchristian pharisaical spirit

https://www.nairaland.com/2562744/opinion-women-preaching-church-not/4#37488867

freecocoa:
Okay then, perhaps you might wanna prove to me that it doesn't,

Same way you use verses to say the Bible supports misogyny
would be the same way, I would use the Bible to show it doesnt support misogyny and that neither or never did Jesus too support misogyny

freecocoa:
or better yet, how the word of God which is perfect, can be said to do something not wilful, yea?

The teachings and word of the LORD are perfect alright. They renew the soul and preserves ones life.

If you arent a parent yet to know this,
then at least, I can bet, you can relate with the fact or truth that, there were occasions you got away with doing certain things which your parents didnt wilfully support

Jeromejnr:
Can you rephrase your question in a way I can understand

Are you saying, you dont understand or dont recognise your remark again?

Jeromejnr:
I don't even get the point you are trying to drive at.

You wouldnt know, as you drove yourself into a cul de sac

Jeromejnr:
So you first need to understand that poverty is not good, pleasing and perfect.

Please explain and defend your highly subjective remark in the immediate quote above
Wasnt it you who wrote it that that poverty is not good, pleasing and perfect?

freecocoa:
No, I haven't watched the video and quite frankly, am not going to
because I don't see what difference it makes (even with the said missing comments in the transcript)

I can respect that and only say suit yourself to it

freecocoa:
I can let you have what you claim is the reason for the bible verses (even though I don't agree with it)

I understand. Besides the fact that the reason for the bible verses is true, I know we sometimes, have to agree to disagree

freecocoa:
I can't however, agree that the bible does not support misogyny

You will admit that the end of a matter is better than its beginning

If we are being honest and sincere, the same manner, we think the Bible is misogynistic or supports misogyny, is the same way we'll find it, not to be misogynistic and/or doesnt wilfully supports misogyny

Jeromejnr:
SMH.

Instead of shaking your head like an agama lizard, why not explain yourself
and defend your in bold red highly subjective ''...first need to understand that poverty is not good, pleasing and perfect'' remark
Is it too much to ask? SMH.

freecocoa:
Yea, watching the video isn't a worry
but I decided to read the transcript because it's there
and I can always reread if I didn't understand something ...

Yep thought as much that worrying about bandwidth wouldnt be an issue.
So you've already watched the video then?
If you've watched the video and was closely following it with the transcript,
you would have noticed there are extra comments in the video missing in the transcript

By the way, I watched this guy, first on Satellite TV years ago before he finally made the video available on YouTube

freecocoa:
...now I understand everything read
1.it's the pharisees who has issues with women teaching.

Exactamundo! ... and 21st century pharisees too having issues with women teaching etctera

freecocoa:
2.Those bible verses was in response to them

Yes in response to them and the likes having a pharisaical spirit

freecocoa:
Now why include that part of paul's response, leaving out the complains or concerns of the pharisees?

Paul in his letter was responding to reports, complaints and grievances earlier reached him
On the contrary the ''complaints or concerns of the pharisees'' are included in part of paul's response
Their ''complaints or concerns of the pharisees'' are what Paul quoted or cited in his letters (i.e. as citation)

freecocoa:
Why should we take your version of what transpired serious, if I can come up with reasons why I believe those were Paul's words?

How does it make any sense, to include a response to a letter no one knows of into the bible?

C'mon now freecocoa, it weren't all letters, its a combination of all (e.g. reports, hearsays he received, letters etcetera)
Besides, apart from Paul's, the only other letters published in the Bible are those of the Apostles like John, Peter, Jude etcetera
and not that of the Pharisees or any other person

Also, did you not know, watched the video or read to know that, Greek, unlike in English, has no punctuation or quote marks?
You get to know about the letter/ or what he was addressing when he repeated them in his epistlers

freecocoa:
You implied with your write up that the message as seen in the scriptures,
is not to be taken as Paul saying women shouldn't teach
but rather the opposite as he couldn't contradict himself, no?

Firstly, freecocoa I've got this feeling that watching a 25 minutes Youtube video isnt something you'll have a worry about
Secondly, the ''write- up'' is a transcript of the video for the benefit of some who wouldnt want to use their data bandwidth to watch it
Lastly, if you watched the entire video to the end or read the whole transcript,
it would have clearly be seen how it explained how and why not Paul's epistles were not about teaching silent of women in Church
and how he couldn't be contradicting himself, yes.
- Paul's epistles became part of scripture or the Bible, it isn't the actual reports or letters he was responding to in his epistles that are scriptures

PS I wouldnt say malvisguy212 saying the atheist obvious is stewpid, he was, if I didnt know, harmlessly just handed out a FYI

malvisguy212:
don't take her serious, she is an atheist.

I know freecocoa and all about her theology antecedents
Thanks for the heads-up

gbaskiphylle:
But what has women done to deserve dis treatment?....this marginalisation of women even started in the old testament...but the reason Paul gives in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 is very flimsy I must say...every human is equal before God Almighty even if we have different spiritual responsibilities...some of paul's teaching cannot be applied now because we are more enlightened and most of his writings are his personal views...God Help us all..

Paul never taught that women should be silent etcetera
Slowly but loudly, read the video's transcript if you are unable to watch the video please

freecocoa:
Who then is responsible for those verses since Paul told you he isn't?

You have to be more explicit than this
Have I missed something?
Which verse(s) from the above post or verse(s) in Paul's epistle did Paul say he was not responsible for?

Jeromejnr:
Only God understands what you just wrote.

LOL you see your life now
Wasnt it you who partly wrote ''...poverty is not good, pleasing and perfect''?

so I responded with be unambiguous and clearly state what you are trying to say with that reamrk

With this your ''... need to understand that poverty is not good, pleasing and perfect'' statement,
are you inferring that poverty can never be or can not be good, pleasing and perfect?

Again please dont pull out on me that poverty card prayer you asked italo pray
- this is mainly because I know the plan and will of God for me, so dont start that nonsense with me. OK?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr6sMxUSD88
^{by Derek Walker}

@softapples @malvisguy212 @Adaeze003 @oreos @menxer
@freecocoa @haul @Papa5050 @portable86 @lomprico
@etenyong @Adesiji77 @Taiye4Christ @Orikinla @CSTR2 @gmaribel @Abumenre
@5starmilitant @Appleyard @ApexTitan @chuna1985 @luvprince4real

[size=18pt]1 Corinthians 14:34-35:
Should Women be Silent in Church?[/size]

[size=16pt]VIDEO'S TRANSCRIPT:[/size]
One controversy concerns the role of women in church ministry. One scripture in particular seems to exclude women from any public ministry:

'Let your women keep SILENT in the churches,
for it is NOT PERMITTED FOR THEM TO SPEAK;
but they are commanded to be under obedience,
as THE LAW also SAYS.
And IF they want to learn something,
let them ask their own husbands at home,
for it is SHAMEFUL FOR WOMEN TO SPEAK IN CHURCH.'
(1 Corinthians 14:34,35)

Some would explain this away as a special command to the unruly women at Corinth to straighten-up, rather than a general command to all women everywhere. But if we treat one scripture this way, what is to stop us treating every scripture this way? Surely the New Testament is written for the whole church.

The subject of the passage is: 'THE WOMEN IN THE CHURCHES (plural)'. This means-'all women.' Moreover the command is based on 'the law' which means it applies to all, rather than just to those in a particular culture or time.

Let us consider what this passage is literally saying. The word for 'silent' does not mean 'quiet' Thus it is not saying that women should have a quiet (meek) spirit. The word translated 'silent' means no word can be spoken!

It is saying WOMEN MUST BE (completely) SILENT IN CHURCH. This doesn't just disqualify them from teaching but also from testifying, praying, prophesing and moving in the gifts of the Spirit-the latter being the context of these verses (1 Cor 12:1)

The First Problem with this passage, is that it contradicts Paul's other teaching in this book.
For he says women may pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor 11:3-5).
In 1Corinthians 12, especially in v13-27 he teaches that all members of the church (men and women), are members of the body and thus have a function in the body working in co-ordination with each other, and so we can all be used in the gifts and ministries of the Spirit.

So, he says: 'if ALL (men and women) prophesy' (1 Cor 14:24)
'When you come together, EVERY ONE (men and women) of you has a psalm, has a doctrine, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation.' (v26)
'You may ALL prophesy one by one.' (v31)

So, why would he say 3 verses later that all women must be silent in church? Is he being doubleminded?
So the first problem is that in the middle of encouraging everyone to move out in ministry, he is telling all women to be silent!

This also contradicts the spirit of the New-Testament with Jesus treating women with honour, with the churches set free from all Jewish traditions (Acts15), with full equality in the church (Gal 3:28) and with the Spirit poured upon all flesh (male and female) to give power for ministry (Acts 1:8, 2:4,16-18)

A Second Problem is the discouragement upon women from even learning:
'and IF THEY WANT TO LEARN.' The tone of this is condescending to women, that not only should they not speak, it is optional for them to learn the Word (it is even mildly frowned upon as if it were not really their place.) This is clearly in contradiction to the New Testament teaching for women and contrasts with what Paul said in 1Timothy 2:11: 'LET a woman learn.' Here he encourages women to study the Word. Here he speaks against those who would discourage them.

A Third Problem is the AUTHORITY used:
'IT IS NOT PERMITTED FOR THEM TO SPEAK ..AS THE LAW ALSO SAYS.'

Which Law is this? There are 4 possibilities:
(1) The Old Testament Scripture. (The Law of Moses)
It is usually referred to by 'It is written' (1 Cor 1:19,31; 3:19,20; 4:6; 9:9; 10:11, 14:21; 15:45,51)

(2) The Teaching of Jesus (1 Cor 7:10).

(3) The Apostolic Teaching and Tradition
-that which Paul and others received by revelation from the Lord (1 Cor 7:12) Paul received special new revelations to meet the needs of a new situation (the Church Age where many Gentiles were becoming believers on an equal footing with the Jews). For example: 1 Cor 2:10-13,16; 4:1,15-17, 7:6,10,12,17,25; 11:1,2,16,17, 23; 14:36,37; 15:1,3

(4) The Oral Law of the Jews (later written as the Talmud)- the interpretation of Moses' Law by the Scribes and Pharisees. It is followed by the Orthodox Jews to this day as of equal authority to the Bible. They falsely claimed it was passed down from Moses by word of mouth. Jesus clashed with Pharisees over this law. He rejected it and came against it's legalistic spirit (Matt15:3, Mark7:3).

Now when 1 Cor 14:34,35 refers to a law of silence for women, it couldn't be:
(1) because there's no such law in the Old-Testament and he would say 'it is written';
neither is it found in the Gospels (2).
Neither is it (3) because it is clearly a pre-existing law.
Therefore by a process of elimination it must be (4) The Jewish Oral Law (the laws of the Pharisees)

This is confirmed by the phrase: 'As also SAYS the Law.' - a reference to the ORAL law rather than the WRITTEN law (scripture).
(see also Matt 5:21,27,31, 33,38,43)

Also, we know this because it agrees completely with the Talmud and applies to Orthodox synagogues today. The service is for men only. Women are discouraged from even learning, but are sometimes allowed to watch from the gallery, for their place is at home not with things too high for them! And it would be shameful for them to speak in a meeting.

TALMUDIC QUOTES illustrate this:
A Jewish Prayer:'Praise God He hasn't created me a gentile, a woman or an ignorant man.'
'The woman, says the law, is in all things inferior to the man.'
Only men could speak in public (Beraktoth 4,36; Mishnah Aboth 1,5)
No woman could give a testimony or conduct business. (Mishnah Shabbath 4,1)

Women were viewed with disregard and repression, and the Talmud contains many distasteful insults of women's character. They were to be avoided. They were not required to know or fulfil the law and so few were learned.

One said: 'May the words of the Torah be burned rather than be given to women.'
In public worship they were segregated and silenced and so had to ask questions of their husbands at home.

Clearly the writer of 1 Cor 14:34,35 reflected this Pharisaical attitude to women and used this Jewish Law to support his views.

So why would Paul say something that stands in contradiction to the immediate context and the rest of the New Testament? Why would he establish this teaching on Jewish Laws that elsewhere, both he and Jesus rejected?

The simple answer is these verses are not Paul's teaching!
Paul's letters are written in response church situations. 1 Corinthians is the most responsive of them all. Paul had received reports about what was going on (1:11, 5:1, 6:1,8 ), and the church had sent a letter to Paul with many questions (7:1,8,10,12,25; 8:1,4; 12:1; 16:1). There was disunity (1:10-12,3:3). In particular there were 2 groups of people saved from different backgrounds disputing -Jews who tended toward legalism, and Greeks who tended toward license. Paul goes through the issues and questions raised one by one.

Examples of when Paul is clearly responding to what one group has said are 6:15-20 (Greeks); 9:1-11; 11:1-16 (Jews) and 15:12,35,36.

Sometimes he refers what they are saying and then he answers them -e.g.1 Cor 4:8: 'You are already full! You are already rich! You have reigned as kings without us.' (this is what some of them had claimed) --'and indeed I wish you did reign, that we might also reign with you.' (Paul's answer - see also 4:10)

Sometimes he even quotes what they say and then answers them. The problem is that there are no punctuation or quote marks in the Greek and the translators often miss them out.

Some examples of this, are when he responds to the 'loose' Greeks as in 6:12,13:
(You say) 'All things are lawful for me.'
(I Paul) say: 'but all things are not helpful.'
(You say) 'All things are lawful for me.'
(I Paul) say: 'but I will not be brought under the power of any.'
(You say) 'Food is for the stomach and the stomach for foods.'
(I Paul) say: 'but God will destroy both it and them.'
We see the same in 10:23,24.

In questions about idols Paul challenges those who pride themselves in their knowledge but who do not hold it in love. (8:1-3) 8:4: 'We know that -'an idol is nothing in the world and that there is but one God' (again he quotes their words (their knowledge) before he answers as confirmed in v10,11.

Other examples are when he responds to the 'legalistic Jews', 7:1:
'Now concerning what you wrote to me,
(some of you said) 'It is good for a man not to touch a woman.'
(But I Paul say) 'Nevertheless because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife...'

Now we can understand what is happening in 1 Cor 14:34,35.
Paul is quoting what some Jewish converts to Christ, had written in a letter to Paul, complaining about women being involved in church services. Although they were saved they were used to male-dominated synagogue - worship and so found the equality of women in church life hard to take.

They were saying: 'Paul, these women are prophesying, praying out loud, speaking in tongues. The Oral law says it's shameful for a woman to speak in public. Tell them to shut-up!'

So as Paul is teaching on every member participating in church services, it is the natural place for him to deal with their objection. So he quotes what they say: 'Let your women keep silent in the churches, for it is not permitted for them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for women to speak in church' (v34,35)

Then he answers them: 'What, came the word of God out from you? or came it to you only? If any think himself a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write to you (not the Talmud) are the commandments of the Lord (the true authority) But if any (choose to be) be ignorant, let him be ignorant.' (v36-38) Paul replies by asserting his apostolic authority above the Talmud.

This also explains why these verses come out of the blue, interrupting the flow of thought, which is picked up again in v39,40: 'Therefore brethren, covet to prophesy and do not forbid to speak with tongues.'

The placement of v34,35 in the passage as a clear interruption and marked contrast to what Paul is teaching, serves to separate them from Paul's own views.

We conclude that Paul isn't silencing women, rather the opposite!

Those who are too quick to agree with v34,35 have unwittingly submitted to an unchristian pharisaical spirit

https://s22.postimg.org/letjnrfot/Loaded.jpg
Issorite. Eckhart Tolle, yeah? Eckhart Tolle, another Oprah's favourites, like TD Jakes?

The fact & truth is, Eckhart Tolle is like toying with a loaded arm pointed to the head
In a safe hand, no problem, if the safe hand has sense enough not to pull the trigger whilst arm is pointed to head.

Eckhart Tolle is slick as they come, as he uses all the right words,
and whatever right words he doesnt want to use, he gives the excuse that the word has become ''empty of meaning'' or has been misused.

MizMyColi, to the trained eye, Eckhart Tolle would be an Eve Déjà vu
- sorry for the ''trained eye''-''Eve Déjà'' vu'' pun there,
- couldnt resist not seizing the chance to use it

Nothing personal but at the end of the day, Eckhart Tolle is no better than or different to the average Pastorpreneurs

The pseudo truth in ''The Power of Now?'' is like a few pearls mixed in with a lot of worthless faux pearls.
It has lots of New Age etcetera stuff in it that if you'll be eating it you'll have to be prepared for spitting out the throat prickly bones in it.

By the way, I found the unconsciousness issue raised by mnwankwo very interesting, he even de-toured a bit into bacteria, LOL
(i.e. he said:
... to "define" what consciousnesses is and ascertain if there are gradations of consciousnesses or if consciousnesses is one and the same)
though you ducked definining your ''different level of consciousness'' response was equally interesting

mnwankwo further went on to state:
''Are all consciousnesses eternal or are there gradations of it that began at point? These questions are important if an inference''

Let me ask both of you what your takes are on consciousnesses in the realm of the dead and land of the living
1) What is consciousnesses in the realm of the dead and in land of the living?
2) Is consciousnesses in the realm of the dead and land of the living criss crossed?
3) Are the dead consciousnesses of happenings in the land of the living and vice versa?
4) Are those in the realm of the dead consciousnesses of happenings in there just as those in the land of the living are consciousnesses of happenings in there surroundings?
5) What is the correlation between unconsciousnesses and ''sleeping'' for the dead or those in the realm of the dead?

Sorry didnt go into the bacteria unconsciousnesses

Mind you, I've read Eckhart Tolle's ''The Power of Now?'' so am able and willing to address any questions on any of the claims in the book

Jeromejnr:
Hehe! Don't worry, when the time is right, I will create a thread for that.

But first, Rom 12:2
"Don't copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think.
Then you will learn to know God's will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect."

So you first need to understand that poverty is not good, pleasing and perfect

You see my dear brother from another mother, you sometimes, have to be unambiguous and clearly state what you are trying to say in your posts

With this your ''... need to understand that poverty is not good, pleasing and perfect'' statement,
are you inferring that poverty can never or can not be good, pleasing and perfect

Now please dont pull out on me that poverty card prayer you showed italo
this is mainly because I know the plan and will of God for me, so dont start that nonsense with me. OK?

Heavenly102:
this post would have been much better if you gave people tips on how to be wealthy, coz we have been hearing this argument for far too long.

@Jeromejnr, yes ooo
What are the tips on to be ''wealthy''?
As we have been hearing this argument for far too long, yes, where are the scriptural proof God wants us wealthy?

Just spill the beans. Get on with it jor.
Forget about ''We have to first deal with changing the way people think before we give them the How to's.''
Jesus said we'll always have the poor around
God earlier too said something similar to the Israelites when He said:
''There will always be poor people in the land.
Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land''
so, just do it! Do it now!!

Jeromejnr:
Haha! you sure say ur battery run down that time or u being no fit answer my question?

Just tell jaare, who is or what is the mentor's name and let the devil be put to shame

Jeromejnr:
MuttleyLaff, you don come again. You too want to start your own. Leave me O. I was just greeting you.

Haba! Chief na so you want take style change gear on me.

Issorite. Seems you like starting something and not finish it. When asked about it, you then cry wolf

Na so dem dey greet for una end?
Just say what's on your mind, the truth who the mentor is and put the devil to shame.
It's not a hard thing to do.

Na so you run down my battery the other time, thank God I had in car charging facilities

Jeromejnr just say it, why the cold feet@

Jeromejnr:
I don't know, you know.

Why the cold shiver?
Man up, finish what you brought up or started. Who is the mentor I learned from?

Jeromejnr:
@ MuttleyLaff.. I can see your good work.

You are learning from your mentor.

... my dear sir, who and/or what is the name of the mentor?

italo:
Another question for you ignorant hypocrites:

Did Jesus know the date and time that God wills for his return to earth?

*wrestle with that.

SMH, whats to wrestle with in this puppy challenge
Have another try my friend, as I have touched on this subject of interest earlier before when commenting on a texanomaly post

Read and learn a new thing on the subject from the below excerpt

- EXCERPT -

"mansions", this is a very interesting one.
It actually has to do with a Jewish custom prevalent in just before, around and maybe a bit after Jesus' time,
I am not sure if the practice is still done in Israel or still now continued with present Jews
The groom is expected to prepare or build an extension in his father's estate,
the extension (i.e. mansion) serves to accomodate the intended bride.

The wedding does not take place until when the groom's father is satisfied with the progress
and work done by the groom in preparing the extension or building the "mansion"

I completely agree with all you wrote there except for the "hell" choice of word and "I have never believed in only Heaven or Hell" intro.
There is Heaven and there is Sheol, Hell is a Greek concept, never a Jewish one.
We can thank the translator for adopting the word Hell/Hades instead of sticking to the original and authentic Sheol word

Read MORE or the get the ENTIRE thread here

https://www.nairaland.com/2349278/refuse-believe-only-christians-saved/2#35235814

- /EXCERPT -

Dont just be discriminately grabbing or gorging Bible,
try get familiar with Jewish idioms, Jewish customs & practices,
try to understand Jewish/Aramaic saying from a Jewish backdrop or viewpoint etcetera,
as all these, in a long and healthy way, help in digesting the word, without risk of throwing up

God came as a Jew,
so it is understanding that Jesus will use Jewish idioms, Jewish customs & practices, Jewish/Aramaic saying, parables etcetera
in His teachings when aiming to get the message sink home to His listening audience(s)

So my dear friend italo, as you've read from the first two paragraphs in the above excerpt,
just like the Jewish son, until when the Jewish father approves the building of the extension (i.e. mansion(s))
the Jewish son wouldnt know the ''fixed'' date of the wedding (i.e. when ''return to earth'')
same, God the Son, until when God the Father approves, wouldnt know the date and time that God wills for Him to return to earth

italo:
See how many words it takes when trying to twist the gospel?

Take this and twist it too:

Luke22:42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

Also, you miraculously failed to notice that Jeromejnr said the Bible is from the satanic Talmud.

Also you didn't mention to your fellow ignorant hypocrites that you teach that water baptism is obsolete and Jesus led his apostles to do it in error.

What Jeromejnr said didnt deem commenting on
as everyone knows the Talmud isnt God inspired
- at least, not if we're going by 2 Timothy 3:16 guideline
Anyway, trawl through my past posts, to see what my take is on the Talmud is
(e.g. use the search tool with search word muttleylaff+talmud)

Better still, saving your the time & effort,
you should be able to pick out my view on the Talmud from the below snippet touching on another subject

- SNIPPET -

(4) The Oral Law of the Jews (later written as the Talmud)
- the interpretation of Moses' Law by the Scribes and Pharisees.

It is followed by the Orthodox Jews to this day as of equal authority to the Bible.

They falsely claimed it was passed down from Moses by word of mouth.
Jesus clashed with Pharisees over this law. He rejected it and came against it's legalistic spirit (Matt15:3, Mark7:3).

Now when 1 Cor 14:34,35 refers to a law of silence for women, it couldn't be:
(1) because there's no such law in the Old-Testament and he would say 'it is written';
neither is it found in the Gospels (2).
Neither is it (3) because it is clearly a pre-existing law.
Therefore by a process of elimination it must be (4) The Jewish Oral Law (the laws of the Pharisees)

This is confirmed by the phrase: 'As also SAYS the Law.' - a reference to the ORAL law rather than the WRITTEN law (scripture).
(see also Matt 5:21,27,31, 33,38,43)

Also, we know this because it agrees completely with the Talmud and applies to Orthodox synagogues today. The service is for men only. Women are discouraged from even learning, but are sometimes allowed to watch from the gallery, for their place is at home not with things too high for them! And it would be shameful for them to speak in a meeting.

TALMUDIC QUOTES illustrate this:
A Jewish Prayer:'Praise God He hasn't created me a gentile, a woman or an ignorant man.'
'The woman, says the law, is in all things inferior to the man.'
Only men could speak in public (Beraktoth 4,36; Mishnah Aboth 1,5)
No woman could give a testimony or conduct business. (Mishnah Shabbath 4,1)

Women were viewed with disregard and repression, and the Talmud contains many distasteful insults of women's character. They were to be avoided. They were not required to know or fulfil the law and so few were learned.

One said: 'May the words of the Torah be burned rather than be given to women.'
In public worship they were segregated and silenced and so had to ask questions of their husbands at home.

Clearly the writer of 1 Cor 14:34,35 reflected this Pharisaical attitude to women and used this Jewish Law to support his views.

So why would Paul say something that stands in contradiction to the immediate context and the rest of the New Testament? Why would he establish this teaching on Jewish Laws that elsewhere, both he and Jesus rejected?

The simple answer is these verses are not Paul's teaching!
Paul's letters are written in response church situations. 1 Corinthians is the most responsive of them all. Paul had received reports about what was going on (1:11, 5:1, 6:1,8 ), and the church had sent a letter to Paul with many questions (7:1,8,10,12,25; 8:1,4; 12:1; 16:1). There was disunity (1:10-12,3:3). In particular there were 2 groups of people saved from different backgrounds disputing -Jews who tended toward legalism, and Greeks who tended toward license. Paul goes through the issues and questions raised one by one.

Examples of when Paul is clearly responding to what one group has said are 6:15-20 (Greeks); 9:1-11; 11:1-16 (Jews) and 15:12,35,36.

Sometimes he refers what they are saying and then he answers them -e.g.1 Cor 4:8: 'You are already full! You are already rich! You have reigned as kings without us.' (this is what some of them had claimed) --'and indeed I wish you did reign, that we might also reign with you.' (Paul's answer - see also 4:10)

Sometimes he even quotes what they say and then answers them. The problem is that there are no punctuation or quote marks in the Greek and the translators often miss them out.

Some examples of this, are when he responds to the 'loose' Greeks as in 6:12,13:
(You say) 'All things are lawful for me.'
(I Paul) say: 'but all things are not helpful.'
(You say) 'All things are lawful for me.'
(I Paul) say: 'but I will not be brought under the power of any.'
(You say) 'Food is for the stomach and the stomach for foods.'
(I Paul) say: 'but God will destroy both it and them.'
We see the same in 10:23,24.

In questions about idols Paul challenges those who pride themselves in their knowledge but who do not hold it in love. (8:1-3) 8:4: 'We know that -'an idol is nothing in the world and that there is but one God' (again he quotes their words (their knowledge) before he answers as confirmed in v10,11.

Other examples are when he responds to the 'legalistic Jews', 7:1:
'Now concerning what you wrote to me,
(some of you said) 'It is good for a man not to touch a woman.'
(But I Paul say) 'Nevertheless because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife...'

Now we can understand what is happening in 1 Cor 14:34,35.
Paul is quoting what some Jewish converts to Christ, had written in a letter to Paul, complaining about women being involved in church services. Although they were saved they were used to male-dominated synagogue - worship and so found the equality of women in church life hard to take.

They were saying: 'Paul, these women are prophesying, praying out loud, speaking in tongues. The Oral law says it's shameful for a woman to speak in public. Tell them to shut-up!'

So as Paul is teaching on every member participating in church services, it is the natural place for him to deal with their objection. So he quotes what they say: 'Let your women keep silent in the churches, for it is not permitted for them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for women to speak in church' (v34,35)

Then he answers them: 'What, came the word of God out from you? or came it to you only? If any think himself a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write to you (not the Talmud) are the commandments of the Lord (the true authority) But if any (choose to be) be ignorant, let him be ignorant.' (v36-38) Paul replies by asserting his apostolic authority above the Talmud.

This also explains why these verses come out of the blue, interrupting the flow of thought, which is picked up again in v39,40: 'Therefore brethren,covet to prophesy and do not forbid to speak with tongues.'

The placement of v34,35 in the passage as a clear interruption and marked contrast to what Paul is teaching, serves to separate them from Paul's own views.

We conclude that Paul isn't silencing women, rather the opposite!

Those who are too quick to agree with v34,35 have unwittingly submitted to an unchristian pharisaical spirit

- /SNIPPET -

Bottom line, the Talmud is to the Bible, what the Hadith is to the Quran. Enough said

italo:
[size=5pt]I don't know.[/size]
Even Jesus didn't know God's will regarding whether he was to be crucified or not
[size=5pt]Even St. Paul didn't know whether God would heal his ailment or not.

Even Job didn't know whether God wanted him to be rich or poor.

What we know is that God wants us to know him, love him, serve him and be with him forever.[/size]

Jeromejnr:
CaptainJune...come see this abeg. Especially the bolded.

italo:
Let CaptainJune come and see and help you quickly...

Obviously you have run out of hiding space.

...and also show him where you said the Bible is from the heretical Talmud where it was said that Jesus is burning in hell.

michaelwestern:
He made that statement
probably because of the prayer of consecration that Jesus Christ prayed in the garden of gethsemany

From your conversations with him on this thread, i believe that he is still a baby christian (so am I), so dont be too hard on him

[size=5pt]And brother, you are blessed. I've not noticed your username before but i will start looking out for you.
Love you bro, keep the fire burning.[/size]

@Jeromejnr, @CaptainJune, @michaelwestern , welcome to the world of my very dear friend and good brother italo

As we've been at loggerheads a few times, I am not surprised, italo says ''Jesus didn't know God's will''
This is inline with SYNCAN, one of italo's brothers in the faith, who earlier implied Jesus was forsaken,
which prompted me to I rebutt him & others who share the same view that ''Jesus was forsaken'' with the below excerpt

- EXCERPT-

Stop playing the victim card here Oga
Can you please not be daft, no one is picking a quarrel with you
but what so far has been said, is that, Jesus for the benefit of the disciples uttered in Aramaic the purpose
(i.e. the reason all those things were happening, the reason why He was created or the reason why He came to exist)
He then after declaring that the purpose (i.e. the process for salvation) is finished or accomplished
excused Himself with the "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" last word

Jesus chose His word very carefully and didnt speak impetuously when He used "Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani"
He actually was paraphrasing the begining of Psalm 22 (i.e. Psalm 22:1) just like He paraphrased the end of Psalm 22 (i.e Psalm 22:31)
There are a bunch of other scriptures and messianic psalms Jesus paraphrases.
Paul Peter et al also display this behaviour

Jesus deliberating DID NOT quote Psalms 22:1 verbatim or directly
but consciously changed or switched language and used the Aramaic "sabachthani",
so as to make the distinction from the Aramaic "nashatani"

"nashatani" and "sabachthani" are both Aramaic
"Nashatani" is the Aramaic word for the Hebrew word "azabtani", where in Psalms 22:1 it is correctly translated as the English word "forsaken"

Since "Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani" is Aramaic, if Jesus meant "forsaken", He would have uttered "Eli, Eli, lama, Nashatani"
where "Eli, Eli, lama, Nashatani" would mean "My God, My God, why hath Thou forsaken Me"
but He used "Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani"
which means:
"My God, My God, this is why You kept me"
or "My God, My God, this is My destiny" (i.e. I was born to do this)
or "My God, My God, this is what You permitted"
or "My God, My God, this is what You allowed"

Unlike some like you, specifically saying or insisting on "forsaken", the Aramaic speaking disciples and others in the crowd who were from Galilee never for a moment thought that Jesus had said God had forsaken Him.
How can that possibly be? God, forsaking Jesus? Nah, no, no, no.

Those words:
"My God, My God, for this I was kept"
or "My God, My God, this is why You kept me"
or "My God, My God, this is My destiny" (i.e. I was born for this)
or "My God, My God, this is what You permitted"
or "My God, My God, this is what You allowed"

was deliberated spoken in Aramaic by Jesus to God the Father and He spoke it loud and clear enough for the benefit and hearing of the disciples and others who understood Aramaic. He confirmed the plan, confirmed the reason for His crucifixion, and confirmed the execution of the plan
He did all this to the hearing of the disciples et al, made it publicly official, so that the beautiful message be known and be passed on to the entire world by the hearers of those unforgetable last words.

If you dont get it, if you refuse to admit that it is about the "forsaken" word, if you want to bury head in sand etcetera, so be it.

I wasnt quarrelling with you or having a tiff with you. I have a thousand one, better, and more attentive things to do than quarrel with you.
I was compelled to share this and my spirit or conscience wouldn't be at peace or stay at rest without sharing the knowledge
and besides that, I am lover, not a "quarreller", not a fighter.

I've done my bit bro. Have a great week.
I should have given up long time because for all it's worth, I've had my posts hidden and got banned twice by the finicky antispam bot,
Seun or one of the moderators came to the rescue and unhid the post, only to get slayed again by the antispam bot and hide my post again when trying to clean and tidy up the typos etcetera with another post before cancelling my original post which is no longer hidden.
I thought I have edited out what is triggering or setting off the antispam bot
but no, I havent, as I still had my post hidden and got banned again hence the muttleylaff2 ID

READ MORE or access the ENTIRE thread from here
https://www.nairaland.com/2423726/no-pastor-ever-answered-questions/1#35536119

-/EXCERPT-

Jesus knew the Father's will concerning the world, concerning Him.
Jesus knew why He was here. Jesus knew He was to die
- if the state death of the day happened to be crucifixion, so be it

God had to die, and this He did in the person of God the Son
There is power in the blood, more the power in an untainted & purifying ''110 high grade'' blood

Hebrews 9:22
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood,
and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.