Women aren't second-class believers

I do not doubt that this is what you see.

There is a point I'm trying to make. It just seems to get lost on most people. The point has to do with what is important. Perhaps my other thread will be more clear.

Point 1 I have no disagreement with.

Point 2 is adding to scripture.

Point 3 has already been shown to be false. Go back and read my post again if you want to know why.

Point 4 was dealt with in regard to point 3.

No you have not. All you have done is drawn conclusions on texts that have nothing to do with the matter. </font>[/QUOTE]Read Eccl 3

 

Where in the Bible does it say that a husband who is a jerk or in violation of civil law is not to be respected and to be the head of the family?

If you'll go back and read an earlier post I made to Clint, you'll see that I already dealt with thie 'jerk' issue. </font>[/QUOTE]Eladar, I will ask you this simple question from one of life's experiences. When I was a young child my dad put something in my hand inside of a store and told me to put it in my pocket and walk out of the store with it when we left.

Should I have taken it and obeyed my dad or should I have left the item in the store? Why or why not?

Did you ever look up the link I gave you? In answer to your question about “turning the other cheek” take a look at http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/matthew/four/matthew5.htm

In two cases you have shown that you do not understand the historical background of the passages that you referred to. It is quite clear that you do not understand slavery during the time of the NT. Paul never commended or condoned slavery. In a number of cases slaves could buy and sell property. It is not American slavery at all.

A good study of the historical background behind scripture would help you to better understand both what it means to “turn the other cheek” and the kind of slavery Paul was talking about.

It would make for better debate if you had studied the historical background so that you could interpret correctly and intelligently discuss a passage. Correct interpretation requires a thorough understanding of the historical background first.

 

Some verses to consider regarding the Matt 5:39 discussion.

Matt 18:15-18
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
KJV

2 John 9-11
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
KJV

Luke 10:30-37
30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
KJV

Some people do not realize (in this parable) that these two first men who passed the beaten man by were actually "obeying" the Law. For they would be considered "unclean" if they did touched this beaten man; therefore, they passed him by in order to obey the Law.

Regarding verse 5:39...it is clear to me that when a person is allowing the evil one to strike his other cheek as well, is when a believer sees an opportunity for the Lord to convict the evil one in his heart. This is nothing about being a punching bag for a husband abuser who is committing a crime.
Just like in the verses that follow...walking twice the distant when one is forced to...to show love. Like, for example, when an unbelieving boss orders you to stay after work for an hour knowing full well that you had plans. And after the hour that you done overtime, you see that the work is still not done and you volunteer to do another hour. The boss sees that you had other plans and he knows that he was taking advantage of you, and he is under conviction that he did not deserve this kindness, but it was given to him without cause. Then he sees the love of Jesus in you, and may be curious why you are so different.
When I look at Matt 5:39, I don't see it as meaning that it means only if someone strikes your face, and you give him the other side.
I see it to mean that we must apply it to our lives when we see it happening. Let's say a man is so mad at a fellow worker that he strikes the fellow worker's property and ruins it or steals it, and the fellow worker sees what is going on and instead of getting mad or madder, he offers him something he owns to make further restitition in what this man apparently thinks he needs to be compensated for. The idea is to bring conviction to the evil one.

I don't see how this can possibly apply to marriage because they both made vows of love when they got married. Actually, Jesus does teach a lot on marriage.

We must take the whole Bible and never single out verses. If things don't add up or seem out of place, it is our fault. We did not interpret the Bible correctly.

 

How is it not trusting God? Hasn't he a plan and a purpose for everyone, including police officers and other church members? I'd trust him enough to believe he has made these people capable of helping me.
Same thing if I got hit by a truck. I'd assume he'd want me to go to a hospital, not lay there and wait for him to work by other means than what is obviously in front of my face and available.
Amiracle was done because of a miraculous need that there was no human way of fulfilling. (dead to life, food/drink for thousands, illnesses that had no cures)
What exactly would you be trusting him about? Changing the heart of the other person?
To be honest, more trust is needed to pick up the phone and get help. Abusers aren't nice people. Usually if you're a wife getting abused you're used to it and it almost feels safe because you know what to expect, and often the person threatens you with what will happen if you leave them or get them in trouble. It takes faith in God to trust that He will keep you and your family safe and able to survive once you stand up for yourself. LOADS of faith! Staying is much easier most of the time.
Gina

 

You are comparing apples to oranges here. Is it unlawful to allow someone else to abuse you?

Please stick with the subject.

Yes I did. Did you ever read my reply?

You can believe this if you like. It is a lie, but you are allowed to believe a lie if you wish.

Was it illegal to beat a slave during bibilical times? According to the Bible it was not. But as I said, believe what you choose to believe.

Yes, this is the general approach liberals take. The Bible doesn't really say what it appears to say.


Elk,

Do we have the eyes to determine the effect any of our actions have? Evidently you have been granted a view of life that is beyond mine.

According to Jesus, there is only one reason why a divorce is correct and that has nothing to do with abuse. Do you really believe that Jesus was ignorant of this problem?

Gina,

One could make that argument in any case we decide to take actions into our own hands and use our own logic. Didn't God give us brains to determine what is right and wrong?

Apples and oranges.

That is one way of looking at it.

 

Elk --

I really appreciate the passages you and Clint, as
well as others, have placed here. I just wanted to
draw your attention to your comments on the Luke
10 passage.

You probably did not intend to capitalize "Law" in
your comments, but just so that others will not be
confused by that, it should have been "law," lower
case. Even at that, they were disobedient to the
law (lower case) to pass him by.

It was not a sin to become unclean according to
the Law. People became unclean all the time, in
order to have children, bury their loved ones,
slaughter animals for food or for safety, etc. The
priest who serves in the Temple often is made
unclean even by his very Temple service. It was
just that it was so much trouble to become once
again ritually clean, once one was unclean, and it
took time. Those two did not want to trouble
themselves.

According to the Law (upper case), one helps
and loves one's neighbor, and in performing an
act of such love, one is also showing love for our
God. According to the oral law (lower-case "l"),
which some actually hold in higher regard than the
Law (upper case) !!!!, the preservation of life
ALWAYS takes precedence over all other Law. If
these men had been righteous, Torah-observant,
concientious Jews, they would have stopped and
taken care of the man.

Again, thank you for the Scriptures.

 

Dear Eladar,
You said...
Do we have the eyes to determine the effect any of our actions have? Evidently you have been granted a view of life that is beyond mine.
-------------------------------------------------

You said it, not me. But thank you for the compliment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You also said to me:

According to Jesus, there is only one reason why a divorce is correct and that has nothing to do with abuse. Do you really believe that Jesus was ignorant of this problem?

___________________________

Now, I did not say anything about divorce, but you did. But since you brought up the topic, if the marriage we have on this earth is to be a type of parallel to Christ and the Body (The Bridegroom and the Bride), it is all about being faithful. So, please look into what faithful means.
In Jeremiah 3:8, God divorced His people for not being faithful, justly deserved as His people worshipped other gods and idols.
And what does this mean, idols? It is all about "self" and making up gods that please us. In the Old Testament there were gods that filled their own self interest, even temple sex, murder of children, etc. etc. It is no secret how a society can put their children on the flames of Chemosh because of their own selfish desires. In our society people do it all the time by getting abortions. It is the same. It is the idolatry of self.
And an abuser is heavy into idolatry of self.
The abuser is not faithful whatsoever, and to me that constitues unfaithfulness although the abuser does not necessarily need another mate to do an act of unfaithfulness.

Consider what faithful means.
Judas betrayed Jesus. But was he forgiven in the light of the Body of Christ?
Nope.

Jesus is ever faithful and fully demonstrates that He is the Bridegroom Who is ever Faithful. But I tell you one thing, Jesus said if we blaspheme, we will never be forgiven. This is about being faithful.

A man who abuses his wife is not faithful.

I am sorry that you do not understand my words that I had written.

 

I guess Jesus was wrong.

 

Dear Abiyah,
Wow, thank you for your message. I learned a lot by it. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
I need to spend more time in the Old Testament.

God bless you!

 

Eladar,
Jesus is God. He is never wrong.

 

If you will go back and put my statement into context you will see that your interpretation of my statement is incorrect. I was saying that you must believe you have God-like understanding of how all the pieces of our lives fit together.

If you actually believe this, then you can accept the complement.

I'll get back to the rest of your post later.

 

Well Eladar,
There is one thing that I do know and that Jesus teaches us about love, mercy, forgiveness,... and knowing that, I see how it all fits together.
But as far as what you said, I only, only have what God has given me, and it is much (especially in view of the lost friends that I know and other things). I am so very grateful and thankful.

How does that song go?...
Just one day in His Court, is better than thousands elsewhere.

 

I don't agree that a man who abuses his wife is unfaithful and therefore a divorce is ok. Sexual immorality is what it says, or an unsaved spouse who chooses to divorce.
Leave the situation, but you're still married in God's eyes unless and until one of the biblical conditions for divorce occurs and it's chosen to be acted on as cause for a divorce (and divorce isn't obligatory even then, it's simply allowable).
Gina

 

Here is what Jesus said about divorce

Matthew 19:8-9 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Then there is this from Paul

1 Corinthians 7:10-16 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

I don't know about you Elk, but to me this paints a much different picture about divorce than you painted. Either you are correct or these scriptures are correct.

I'll choose to believe the scriptures.

 

Eladar --

I am simply curious about your ideas. Here are two
scenarios, both from my direct and extended birth-
family. How would you have handled these two
women, had you been married to them?

1.
Your wife cannot be satisfied with anything. If she
has this, she wants that, and when she gets that,
she doesn't like it. She manipulates you, gripes at
you and about you, hides things from you, wants
to put you to work as soon as you walk in the door
after work and gripes if you don't comply. She
beats your children with belts and the heels of
her high-heeled shoes, bloodying them. She calls
your children "stupid"' and belittles them at every
turn.

2.
She tells you she hates you. You have an ulcer,
and she purposely makes your food using
ingredients that are specifically horrible for
those with ulcers, then she tells you about it and
puts it on your table, laughing at you. She spends
every dime in sight then complains that you don't
make enough.

 

Woman 1

Personally, I'd ignore her. She can only manipulate me if I allow it. I would go about doing the things I believe are correct. After all, I am the head of the family. She can choose to follow if she wants to, but that is between her and God.

Once again, I'm the head of the family, therefore am in a better position to deal with this problem than a woman would be from my Biblical perspective. I would have her stop. If she would not, then I'd have her arrested. The calling children "stupid" issue can be dealt with more directly by telling the children that their mother is wrong and don't believe her. It would be my job to give them enough praise to counter her poinson.

Most of all, I'd pray that God open her eyes to what she is doing.

2

Take that as information.

I'd make my own meals or go out to eat at Burger King or something like that.

I'd budget the money and keep control of it by hiding the bulk from her and give her what she gets as a part of the budget.

If she takes us into bankruptcy, so be it, but at least there would be enough to live from day to day.

Once again, I'd pray to God that she would open her eyes.


Of course the best solution would be to know who you are marrying to begin with and not get caught up in looks and "love".

 

Eladar,
Do you realize that everything you said pretty much compromises what you said about turning the other cheek.
Did you notice your error?

 

Also regarding the verse in Matt, I looked up fornication and found an interesting definition by Thayer's.

NT:4202
porneia, porneias, hee
fornication
a. used properly, of illicit sexual intercourse Acts 15:20,29; 21:25
b. Used in accordance with a form of speech common in the O.T. and among the Jews which represents the close relationship existing between Jehovah and his people under the figure of a marriage

 

I don't remember a question about being struck.

 

Were we not talking about Matt 5:39?