Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

The same person who was discussing this on the other thread (not the originator of this thread) also says that 1 Cor 11 has nothing to do with headship, therefore all women are subject to all men.

No, don't tell him he's wrong. He's arrived, and he's right.

I challenged him to post a poll. He said I was silly for suggesting such a thing.

Chicken. LOL!

Now we've resorted to outright dishonesty I see eh, Joy?

I NEVER said that I Cor. 11 is not talking about headship. I said that not one single reputable translation mentions "husband/wife," but rather the subject matter is heirarchial structure & lineage. 1.) God, 2.) Christ, the Messiah, 3.) Man, 4) Woman. That's what the literal text says...YOU are the one supplying the "Husband/Wife" scenario via your theology.

I see in your 2nd sentence above that it's just fine for you to resort to "Ad Hominem" attacks. Of course, that's what they usually do when they cannot find Scripture to support their position.

As for your "poll," I simply pointed out that you're employing the logical fallacy, "Argumentum ad Populum." That is, an appeal to the populace for your doctrinal posture...which has absolutely NOTHING to do w/ the actual text of God's Word. If this be the case you probably would've been screaming "Give us Barrabbas," along w/ the Jews that day! So, yes, it is a silly suggestion.

So much for your "chicken" charge....LOL.

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by rdp

Now we've resorted to outright dishonesty I see eh, Joy?

I NEVER said that I Cor. 11 is not talking about headship. I said that not one single reputable translation mentions "husband/wife," but rather the subject matter is heirarchial structure & lineage. 1.) God, 2.) Christ, the Messiah, 3.) Man, 4) Woman. That's what the literal text says...YOU are the one supplying the "Husband/Wife" scenario via your theology.

I see in your 2nd sentence above that it's just fine for you to resort to "Ad Hominem" attacks. Of course, that's what they usually do when they cannot find Scripture to support their position.

As for your "poll," I simply pointed out that you're employing the logical fallacy, "Argumentum ad Populum." That is, an appeal to the populace for your doctrinal posture...which has absolutely NOTHING to do w/ the actual text of God's Word. If this be the case you probably would've been screaming "Give us Barrabbas," along w/ the Jews that day! So, yes, it is a silly suggestion.

So much for your "chicken" charge....LOL.

Only responding to this to correct what I said before. You are correct that you didn't refer to headship, but stated that the chapter had nothing to do with marriage.

And not only do I disagree with that, but so does everyone else on this forum, and all the Biblical scholars in the world. Headship definitely refers to a marriage whether you want to believe that or not. I highly doubt you make your wife (if you have one) submit to all men as her head.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

Only responding to this to correct what I said before. You are correct that you didn't refer to headship, but stated that the chapter had nothing to do with marriage.

And not only do I disagree with that, but so does everyone else on this forum, and all the Biblical scholars in the world. Headship definitely refers to a marriage whether you want to believe that or not. I highly doubt you make your wife (if you have one) submit to all men as her head.

"....and all the Biblical scholars in the world"? Proof pls.:____________? Man, you just make things up as you go apparently! That's an unbelievably off-base statement. Almost as bad as, "Paul will not judge me"!!

Marriage certainly flows into the context, but the passage in question was I Cor. 11:7, which simply says, "....woman [not "wife"] is the glory of man [not "husband"]." Hmmm, do your "scholars" include the approximately 1000 linguistical experts who ALWAYS translate this word as "man" & "woman"?????

I guess you see something that they missed? I doubt it!