This will be my last reply to you because clearly this is going nowhere.
Thank-you, although it remains to be seen whether you have any honour and keep your word. Of course it would be much better for you to remain silent, as you've been
COMMANDED to do.
1. Jesus' doctrine never ever included subjugating or looking down on women as lesser spiritual beings. He never taught that.
You are arguing against direct quotes from Jesus, trying to tell everyone what you believe they mean and making a fool of yourself in the process, instead of remaining silent. Jesus taught The Law. The Law makes it crystal clear that men are to
RULE over women, because, being closer to Satan,
WOMEN ARE MORE EASILY DECEIVED, just as Eve was.
You've already been provided the verses (more than once) which prove you to be in error, but you continually ignore them so you can continue to argue from a point of
ignorance, to stroke your massive ego, which helps no one (especially you).
2. We've been through the context of the Corinth church in which Paul was speaking already.
There was no "church" in Corinth; only people.
If women were not allowed to speak ever or even before an assembly then why would God give women the gift of prophecy? Why would Anna have been allowed to share the gospel with all those who were seeking? It doesn't specify that she spoke to other women only . . .
Now you're questioning the verses themselves,
ignorantly arguing against God's express
COMMANDS that women are to be silent and submissive to men, because in your mind you know better than God.
HOW ARROGANT!
Arrogance/ignorance belong to Satan. Humility and Wisdom belong to God. There is no true Wisdom without there first being
HUMILITY.
The dangerous thing about arrogance is that it blinds one to their own ignorance. Even the ignorance of their own arrogance.
Just as it is doing with you, as you attempt to argue why you're supposedly right and why God and His Word are supposedly wrong. Shame on you.
Luke 2:38
"And coming in that instant she gave thanks to the Lord, and spoke of Him to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem."
Even in the OT, Deborah's prophesies were shared with men of power who had to present themselves to her . . . A lowly woman.
Luke 2:37-39
2:37 And she [was] a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from The Temple, but
served [God] with fastings and prayers night and day.
2:38 And she coming
in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spoke of Him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.
2:39 And when they had performed all things
according to The Law of the Lord, they [eventually] returned into Galilee, to their own region Gennesaret (after the wise men had been to see them; they had been in Egypt and Herod had died -
Matt. 2:1-16).
Does it say Anna regularly spoke? No. It says that under the very special instance of meeting Christ face-to-face, she understandably spoke of Him. The rest of the time she served God with
FASTINGS and PRAYERS NIGHT AND DAY. So Anna was serving God by her example.
You keep bringing up Deborah, as if her serving as judge in Israel is somehow in contradiction to God's
COMMANDS. It isn't. Clearly if God put her in that position, then she was the best one at that time.
Do you not realize that you are continually and contentiously arguing against what God actually says in the Bible, while hypocritically attacking others for pointing these things out to you? Who do you think it is that gets you to argue that God is wrong and that you're somehow right if not Satan? Are you not proving why women were
COMMANDED to learn in silence every time you post your anti-Biblical nonsense?
3. Again with using marital structure to dictate general gender behaviour -it doesn't say every women be obedient to every man.
Where does it say anything about husbands and wives in 1 Corinthians 11:3 please? Or 1 Corinthians 11:7? Or 1 Corinthians 14:34? Or 1 Timothy 2:11-15? Or Isaiah 3:12?
It speaks to husbands and wives and you conveniently leave out the instruction to the husband to love and cherish his wife like his own body. Nothing to do with spiritual value. Where does it say that all women are to submit to all men?
Do I? Or is it you conveniently ignoring the five previously quoted passages, which say absolutely
NOTHING about husband and wives, while -- on the subject of husband and wives -- overlooking the story of Adam and Eve, of Abraham and Sarah, and even of the obvious fact that every wife should be subservient to her husband, as the husband has been
COMMANDED to rule over them?
If women are supposedly on the same spiritual level as men, as you are advocating, then why are their lineages not tracked throughout the Bible? Only the male lineage is tracked, so that Jesus (the second Adam) could trace His lineage back through king David to Adam, to make it obvious that the men are to lead
spiritually.
How obvious does it need to be for you to "see" it?
Do you think God
COMMANDED the man to rule over the women for no good reason? And who are you trying to convince that God's
COMMANDS have nothing to do with spiritual value, as if He just decided on a whim or by accident to place certain Souls inside of stronger, faster and larger bodies (which are more difficult to control) and others into weaker, slower, smaller bodies? You perhaps? Or, more correctly stated, it's Satan who gets your "self" to keep repeating that
LIE in the hopes that the more you repeat it, the more likely you are to believe it.
4. The 144000 are not "corrupted" by women in the sense that women were responsible for spiritually influencing them - This seems to be a reference to virginity (or perhaps in line with the figurative langauge and symbology of Revelation, a reference to those who have not defiled themselves with false religion as religion and the church are typically represented as women).
Here you go again, attempting to explain why you are right and why God and His Christ are wrong. When will you stop doing that please? Will you ever?
Original Greek:-
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/14-4.htm
defiled
Also found in:
Thesaurus,
Medical,
Encyclopedia,
Wikipedia.
de·file 1
(dĭ-fīl′)
tr.v. de·filed,
de·fil·ing,
de·files
1. To make filthy or dirty; pollute: defile a river with sewage.
2. To debase the pureness or excellence of;
corrupt: a country landscape that was defiled byurban sprawl.
3. To profane or sully (a reputation, for example).
4. To make unclean or unfit for ceremonial use; desecrate: defile a temple.
5. To have sexual intercourse with (a woman who is a virgin).
The fall of man occurred when Adam listened to Eve, who was deceived by Lucifer/Satan/the serpent, instead of God. It's the very first story in the Bible, and apparently, after 6000 years, you still don't understand its spiritual meaning. It should be self-evident that the
ONLY Way to reverse the fall of man is for the men to return to listening to God and His Christ
INSTEAD of listening to and doing what women tell them, since women are more easily deceived by Satan, just as Eve was.
Unless you want to argue that having sex with women in and of itself is also a bad and sinful thing, in which case you might want to rethink your stance on homosexuality.
There is no personal desire to argue at all, nor is there any personal "stance", as you keep deceitfully repeating. Nor has anything been said against marriage between a man and a woman, as long as the man is serving God and NOT the women, as most men do today.
God's
COMMANDS (not someone's personal stance) regarding homosexuality being a capital offense are likewise crystal clear (i.e. requiring no "interpretation").
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [homosexuality] [is]
abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
So what does Satan do? He quite easily manipulates your ego/"self" to say/write "you might want to rethink your stance on homosexuality", as if anything what's been shared on the subject is my personal "stance" (which is a
LIE), while at the same time getting you to encourage me to become a homosexual should I decide to abstain from sexual intercourse with women in Christ's Service.
Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men:
and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for The Kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].
And you don't see how spiritually devolved one would have to be to even make such a statement, encouraging others to commit a capital offense against God. Shame on you again for being so evil.
At least you've now completely exposed yourself as a glove puppet for Satan, while at the same time proving the very point that you've been arguing against: that the man is supposed to be the spiritual leader in every family, leading them by thought, word and example to obey God and His Law
ONLY (
Acts 5:29), so that all of them can become more Christ-like.
My question was where can you prove that colour designations are gendered. Where did God say "blue for boys and pink for girls". That's the social construct.
Why does God need to put that in writing for you to get it (which is really just another strawman argument Satan has had you introduce)? Are you really going to continue to pretend that pink isn't a girl's colour, or that "little boy blue" is somehow a foreign concept throughout Israel (the U.S., U.K. and the Commonwealth, etc. - the English-speaking countries of the world)?
Dating back to the 16th century England “Little Boy Blue” is a traditional nursery rhyme, first published in 1744, in Tommy Thumb’s collection, the Little song book.
“Little Boy Blue” Lyrics
Little Boy Blue come blow your horn,
The sheep’s in the meadow the cow’s in the corn.
But where’s the boy who looks after the sheep?
He’s under a haystack fast asleep.
Will you wake him? No, not I – for if I do, he’s sure to cry.
Dating back to the 16th century England "Little Boy Blue" is a traditional nursery rhyme, first published in 1744, in Tommy Thumb's collection, the Little
allnurseryrhymes.com
As the British and American people are Israel, it makes perfect sense that they would know from God that blue is a boy's colour and pink is a girl's colour. Did God not make women pink on the inside? Only a contentious female spirit, controlled by Satan, would argue against pink being a colour for girls and blue being a colour for boys. No wonder you're so confused.
Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall
not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are]
abomination unto the "I AM" thy God.