Wife submitting to husband...

[Mme. Chaucer]

Then you're not really being submissive at all, and rightly so. Look, there is simply no room for two people to be equal so long as one is called to submit to the other. It's a dreadfully unenlightened statement and it belongs quite firmly in the century in which it was put to paper, but not ours.

 

Deep down you know that you agree with me, but instead you feel compelled to somehow reinterpret and soften it into what you really know is right, rather than just take the simple step of rejecting it as the product of a bronze-age patriarchal society in which it was common to treat women as property.

 

Well … there's also a personality type that yearns to be submissive. That's not necessarily kowtowing to the patriarchal dinosaurs. And I'm not even talking about a "lifestyle" thing like BSDM, either.

[LadyGrey]

To me...........this is love. How could a relationship such as mercy described be anything but pleasing to God? To me, this illustrates what I would think the meaning of those passages mean. Mercy's hubby doesn't rule or lord over and she is not some meek cowering little wife submitting to him. I bet in some ways he is stronger than her and is the leader and in other ways she is the one who leads him.

 

 

 

 

No, I spoke from my heart and spoke of how I am with h. I really just let it be known how it is in my marriage. Submissiveness is a choice and sometimes when it matters to h, I submit. It's just that simple.

 

But know, within my marriage there is much love and respect.

 

h has always been, with me, a very passive kind and gentle man. Completely different from who he is to the outside world. Because of his chosen career he needed/needs a soft place to land and that's what I am to him. He doesn't/didn't need a submissive wife.

[Mme. Chaucer]

It really is interesting to talk with very enlightened, feminist Christian people about how they are able to reconcile with Paul's very sexist teaching.

 

Meanwhile, what's become of M30? Has he once again abandoned this ship only to reappear on a different one (or several) soon? Which he'll also leave as soon as he plays his "word of God" cards?

[xxoo]

No, I spoke from my heart and spoke of how I am with h. I really just let it be known how it is in my marriage. Submissiveness is a choice and sometimes when it matters to h, I submit. It's just that simple.

 

But know, within my marriage there is much love and respect.

 

That just sounds like a healthy, loving marriage to me.

 

Sometimes when it matters a lot to me, my H submits to my will. Other times, when it matters greatly to him, I submit to his. This is especially clear in parenting, where we always present a united front, but there are conversations behind closed doors about what that united front will be.

[xxoo]

2) "The word submit doesn't REALLY mean submit in the sense we usually hear the word...um...and when Genesis 3 says a husband 'rules' over his wife, it really doesn't REALLY mean rule in the sense we usually hear the word...um..."

 

Also, it is worth noting that the Bible was, of course, not written in English. The words on the page are translations, and subject to the interpretation of the translator. Different translations have different meanings.

 

Not really. Greek (New Testament) is one of the most technical languages ever. I have heard Greek experts say that, compared to other languages, it translates exceptionally well because it is so specific and anything but vague.

 

The "interpretation" debate is a smokescreen by people who merely want to believe what they want instead of what the Bible says.

 

(bold added)

 

You gave an example from the Old Testament of people challenging meaning of "rule over".

 

I pointed out that there is a lot of interpretation in the translation of the original text.

 

You argue that the New Testament is written in Greek, and translates easily.

 

How can we have a conversation if you answer questions about one book with defense of a different book?

 

That is before he addresses husbands and wives. That quote is in reference to households, in general. You will also notice that the Bible NEVER says women should submit to men. It says WIVES should submit to HUSBANDS. There is a key difference.

 

That is your interpretation. Other scholars interpret it differently.

 

It it were so very clear, there would not be so many versions of the Bible.

[M30USA]

Very well. There are many interpretations. So get busy figuring out the correct one, right?

[M30USA]

A problem with this, M30USA, is that you really are NOT the ultimate authority on "the word of God" or in the position to "make sure it doesn't get misrepresented or compromised."

 

Some of your posts express a view that's not exactly "mainstream" Christianity. I respect your right to believe what you wish to believe, but really. We are able to read the bible; our own ways of understanding it, or our choices to accept or reject it, or to consult with spiritual teachers who we choose to trust.

 

Some of us may be Catholics, or Mormons, or Jews - all of which I am pretty sure you sneer at as "not real Christians."

 

Despite your own beliefs, though, I don't think that you are in any closer touch with "the word of God" than any other regular Joe who thinks he or she is.

 

"Mainstream Christianity" is very unbiblical. Just like mainstream Judaism didn't even recognize Jesus as the messiah. I believe when Jesus returns he will not be recognized by mainstream Christianity--or I should more correctly say, mainstream Christianity will follow the antichrist and believe HE is the Christ. You either believe Scripture or you don't. To trust your own understanding is to be open for deception.

[M30USA]

I think we all know the answer to that...and it relates to extraterrestrials.

 

If you could prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

 

(No, contrary to a poster, my entire belief system of Bible is not based on the ET theory. But I do think its interesting how few Christians actually believe in what have been for ages considered the basic tenants of Scripture.)

[M30USA]

Quite possibly the silliest things I've ever read. I literally laughed out loud.

 

Prove something impossible and improvable didn't happen! NOW I SAY! :lmao::lmao:

 

You shouldn't be laughing. Historical events can be shown true or false. For example, if you found a valid historical document showing that Jesus was buried elsewhere than a cave tomb, etc, or that his body was removed by the Christians to give appearance of resurrection. All of the evidence which we have shows the contrary: Jesus was factually killed, factually buried, and factually gone 3 days later, and reportedly witnessed by all the disciples plus 500 people, including Paul of Tarsus.

[BetheButterfly]

what's the age difference between you and your hubby.. from the avatar it seems.. substantial?

 

I am 5 days older than my husband... I wasn't robbing the cradle... We were both in the cradle at the same time lol. (I bet I did learn to walk and talk faster but that's because many times, girls do.) I wish I could talk to my husband's Mom and ask her about when my hubby was a child. I'm sure he was adorable!!! However, she died of cancer before I ever knew her son. She and my husband were very close. I like that because my Mom and I are best friends! One of the greatest compliments my husband has ever given me is when he told me that if his Mom had met me, she would be so happy!!!

 

By the way, I listened to the cello song and enjoyed it!

 

I really like J.S. Bach. One of my favorite quotes of Bach is this one: “The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the glory of God and the refreshment of the soul."

[BetheButterfly]

You shouldn't be laughing. Historical events can be shown true or false. For example, if you found a valid historical document showing that Jesus was buried elsewhere than a cave tomb, etc, or that his body was removed by the Christians to give appearance of resurrection. All of the evidence which we have shows the contrary: Jesus was factually killed, factually buried, and factually gone 3 days later, and reportedly witnessed by all the disciples plus 500 people, including Paul of Tarsus.

 

It doesn't matter if people laugh. What matters is to make sure we are doing what we believe is right. Jesus clearly commands to love. Hawaii and others can laugh all they want. They can think whatever they want. As people who love God the Father and Jesus, we need to love.

[Mme. Chaucer]

"Mainstream Christianity" is very unbiblical. Just like mainstream Judaism didn't even recognize Jesus as the messiah. I believe when Jesus returns he will not be recognized by mainstream Christianity--or I should more correctly say, mainstream Christianity will follow the antichrist and believe HE is the Christ. You either believe Scripture or you don't. To trust your own understanding is to be open for deception.

 

Seriously, I am a little concerned about you. You seem to have some delusional propensities. You really, honestly do NOT have the secret inside scoop on Jesus and the "real" Christianity to the exclusion of others.

 

Do you really fail to see that YOU are "trusting your own understanding"?

 

Where's your humility?

[M30USA]

Seriously, I am a little concerned about you. You seem to have some delusional propensities. You really, honestly do NOT have the secret inside scoop on Jesus and the "real" Christianity to the exclusion of others.

 

Do you really fail to see that YOU are "trusting your own understanding"?

 

Where's your humility?

 

Inside knowledge? No. While we can never prove that Jesus resurrected, virtually all historian scholars (save a minuscule minority) can agree on certain basics: Jesus was a real person, he was crucified by Pilate, he was buried in a cave tomb guarded by Roman soldiers, and his body was gone 3 days later. The rest CAN be argued.

 

If you all would bother looking into ANY of this, you'd realize it's not "inside knowledge" of Jesus. I'm sorry it's not spoon-fed to you on the evening news, but we DO have this information.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Inside knowledge? No. While we can never prove that Jesus resurrected, virtually all historian scholars (save a minuscule minority) can agree on certain basics: Jesus was a real person, he was crucified by Pilate, he was buried in a cave tomb guarded by Roman soldiers, and his body was gone 3 days later. The rest CAN be argued.

 

If you all would bother looking into ANY of this, you'd realize it's not "inside knowledge" of Jesus. I'm sorry it's not spoon-fed to you on the evening news, but we DO have this information.

 

You are so out of line. I will not presume to be positive, but I am pretty sure that my reading, my religious knowledge, and my level of education surpasses yours. You come off as a mentally fragile type who might end up in a place like Jonestown soon, and who's incapable of rational thought and communication, frankly.

 

There is quite a massive range of study, knowledge, philosophy, and spiritual belief between being "spoon-fed" by the television news and delusional fundamentalism.

 

Because a body was gone from a tomb proves … nothing.

 

What is really sad is that people like you, who persist in "proving" all the magical things to be actually facts, are missing the greatest point about faith of all.

[GorillaTheater]

Inside knowledge? No. While we can never prove that Jesus resurrected, virtually all historian scholars (save a minuscule minority) can agree on certain basics: Jesus was a real person, he was crucified by Pilate, he was buried in a cave tomb guarded by Roman soldiers, and his body was gone 3 days later. The rest CAN be argued.

 

From a purely historical perspective, independent of biblical sources, I would agree that both Josephus and Tacticus agreed that Jesus was a real person who was crucified by Pilate. The third point strikes me as logical, given his status as an enemy of the state. But where's the historical basis that his body was gone 3 days later (actually, a day and a half if you want to get technical)?

 

And isn't this just a side-track anyways? The real debate should probably be whether Paul's writings should be accepted as God's word on the matter. The Council of Nicaea certainly thought so, but there's a fair bit in his letters that should be debatable as to what was indeed inspired by God and what was Paul's personal opinion.

[BetheButterfly]

From a purely historical perspective, independent of biblical sources, I would agree that both Josephus and Tacticus agreed that Jesus was a real person who was crucified by Pilate. The third point strikes me as logical, given his status as an enemy of the state. But where's the historical basis that his body was gone 3 days later (actually, a day and a half if you want to get technical)?

 

There are conflicting reports: the Jewish leaders said Jesus' disciples took his body away. The disciples of Jesus (all Jewish) testified though that Jesus had risen from the dead and they saw him. So, it really depends on who you believe... who are trustworthy? I personally believe the disciples of Jesus because they risked and lost everything for Jesus; many were killed. I don't think the Jewish leaders who said the disciples had stolen Jesus' body lost their lives. Rather, one thing that I very much appreciate about Jesus and his chosen apostles and disciples is that they didn't kill anybody. That's really important to me, personally.

And isn't this just a side-track anyways? The real debate should probably be whether Paul's writings should be accepted as God's word on the matter.

Actually, the real point of this thread what comments and questions concerning the submission passages in the New Testament but topics seem to branch.

 

About Paul's writings, I believe that it is good that they are in the Bible. Now, i believe Jesus' words trump Paul's. I also believe that in ALL the Bible, both the Tanakh and the "Christian Scriptures" it's important to study/research the cultures and understand time periods.

The Council of Nicaea certainly thought so, but there's a fair bit in his letters that should be debatable as to what was indeed inspired by God and what was Paul's personal opinion.

Agreed. There are some things I personally do not agree with Paul but I am not at all an expert. However, I think it's fine to question respectfully. I question God respectfully a lot, and yeah sometimes I have gotten mad at God because I personally do not understand why He allows pain, torture, rape, cruelty, slavery, killing of animals or other people, and death to exist. I don't like any of those actions. I HATE actions that hurt people and animals.

 

However, I'm not the artist/engineer who made life. I'm not the "potter" I am the clay.

[xxoo]

Inside knowledge? No. While we can never prove that Jesus resurrected, virtually all historian scholars (save a minuscule minority) can agree on certain basics: Jesus was a real person, he was crucified by Pilate, he was buried in a cave tomb guarded by Roman soldiers, and his body was gone 3 days later. The rest CAN be argued.

 

Then why are you insisting that unilateral wifely submission is clearly God's intent?

[M30USA]

From a purely historical perspective, independent of biblical sources, I would agree that both Josephus and Tacticus agreed that Jesus was a real person who was crucified by Pilate. The third point strikes me as logical, given his status as an enemy of the state. But where's the historical basis that his body was gone 3 days later (actually, a day and a half if you want to get technical)?

 

And isn't this just a side-track anyways? The real debate should probably be whether Paul's writings should be accepted as God's word on the matter. The Council of Nicaea certainly thought so, but there's a fair bit in his letters that should be debatable as to what was indeed inspired by God and what was Paul's personal opinion.

 

Thanks. You must think that Dr. William Lane Craig is "mentally fragile" and will wind up in Jonestown, too. I learned much of my info about the historcal resurrection from him.

 

I'm growing tired of the ad hominems. They are always a sign that a debate is over.

 

Take care, buddy.

[GorillaTheater]

Thanks. You must think that Dr. William Lane Craig is "mentally fragile" and will wind up in Jonestown, too. I learned much of my info about the historcal resurrection from him.

 

I'm growing tired of the ad hominems. They are always a sign that a debate is over.

 

Take care, buddy.

 

Don't know who Dr. Lane is, and I don't believe I've used any personal attacks.

 

I swear, every time I try to be serious on LS, and have a serious discussion, things always go awry.

 

I'm much more successful with quips.

[M30USA]

Because he's going/gone through an acrimonious divorce, and it is also clear from his postings in general over a sustained period of time that he has decidedly misogynistic views.

 

Mysoginistic? Name a single insult I ever said about women. I've been accused of saying they are "evil".

 

You guys just love framing my views so that you can box me, label me "mysoginist" and then sleep at night without having to examine what I'm saying.

[Eve]

I suppose the word submit is a bit hard to digest. I tend to skip over the whole modern or post modern view of what it means to adhere to the Bible and God and concentrate on the calling.

 

In our marriage, we both listen to reasoning but I would say that we are attuned to reasoning that is from The Holy Spirit as the ultimate guide between us. It's like.. we both submit to that. It can come from the oddest of places too..

 

Personality wise my Hubby does have a leaning towards thinking he is right about everything.. but I don't take much notice of that and he knows this. Probably a testosterone related issue or something.

 

So, generally, no, I don't have a problem with submission but would prefer it called something else, or it all sounds like an end point wrestling move gone wrong.

 

Take care,

Eve x

[Els]

M30USA, what is your interpretation of the second part of the paragraph, in which husbands are ordered to 'love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave up his life for her'? Do you feel you obeyed that instruction completely and literally in your previous marriage?

[M30USA]

M30USA, what is your interpretation of the second part of the paragraph, in which husbands are ordered to 'love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave up his life for her'? Do you feel you obeyed that instruction completely and literally in your previous marriage?

 

Moved 2000 miles from home to live in her hometown. Worked hard schedule so she could stay at home. When she struck me, I never struck back. For years I had to give in during any argument because, as her own father said, "she won't ever lose an argument so you might as well just do what she wants". Turns out after a few years, I realized that "giving her what she wants" was not in the children's best interest, my best interest, or even HER best interest.

 

So, yes, I literally (and geographically), DID give up my life for her.

[Els]

Moved 2000 miles from home to live in her hometown. Worked hard schedule so she could stay at home. When she struck me, I never struck back. For years I had to give in during any argument because, as her own father said, "she won't ever lose an argument so you might as well just do what she wants". Turns out after a few years, I realized that "giving her what she wants" was not in the children's best interest, my best interest, or even HER best interest.

 

So, yes, I literally (and geographically), DID give up my life for her.

 

Well, then at least you understand that both sides of the coin need to be present for this sort of relationship dynamic to work out. Only the husband giving up his life, or only the wife submitting, would quickly lead to abuse and imbalance.

 

However, some Christians who desire to obey this instruction literally are having a difficult time finding a suitable partner in the modern world. A friend of mine serves full-time in an Anglican church - she is devoted, knowledgable in Scripture, and really quite brilliant and lovely, a girl that any Christian man would be proud to bring home. She has been single most of her life except for one man whom she dated for a while, though, because she says that she cannot find a man whom she can submit to.

 

Because the modern man is taught to always place his own well-being first, instead of putting his wife's and family's well-being above himself. Also, in Paul's day, the men were almost always more spiritually mature than the women, because women were just beginning to be allowed in places of worship, and just starting to be taught to read at home. So there was no issue in finding a man who was capable of being a woman's spiritual leader.

 

Some modern Christians realize these difficulties and believe that some teachings, such as Paul's, need to be adapted to the modern life. Some continue to hold on to them despite the difficulties of finding a mate. I have seen both maintain successful relationships, as long as both partners are on the same page with regards to that. One-sided adherence does not work, as you have noted. And I notice that many men often throw out the 'submit!' card, without realizing what goes into the other side of it - giving up one's life for the wife, if needed.

[pie2]

No, contrary to a poster, my entire belief system of Bible is not based on the ET theory.

 

M30, I am actually relieved to read this . Sometimes it seems that angels and UFOs are more important to you than Jesus' love and sacrifice. I'm happy to be corrected.

 

It's hard not to notice the pain you've experienced with the divorce from your wife. I understand that you may be displacing some of your bitterness on women in general.

 

I'm not sure if you ever plan to marry again? Obviously, choosing your partner wisely is important, as Elswyth so clearly highlighted. I think 99% of the time, a partner reveals their true character relatively early in a relationship (i.e. before marriage!).

 

My ex wife's dad bends over backwards for his wife and is a human packmule for her, yet all I ever see is her throwing fits and being incessantly hard on him. So I disagree that all women will treat a husband well if he takes a loving lead. Women are accountable adults too.

 

Being a doormat is not being submissive or taking a loving lead. We should not mistake 'choosing to compromise' with 'giving in'. There are loving ways to communicate wants/needs etc, without dominating over a significant other. When people choose to maintain the status quo, well...I have a very hard time relating to people that take the victim mentality.