Subjection was RE: Usurping/a study of ITim.2 (ladies, please read)

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

-----Original Message-----
From:	Timothy Litteral [SMTP:brotim@gte.net]
Sent:	Monday, November 24, 1997 4:02 PM
To:	higher-fire@prairienet.org
Subject:	Re: Subjection was RE: Usurping/a study of ITim.2 (ladies, please
	read)


>Someone:

>Nobody seems to want to address that word.  Sub-mission, sure, silence,
>sure.  What does *SUBJECTION* mean anyhow?  Am I really misinterpreting 
it?

>Me:
>The misinterpretation doesn't arise from a misunderstanding of the words 
but
>in that they are meant to be applied to anyone OTHER than ***THE*** man,
>which is NOW GET THIS => **** HER HUSBAND****.

If we are to be obedient [to our pastor || to a preacher], then how can her 
husband be obedient to her part of the time, and her to him the other part 
of the time?
>You:
>I think that there is a specific reason.  I don't think that women's
>liberation should have any bearing on our theological discussion.

>Me:
>Umm...  Where did this come from?

Specific reason:  just what it says.  I think that the intent is conveyed 
in the verses, and the wording is specifically and intently written.
Women's lib:  left field.  Sorry.
>You:
>Speaking of out of context!  I specifically narrowed my argument to
>preaching and treaching.  I was referring to *spiritual authority* (which 
is
>what those verses are about).  I might suggest that you read my postings.

>Me:
>If you are talking of anything but Paul's admonition to wives to not TAKE
>authority from ***THE*** man/husband, you are out of context!

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.  Out of context?  I 
don't think so.
Brad