I see nothing wrong with distinguishing ontology from authority. Such is the basis of 1 Cor 15, Jn 1:1 and Jesus being the son of God, and his deferring to the Father in all things.Well, cjab, if I were to use only the words that are found in the Bible to have this discussion, you wouldn't be able to participate. This is something that you should've been able to understand if that is what you were actually interested in doing.
No.
You are the one who is confused.
But as I said, you are conflating "ontology" and "authority", as you call them.
What you are actually saying here is that they have the same "ontology" but different "authority" you are conflating the categories as I have maintained all along.
I defer to TRJM's reference to https://www.openbible.info/topics/women_inferior_to_man.You think you do.
They are all men. They have the same ontology.
I have actually been trying to understand how you are using the terms to see how you arrived at your conclusions. I think it is fairly clear to all except you that you are conflating the terms you are using.
I Tim. 2:14 does not say that women are more susceptible to being deceived, let alone that they are unequal to men. Maybe you could benefit from this, "But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. 2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. 5 And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? 6 He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, 7 that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.” 8 And they remembered his words, 9 and returning from the tomb they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. "Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles, 11 but these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. "
I agree however that the weakness of women was exposed by the fall; and God formally recognized this in Gen 3:16 (αὐτός σου κυριεύσει) "[Your husband] will have dominion over you."
Some people have hypothesized that women don't have the same souls as men, but I wouldn't go that far, although the sins of some women are very grievous.
Sorry inadvertently missed the A off the opening word of the Trisagion (pasting error). I was trying to get over to you that the essence of God is monadism (indivisibility), although comprised of different qualities & attributes nonetheless. Thus to pretend that "theos" in the NT can be treated other than as a unique monadic identifer is just wrong. You need to grasp that the NT transcends paganism, as o θεός transcends Θεοί.I've defined the terms I am using in our discussion and have consistently used them in that manner in our exchanges. My acknowledgment of other possibilities with others doesn't change this fact.
What are you referring to here?
How can you tell me the truth if you don't know it yourself?Because God and the way that we refer to God are not the same....
You can say whatever you want. I have told you what the truth is.
I think Jesus said "[One] with God" and "from God" and "[Word and monogenes] of God" (Rev 19:13, Jn 1:14)All right. I'll leave you to your ignorance, then.
You don't believe that Jesus is God so you can't help but understand him as separate from the Father.
Since the bible so carefully distinguishes, and yet at the same times associates, the Word and God, it's just a pity that you with your bulldozer approach, can't see what the bible says. It seems everything you say is dominated by a motive to cast me as a heretic, which is perverse, as you only condemn yourself by doing so.
You did, because you said "has no scriptural support for the overwhelming majority of his assertions."I didn't charge you with "heresy". Didn't you notice the quotation marks? I was responding to what you said about me. I said plainly what I meant which is that your conduct isn't Christ-like and your handling of scripture is poor.
Only a pagan would credit a human being as being "God."That's not what Paul said.
Because there are other ways that it could be said. Just as I could refer to God as God, Elohim, the Almighty, I am, Lord, Yahweh, The Creator, etc.
I've not accused anyone of heresy. You don't know how to read.
None of this is relevant.
If you say so.