Search results

The passagse says "God" rather than "God the Father". And it describes "God" as a single person through the use of "he" and "his" pronouns and describes that this person "God" has a son. Unitarians believe "God" is a person and is identical to Christ's father. Trinitarians believe that "God"...

And? None of these sons were God's son, and none of those sons were observed at the right hand of God and I'm pretty sure all of them are dead. Which of course means they are not priests after the order of Melchizedek. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I'm sure you don't accept...

Unknown. Both of us only have the words in Psalm 110 and Genesis 14 to describe them. Genesis 14 describes the actual priest, and Psalm 110 describes the priest after that order. And the prediction of Psalm 110:4 only fits one person to date. We don't have a record of that private...

The requirements for the priesthood after the order of Melkizedek per Psalm 110:4 are: 1) God declares you to be one by sworn oath 2) The priest has an indestructible life. Open wounds, family lineage, and other deformities aren't listed as disqualifiers. I suspect whatever disqualifiers one...

Maybe they could watch it and judge for themselves, and discuss the things that they agreed with, the things they disagreed with, and be delighted in new viewpoints that teach them about Christ and do so with maturity and love. And perhaps give the show runners a break as they have to translate...

There is a science to this called "textual criticism" where people actually seek to discover the influences for given manuscripts. For example, when 1 Cor 12:34-35 is examined through the textual history, you can see where it was inserted. There are ways to check and compare, no time machine is...

If you are discussing "formal" from "informal", you would be hard pressed to find where that occurs in the New Testament. I can't recall Christ ever presiding over a formal gathering during his mortal ministry except for possibly the last supper (a passover feast), nor is there one recorded in...

That isn't a law. Laws don't proscribe desires. God is simply stating a fact given Adam and Eve's new situation. Likewise it isn't a law that the ground will be hard to farm, or childbirth will be painful. This fact also has no bearing on women being silent in meeting. This fact happens to be...

The high priest went into the holy of holies alone and nobody was to be in the tabernacle (Lev 16:17). The breaking of bread is a passover celebration not a day of atonement celebration. Further the idea that any man is head over my wife simply because he is male and my wife is female (as you...

You mean marks like these. I encourage people to do their own research, and start with reading the passage 34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask...

If men were covering their heads in Romans 11 it was most definitely in the context of a religious gathering. See Plutarch's "Roman Questions" (link). As Christians are not a part of the Levitical priesthood, but are priests after the order of Melchizedek, it would be improper to apply...

The fact that the verses are off topic should be a clue that they don't belong. The next clue ought to be that the verses are not in the same place across the manuscripts which is a strong indicator that they were a later insertion. The next clue after that is that they directly contradict other...

The answer to your question is simple. The verse didn't exist in the earliest manuscripts. Paul didn't write it. https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/why-would-1-cor-143435-be-an-interpolation

What it doesn't refer to is teaching from the pulpit, as the 1st century church consisted of house churches with no such thing as a pulpit. The word authority, only used in the NT here has a connotation of domineering (link) rather than the mild term of "authority". Paul isn't putting women in...

The post being quoted used a passage regarding the relationship between the husband and wife to justify women not being able to preach or teach from the pulpit. If anybody believes that just because a person speaks from the pulpit, that they are somehow in authority over anybody in the same...

This is a pastoral letter to Timothy writing in a specific circumstance, not "a blanket statement". The text as stated: 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over her husband; she must be quiet. This is about the...

From somebody who leans to the open theist point of view, the open theist would say that God has a chosen outcome (i.e. his glory will fill the earth), but the specific persons in that outcome are are still open. This differs from Molonism, in that God knows all possible futures and has chosen...

Molonism isn't open theism, it is repackaged Calvinism. Molonism just changes where the future is fixed from eternity past (i.e. Calvinism) to the point of creation.

I think the format of a discussion board lends itself to viewing others as a "know it all", Christian or Atheist, Agnostic, or whatever. And since these boards are fueled by disagreement and between people who have never met, things can be very caustic. A board like this, where you are...

In the whole of Stephen's speach, there is no equivocation between "the father" and "God" nor did Stephen even use the words "the father". Using this passage to prove "the father is God" is ridiculous. The word you want to mean "prayed" (epikaloumenon) has a different meaning than you are...