PDA

View Full Version : Will wives still be under the authority of their husbands in heaven?



*Madeline*
Oct 15th 2007, 03:29 AM
Will wives still be under the authority of their husbands in heaven? :)

Love,
Madeline

Steven3
Oct 15th 2007, 03:34 AM
Will wives still be under the authority of their husbands in heaven? :)

Love,
Madeline

Hi Madeline :)
Why would they or their husbands be "in" heaven? See John 3:13. In the Bible the kingdom is always "of Heaven" or "from Heaven" but never "in heaven"

But no they won't be -

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Mark 12:25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Men won't do the dishes any more either ;)
God bless
Steven

*Madeline*
Oct 15th 2007, 03:37 AM
Men won't do the dishes any more either ;)

lol :P

thanks!

Cheza Brown
Oct 15th 2007, 04:05 AM
Here's more scripture for you to consider, *Madeline*... :)

Rom 7:2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
Rom 7:3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.


*If we weren't released from our husbands when they die, and if we'd had a few husbands while we lived, can you just imagine what it would be like when we go to be with the Lord? Under which husband's authority would we belong? The mind boggles..

ravi4u2
Oct 15th 2007, 04:22 AM
Will wives still be under the authority of their husbands in heaven? :)

Love,
MadelineBut wives were never commanded to be under the authority of their husbands here.

ProjectPeter
Oct 15th 2007, 01:02 PM
But wives were never commanded to be under the authority of their husbands here.
I'll bite... you come to that conclusion how?

third hero
Oct 15th 2007, 01:24 PM
Actually, Madeline,
Jesus confronted this whole idea of the wives and husbands in heaven in Matthew 22. Let's take a look.

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. -Matthew 22:30

As you can see, the marital bounds on this earth will not carry over to heaven, for the women will be as the angels of Heaven. I do have a question though. Why are you asking this question? Is there something wrong right now in your relationship that would cause you to wonder about this?

GodsOwnFool
Oct 15th 2007, 03:21 PM
Men won't do the dishes any more either ;)

When did men ever do the dishes? :rolleyes:

Theophilus
Oct 15th 2007, 03:47 PM
When did men ever do the dishes? :rolleyes:
I wash dishes more often than my wife...but she cooks more often than I do. It's all part of the distribution of effort, so we can both sit down at some point in the evening.:)

ravi4u2
Oct 15th 2007, 04:15 PM
I'll bite... you come to that conclusion how?There were 3 curses that came upon women as a result of Eve's disobedience:

1. The sorrow and pain of childbirth is increased.
2. The man becomes the desire of her heart; (and more importantly)
3. THE MAN WILL NOW (BECAUSE OF EVE'S DISOBEDIENCE) RULE OVER HER.

None of these were intended before the fall.

Of course the famously quoted passage to claim that 'wives are commanded to be under the authority of the husbands' is Ephesians 5:22, "Wives submit to your own husbands, as unto the Lord". But in the new, this is only a pattern. More than a commandment, it is a choice. The wife chooses to submit to the husband. So that the family can be a witness. If we read the whole of Ephesians 5, without dissecting it verse by verse, we will see that both the husband and wife are encouraged to submit to one another.

Another passage is Colossians 2:18, "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." But if we continue reading after that verse, it speaks about a pattern of the home being a witness. And if we read what comes before that verse, it speaks about, "bearing one another, forgiving one another, putting on love, admonishing one another", etc.

If the husband is the head and the wife is the body, which one is more important? Can the body survive without the head? Can the head survive without the body? The picture that come to mind is though being equal to God the Father, Christ chooses to submit to Him. The wife though being equal with the husband, chooses to submit to him. And in so doing, the whole family becomes a witness of the Lord to the world. Not in the speaking,but in the 'being'.

always
Oct 15th 2007, 04:38 PM
But wives were never commanded to be under the authority of their husbands here.


I'll bite... you come to that conclusion how?


Gen 1:27So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

She may be trying to point out that initially it was not purposed that woman (the life giving Adam) be under man's authority, but his equal. Sin is what brought about woman being put under the authority or the care of man.

Woman was put in submission to man, because God knew the power of persuasion that she possessed and knew that it should be bridled for a time.

God distinctly told man not to partake of the fruit of that tree and woman was able to persuade him to.

Naphal
Oct 15th 2007, 04:43 PM
If the husband is the head and the wife is the body, which one is more important? Can the body survive without the head? Can the head survive without the body? The picture that come to mind is though being equal to God the Father, Christ chooses to submit to Him. The wife though being equal with the husband, chooses to submit to him. And in so doing, the whole family becomes a witness of the Lord to the world. Not in the speaking,but in the 'being'.


1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

772
772 asthenes {as-then-ace'}
from 1 (as a negative particle) and the base of 4599;
TDNT - 1:490,83; adj
AV - weak 12, sick 6, weakness 2, weaker 1, weak things 1,
impotent 1, more feeble 1, without strength 1; 25

1) weak, infirm, feeble

Naphal
Oct 15th 2007, 04:44 PM
Gen 1:27So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

She may be trying to point out that initially it was not purposed that woman (the life giving Adam) be under man's authority, but his equal. Sin is what brought about woman being put under the authority or the care of man.

Woman was put in submission to man, because God knew the power of persuasion that she possessed and knew that it should be bridled for a time.



Woman was created as a "helpmeet" for Adam....a helper, a servant, a lesser. Woman was not created as an equal so her place wasn't completely changed after her sin.

always
Oct 15th 2007, 04:49 PM
Woman was created as a "helpmeet" for Adam....a helper, a servant, a lesser. Woman was not created as an equal so her place wasn't completely changed after her sin.

I disagree respectfully, a "helper" is not necessarily a "lesser" a helpmeet literally means a person to help one meet the needs of a task, in this case the upkeep of the garden.

The male Adam could not do that alone. God said " it is not good that man be alone"


her place was as a creation of God in his image, bone of Adams bone, and flesh of his flesh, how would that of him be less?

ProjectPeter
Oct 15th 2007, 04:50 PM
I don't see it in any of those passages as being an option. But I know folks have worked it out as such over time.

always
Oct 15th 2007, 04:55 PM
I don't see it in any of those passages as being an option. But I know folks have worked it out as such over time.

Who said it was an option?, it is the divine order set in place by God because of sin, It was not initially purposed as that.

It is not biblical to teach or believe that woman is something lesser than man.

how can a man think less of an individual that he has charge over?

ravi4u2
Oct 15th 2007, 04:57 PM
1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

772
772 asthenes {as-then-ace'}
from 1 (as a negative particle) and the base of 4599;
TDNT - 1:490,83; adj
AV - weak 12, sick 6, weakness 2, weaker 1, weak things 1,
impotent 1, more feeble 1, without strength 1; 25

1) weak, infirm, feebleYou highlighted the word 'weaker' but let me point out 'honor'. Peter in essence was saying to honor the wife and to always remember that she is weaker (physically). And not to abuse her.

ravi4u2
Oct 15th 2007, 04:59 PM
Woman was created as a "helpmeet" for Adam....a helper, a servant, a lesser. Woman was not created as an equal so her place wasn't completely changed after her sin.Which is stronger dust or bones? Now, who was the one created from the stronger element? The helper has always got to be stronger than the one who is being helped. What good is a cane if it does not support my weight?

Whispering Grace
Oct 15th 2007, 05:01 PM
Woman was created as a "helpmeet" for Adam....a helper, a servant, a lesser. Woman was not created as an equal so her place wasn't completely changed after her sin.

*cough choke sputter*

ProjectPeter
Oct 15th 2007, 05:08 PM
Who said it was an option?, it is the divine order set in place by God because of sin, It was not initially purposed as that.

It is not biblical to teach or believe that woman is something lesser than man.

how can a man think less of an individual that he has charge over? It isn't about "treating" them as lesser although sad to say that this has been done and the Bible used as their reasoning for doing so. But here's the spot where it gets to where the rubber meets the road and it is going to grate some folks to read. Man can't be a head and the wife be the head as well. What you have when having a two headed body is a freaky thing not to mention a tad bit chaotic. It isn't about ruling... it ain't about treating them as "lesser." Women are told to respect their husband and notice in Ephesians... it doesn't require you to love them. Men are required to love their wives though just as Christ loved the Church. I could go into a whole lot of teaching on that alone that would show us how it was that Christ could walk away, forgiving the woman caught in adultery. The man that lives by that is not a man that will belittle his wife. But that being said... she isn't equal. There is no shame in stating that and shouldn't be. We shouldn't have to try and elevate the woman to headship equality when there is no such biblical concept. Sure that conflicts with the feminine movement but hey... good.

ProjectPeter
Oct 15th 2007, 05:10 PM
Which is stronger dust or bones? Now, who was the one created from the stronger element? The helper has always got to be stronger than the one who is being helped. What good is a cane if it does not support my weight?
Wow... don't you think that is hyperspiritualizing things a tad further than they were intended to go?

ProjectPeter
Oct 15th 2007, 05:10 PM
*cough choke sputter*
That's it? :lol:

always
Oct 15th 2007, 05:26 PM
It isn't about "treating" them as lesser although sad to say that this has been done and the Bible used as their reasoning for doing so. But here's the spot where it gets to where the rubber meets the road and it is going to grate some folks to read. Man can't be a head and the wife be the head as well. What you have when having a two headed body is a freaky thing not to mention a tad bit chaotic. It isn't about ruling... it ain't about treating them as "lesser." Women are told to respect their husband and notice in Ephesians... it doesn't require you to love them. Men are required to love their wives though just as Christ loved the Church. I could go into a whole lot of teaching on that alone that would show us how it was that Christ could walk away, forgiving the woman caught in adultery. The man that lives by that is not a man that will belittle his wife. But that being said... she isn't equal. There is no shame in stating that and shouldn't be. We shouldn't have to try and elevate the woman to headship equality when there is no such biblical concept. Sure that conflicts with the feminine movement but hey... good.

This is not about the feminine movement, I do not advocate that movement.

the elder women in the church are told to teach the younger women to love their husbands.


Gal. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

This is why Jesus came to restore mankind (male and female) back to that oneness with God.


3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

ProjectPeter
Oct 15th 2007, 05:38 PM
This is not about the feminine movement, I do not advocate that movement.

the elder women in the church are told to teach the younger women to love their husbands.


Gal. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

This is why Jesus came to restore mankind (male and female) back to that oneness with God.


3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Context is important. ;)

There is no male nor female is not speaking of now. Here in the now and now... there is still male and female. Jesus did not restore mankind back to that oneness with God. That will happen yes... but ain't happened yet.

always
Oct 15th 2007, 05:47 PM
Context is important. ;)

There is no male nor female is not speaking of now. Here in the now and now... there is still male and female. Jesus did not restore mankind back to that oneness with God. That will happen yes... but ain't happened yet.

Now Peter:lol: here in the now, there is God's divine order, I am not debating that.

but the answer you questioned was


But wives were never commanded to be under the authority of their husbands here.

and as the poster posted backed with scripture is true

according to the scriptures he created them male and female, not one with authority over the other.

and when sin manifested the only curses were



1.The sorrow and pain of childbirth is increased.
2. The man becomes the desire of her heart; (and more importantly)
3. THE MAN WILL NOW (BECAUSE OF EVE'S DISOBEDIENCE) RULE OVER HER.

None of these were intended before the fall

ProjectPeter
Oct 15th 2007, 05:51 PM
Now Peter:lol: here in the now, there is God's divine order, I am not debating that.

but the answer you questioned was
[/I]

and as the poster posted backed with scripture is true

according to the scriptures he created them male and female, not one with authority over the other.

and when sin manifested the only curses were



None of these were intended before the fall
WHat happened before the curse is not relevant to the now. The curse happened well... as close to in the beginning as one is going to get and lo and behold... it has never been relevant to mankind. That curse is still there until mankind is redeemed by Christ on that final day. So... how does that play in the now?

always
Oct 15th 2007, 05:59 PM
WHat happened before the curse is not relevant to the now. The curse happened well... as close to in the beginning as one is going to get and lo and behold... it has never been relevant to mankind. That curse is still there until mankind is redeemed by Christ on that final day. So... how does that play in the now?

it plays in the now simply because as the poster posted there was never a authoritive head but Christ over his creation.

Now of course as his word says a wife shows her husband reverence, and learns to love him if she doesn't (for whatever reason) as her head.

There is no such thing as 50/50, that is a house divided, the husband is the head of the household, church and community. Now men doing that according to the word is the true issue.

True praise is living the word of God, and if men don't do it, He will make the rocks cry out, those that are steadfast, (whispering)women

ProjectPeter
Oct 15th 2007, 06:01 PM
it plays in the now simply because as the poster posted there was never a authoritive head but Christ over his creation.

Now of course as his word says a wife shows her husband reverence, and learns to love him if she doesn't (for whatever reason) as her head.

There is no such thing as 50/50, that is a house divided, the husband is the head of the household, church and community. Now men doing that according to the word is the true issue.

True praise is living the word of God, and if men don't do it, He will make the rocks cry out, those that are steadfast, (whispering)women
Oh I don't think you can even draw that conclusion from that one passage in Genesis 1. But hey... folks have drawn conclusions on less! :lol:

always
Oct 15th 2007, 07:44 PM
1Cor7:4

The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.


so the authority belongs to who over the husband's body:lol::o

ravi4u2
Oct 15th 2007, 08:18 PM
Wow... don't you think that is hyperspiritualizing things a tad further than they were intended to go?It was just a line of thinking...not hyperspiritualizing...

mikebr
Oct 15th 2007, 08:58 PM
When did men ever do the dishes? :rolleyes:

Let's see, Friday night, and Saturday. Yesterday was a day of rest, so I'll have to do those tonight.:D

I'm in great company though with you Theo.

ProjectPeter
Oct 15th 2007, 09:29 PM
It was just a line of thinking...not hyperspiritualizing...
Cool.... just checking. :lol:

hdt
Oct 16th 2007, 01:37 AM
Woman was put in submission to man, because God knew the power of persuasion that she possessed and knew that it should be bridled for a time.

God distinctly told man not to partake of the fruit of that tree and woman was able to persuade him to.

This type of comment truly makes me giggle at times. :lol:

I'm picturing the typical 'car saleman' stereotype! You know the type that can sell snow to an eskimo! We can tell him now that the original power of persuasion WAS with the woman, but God had to bridle that a bit after he found out that man had no self control proved by him eating the apple!
:rofl:

and I thought both genders had this power of persuasion at times! :D I'm sorry but that comment struck my funny bone! :P

always
Oct 16th 2007, 02:25 AM
This type of comment truly makes me giggle at times. :lol:

I'm picturing the typical 'car saleman' stereotype! You know the type that can sell snow to an eskimo! We can tell him now that the original power of persuasion WAS with the woman, but God had to bridle that a bit after he found out that man had no self control proved by him eating the apple!
:rofl:

and I thought both genders had this power of persuasion at times! :D I'm sorry but that comment struck my funny bone! :P


thats okay, they laughed and mocked at Jesus on the Cross too, if you are the Messiah free yourself and that sorts.:P

nzyr
Oct 16th 2007, 02:24 PM
Will wives still be under the authority of their husbands in heaven? :)

Love,
MadelineJesus said there wouldn't be any marriage in heaven.

groovemongrel
Oct 16th 2007, 02:32 PM
Will we still be able to make love to them?

always
Oct 16th 2007, 03:48 PM
Will we still be able to make love to them?

Funny you ask, I've thought of this as well, since we will no longer have a physical body, but a spiritual one, I'm sure the love that we will experience from the light of God will surpass any physical love that our flesh has known.

Ooooooooh I just cant wait

Amazedgrace21
Oct 16th 2007, 09:39 PM
God created women and men as different, yet equal parts of his own image..

God said something significant about the woman He made. He said she was to be a "suitable helper," two words which are translated in the King James Bible as "helpmeet." Most women react to that word with annoyance. "That makes me mad!" they complain. "A helpmeet is nothing but a doormat!"

Well, "doormat" is not the meaning of the biblical word—not at all. "Helper" is the word ezer, a term used about nineteen times in the Old Testament. Four times it is used to describe a man helping another man, indicating that a peer was assisting a peer. However, on no fewer than fifteen other occasions it refers to God helping man. God is our Helper, our Ezer.

Clearly, God is a superior being helping an inferior one. "Helper" is never used of an inferior helping a superior.

We usually think of the helper as the dummy who hands over the tools to the smart guy. But this word helper expresses something far different. Helper means that woman's nature, her disposition, and her abilities supply what is lacking in man, and vice versa. They had to be different but equal to complete each other.

In short, a helper is one who assists another in reaching complete fulfillment. There is nothing demeaning about that, is there?

We were created to complete mankind in God's image. We are intended to act as godly counterparts to males, because our natures supply what is lacking in theirs. Most of all, we were declared, by our Creator, to be "very good."

Does this mean wives are not supposed to submit or that submissio is a "punishment" from God..lol..no on both counts..we submit as wives because thats a very good thing..the concept of the type of authority and submission must be kept in context..to avoid abuses of it by both men and women. (Romans 13:1-2)

God's view of human authority in general.

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.


And as for wifely submission, consider the story of Abigail. Her husband Nabal had arrogantly decreed that David and his men should receive no provisions from his vast and wealthy household. Yet Abigail disregarded her husband's orders and did just the opposite. She delivered massive supplies to the future king and even pleaded with him not to retaliate against her household in response to her husband's refusal to help, "because he is a fool!"

Why did Abigail do this? Because she was concerned that David, God's anointed king, not bloody his hands over her husband's churlish behavior. Because she was protecting her husband's life. And because she was saving the lives of all the men in her household.

Abigail was rewarded richly for her efforts. God struck down her foolish husband Nabal. David, the recipient of her generosity, was profoundly impressed by her wisdom and courage. Once she was widowed, he took her to be his wife.

Clearly, human authority can be abused. And as children of God, we must obey our Father.The Scripture simply means that wives submit to their husband's leadership as an act of obedience to Jesus


IMHO, we learn that all Christians, men and women alike, are to be controlled by the Spirit of God. One of the evidences of the Spirit's control is submission to one another out of reverence for Christ. This kind of Christian submission is only possible if we are being controlled by the Spirit.

On this side of the grave, the authority granted to the husband has a very "heavenly minded" purpose..Biblical marriage requires mutual submission. Yes, the wife yields her rights and submits to her husband's leadership. But the husband is to yield his rights to independence, to controlling all the money, and to making all the decisions. He is to recognize that he is married to a woman who is one flesh with him.

Who is doing the submitting in Ephesians 5:1-3? Everybody! It is a mutual submission. As Spirit-filled Christians we are to submit to one another. Then Paul goes on to be more specific. In the verses that follow, he describes how that submission looks in various categories. He talks about parents and children. Slaves and masters. Husbands and wives.


Some people have understood the expression "weaker partner" to mean that the wife is weaker physically, mentally, spiritually, and morally. This is not the case. Paul is talking solely about her physical distinctiveness. Woman was created to bear children, not to chop down trees.

It is interesting to note that a man's prayer life can be blocked if he does not respect or honor his wife.A man should prayerfully take his wife's concerns to heart when making any decision. He should listen to her. He should pray with her. He should seriously consider the consequences she might bear in the wake of his choices. There ought not be too many instances in a good, healthy marriage where a man actually moves in a direction of which his wife disapproves.

Those "helpers" called wives were obviously needed and provided by God becausethis was "good"..We are on the safe side when we see the definition of subjection in the person of Jesus himself. He, being equal with the Father, relinquished that equality to become the servant of us all.

The same one who should be in authority now in marraiges is the same one who will still be in authority when we get to heaven IMHO, our Lord, Christ Jesus, "if" we have our heads right when it comes to the biblical concepts of which "ship" we are on when it comes to headship, authority and submission of any "vessels"..weaker or otherwise.:)

humbled
Oct 16th 2007, 09:48 PM
Who said it was an option?, it is the divine order set in place by God because of sin, It was not initially purposed as that.

It is not biblical to teach or believe that woman is something lesser than man.

how can a man think less of an individual that he has charge over?
Did someone suggest that man is better than woman for having authority over her?

humbled
Oct 16th 2007, 09:48 PM
Funny you ask, I've thought of this as well, since we will no longer have a physical body, but a spiritual one, I'm sure the love that we will experience from the light of God will surpass any physical love that our flesh has known.

Ooooooooh I just cant waitChrist had a physical body after His resurrection ...

GothicAngel
Oct 17th 2007, 01:53 PM
Gen 1:27So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

She may be trying to point out that initially it was not purposed that woman (the life giving Adam) be under man's authority, but his equal. Sin is what brought about woman being put under the authority or the care of man.

Woman was put in submission to man, because God knew the power of persuasion that she possessed and knew that it should be bridled for a time.

God distinctly told man not to partake of the fruit of that tree and woman was able to persuade him to.
Thats absurd.

Is woman inherantly evil, that she must be put into submission lest she tempt man away from his surely innocent desires?

Women are not in submission to men. Both are equally good, strong of character, and etc.

In the bible, St Paul commands wives to submit to their husbands- and then follows up by sayings that husbands must love their wives like Christ loves His church (which is a perfect and unending love).
For the first to come about, the second must be there also.

If a husband commands his wife to do something wrong, must she submit to him? Of couse not. So St Paul cannot mean unconditional submission, else he would be telling wives to do wrong if told to do so by the husbands.

always
Oct 17th 2007, 03:41 PM
Thats absurd.

Is woman inherantly evil, that she must be put into submission lest she tempt man away from his surely innocent desires?

Women are not in submission to men. Both are equally good, strong of character, and etc.

In the bible, St Paul commands wives to submit to their husbands- and then follows up by sayings that husbands must love their wives like Christ loves His church (which is a perfect and unending love).
For the first to come about, the second must be there also.

If a husband commands his wife to do something wrong, must she submit to him? Of couse not. So St Paul cannot mean unconditional submission, else he would be telling wives to do wrong if told to do so by the husbands.


I did not mention anything about unconditional submission, if a husband commands his wife to do something sinful, then of course she cannot do that, but wrong is a different situation.

There are times that the head may be wrong ,so you feel, or may even know, that is when we as women we pray for our husbands, and ask God to lead and guide.

"Obedience is better than sacrifice" the reason women have problems in ministry and in homes is because we do not do things "decent and in order" God has laid down a divine order.

Woman was born in sin, just as men are, so yes, until we repent, accept Jesus, and start the process of renewing our minds we are evil just as the man is.

I don't want to be equal to a man, that is not my calling, or desire. I am uniquely designed to be what God wants me to be.

Paul command was for the woman to submit to her husband, in marriage we are to be joined for better or worse, if worse occurs, and man does not do his part that does not exempt woman from doing hers.

always
Oct 17th 2007, 03:46 PM
Christ had a physical body after His resurrection ...


1John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.

humbled
Oct 17th 2007, 04:36 PM
1John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.
That is a command. It in no way suggests that he has no physical body.

Now you are in the realm of heterodoxy. To deny the physical resurrection is heresy, not to mention unbiblical:

First of all, another translation of your chosen pretext:

John 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'"

Implying that she WAS clinging to Him.

Then we have the instance where Thomas touched Him:

John 20:25 So the other disciples were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe."
26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, "Peace be with you."
27 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing."

Jesus physically touched the bread and fish as He ate with His disciples:

John 21:13 Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and the fish likewise.
14 This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after He was raised from the dead.

Not sure who is teaching you that Jesus was not physical, but I suggest you do not blindly follow this person, but rather believe the word of God.

always
Oct 17th 2007, 04:54 PM
That is a command. It in no way suggests that he has no physical body.

Now you are in the realm of heterodoxy. To deny the physical resurrection is heresy, not to mention unbiblical:

First of all, another translation of your chosen pretext:

John 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'"

Implying that she WAS clinging to Him.

Then we have the instance where Thomas touched Him:

John 20:25 So the other disciples were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe."
26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, "Peace be with you."
27 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing."

Jesus physically touched the bread and fish as He ate with His disciples:

John 21:13 Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and the fish likewise.
14 This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after He was raised from the dead.

Not sure who is teaching you that Jesus was not physical, but I suggest you do not blindly follow this person, but rather believe the word of God.


1Cor 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality.

humbled
Oct 17th 2007, 04:58 PM
1Cor 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality.Do you suppose that there are contradictions in Scripture, then? You cannot just dismiss the passages that teach His physical resurrection, which is precisely what you have done here.

You must harmonize them. That is good and proper hermeneutics.

always
Oct 17th 2007, 05:04 PM
Do you suppose that there are contradictions in Scripture, then? You cannot just dismiss the passages that teach His physical resurrection, which is precisely what you have done here.

You must harmonize them. That is good and proper hermeneutics.

humbled, I'm giving you scriptures to get your response, the bible has no contradictions, and I want to understand this fully, that is why I am at this time addressing it in scripture.

I'm not dismissing anything do not think that, the ressurected body Christ and ours, according to these scriptures cannot be the same body that dies?

Now physical may have degrees? For not all flesh is alike, but there is one kind for men, another for animals, another for birds and another for fish.

There are celestial bodies (the kind of bodies people will have in heaven) and there are terrestrial (EPIGEIOS= the kind of body we have here on earth) bodies."

Are you saying that we will not have a heavenly body?

We may have to move this

humbled
Oct 17th 2007, 05:27 PM
humbled, I'm giving you scriptures to get your response, the bible has no contradictions, and I want to understand this fully, that is why I am at this time addressing it in scripture.

I'm not dismissing anything do not think that, the ressurected body Christ and ours, according to these scriptures cannot be the same body that dies?

Now physical may have degrees? For not all flesh is alike, but there is one kind for men, another for animals, another for birds and another for fish.

There are celestial bodies (the kind of bodies people will have in heaven) and there are terrestrial (EPIGEIOS= the kind of body we have here on earth) bodies."

Are you saying that we will not have a heavenly body?

We may have to move thisI see.

I thought you were attempting to counter my points. That's why a little commentary is sometimes helpful ;)

I'm afraid I don't know what to say. There is no doubt our physical bodies will be different than they are now .. immortal, imperishable, incorruptible.

But they will still be physical.

always
Oct 17th 2007, 07:59 PM
I see.

I thought you were attempting to counter my points. That's why a little commentary is sometimes helpful ;)

I'm afraid I don't know what to say. There is no doubt our physical bodies will be different than they are now .. immortal, imperishable, incorruptible.

But they will still be physical.

Yes, celestially physical as in Jesus' body, we will be like Him


Will we still be able to make love to them?

that is why this question is interesting, the angels were able to impregnate the daughters of man, in their disobedience,

but us being one in the spirit with Jesus would have no desire for that fleshly type of contact.

but the love of His spirit being one with us I can just imagine will be awesome.

Now back to the topic

GothicAngel
Oct 18th 2007, 01:01 PM
I did not mention anything about unconditional submission, if a husband commands his wife to do something sinful, then of course she cannot do that, but wrong is a different situation.

There are times that the head may be wrong ,so you feel, or may even know, that is when we as women we pray for our husbands, and ask God to lead and guide.

"Obedience is better than sacrifice" the reason women have problems in ministry and in homes is because we do not do things "decent and in order" God has laid down a divine order.

Woman was born in sin, just as men are, so yes, until we repent, accept Jesus, and start the process of renewing our minds we are evil just as the man is.

I don't want to be equal to a man, that is not my calling, or desire. I am uniquely designed to be what God wants me to be.

Whether or not you want to be equal to a man does not alter the fact taht you are equal to a man. Man is not inhernantly holier and wiser than a woman that his choices must be superior to hers.


Paul command was for the woman to submit to her husband, in marriage we are to be joined for better or worse, if worse occurs, and man does not do his part that does not exempt woman from doing hers.

Why do you say so? How is a woman called to be submissive to a man who is neglectful, abusive, etc? ITs only when he loves her is she called to submit, otherwise it could be harmful to the well being of herself and her children.

Whispering Grace
Oct 18th 2007, 01:25 PM
ITs only when he loves her is she called to submit, otherwise it could be harmful to the well being of herself and her children.

That's not true.

Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 1 Peter 3:1-2

always
Oct 18th 2007, 03:41 PM
Whether or not you want to be equal to a man does not alter the fact taht you are equal to a man. Man is not inhernantly holier and wiser than a woman that his choices must be superior to hers.

No one has said that they are holier or wiser,

We are however not equal to them in the true since of the word,
can you give another woman your seed?
generally are we physically stronger than men? my bible states that spiritually they should have one less rib than us and the list can go on.

We are not equal beings, but not being equal does not insinuate one is less or more, we are uniquely created in the image of God, our differences or why we are two seperate creations.

God said "it is not good that man be alone", in us he created what man lacked, and in man is what we lack.




Why do you say so? How is a woman called to be submissive to a man who is neglectful, abusive, etc? ITs only when he loves her is she called to submit, otherwise it could be harmful to the well being of herself and her children.

Let's understand something, no one here is saying allow yourself to be abused, sometimes women do have to seperate(withdraw, another word for submit) themselves from abusive spouses.

allowing that spouse to deal with his actions, you are still submitting!
I think Whispering Grace with scripture explain the other part of this.

GothicAngel
Oct 19th 2007, 02:22 PM
That's not true.

Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 1 Peter 3:1-2
Is this not referring to non= Christian husbands? Cant they still love their wives?

GothicAngel
Oct 19th 2007, 02:30 PM
No one has said that they are holier or wiser,

We are however not equal to them in the true since of the word,
can you give another woman your seed?

IT is possible for women to become pregantn through sceintific means without men. It is not (currently) possible for men to have children without women. Men are not neccesary in that aspect.


generally are we physically stronger than men?

No. So?



my bible states that spiritually they should have one less rib than us and the list can go on.

We are not equal beings, but not being equal does not insinuate one is less or more, we are uniquely created in the image of God, our differences or why we are two seperate creations.


No... your confusing being the same with being equal. Yes we are different, but we still are equal.


God said "it is not good that man be alone", in us he created what man lacked, and in man is what we lack.

True


Let's understand something, no one here is saying allow yourself to be abused, sometimes women do have to seperate(withdraw, another word for submit) themselves from abusive spouses.

Alright. I woud like to clarify though. I dont just mean direct physical abuse, or verbal abuse for that matter. A man who attempts to control his wife and restrict her freedom is abusive in a way.


allowing that spouse to deal with his actions, you are still submitting!

What do you mean?


I think Whispering Grace with scripture explain the other part of this.

always
Oct 19th 2007, 03:38 PM
IT is possible for women to become pregantn through sceintific means without men. It is not (currently) possible for men to have children without women. Men are not neccesary in that aspect.

science has come very far in that aspect, to have children without men is possible, but I would not say it is the best way or the way God intended, children need a mother and a father.





No... your confusing being the same with being equal. Yes we are different, but we still are equal.

We are not equal and we should not desire to be, no two women are equal to one another, this mindset is what sometimes causes coveting, I'm "equal" I should have what this one or that one has.

We are unique! we have our callings our desires, our needs, our strongholds, we are all precious in the sight of God, and he has no respect for one person over another, knowing that his creations are not equal in all things but unique he loves us the same.





Alright. I woud like to clarify though. I dont just mean direct physical abuse, or verbal abuse for that matter. A man who attempts to control his wife and restrict her freedom is abusive in a way.

What do you mean?

There are degrees of control, there is a abusive issue with control on both sides men and women.

in a marriage and this is why it is imperative to pray and seek God before marriage, we accept the others strengths and weaknesses

some individuals are more needy than others, do you not submit as the word says because that person, that you in many cases prayed for ( Lord send me a husband) has a problem with needing you around more than you would like? of course not

what I mean by allowing a spouse to deal with their problems by withdrawing for them, is one definition of the word submit is (withdraw) by taking yourself away from the situation, it makes that person deal with himself and his actions, that is why those who do not know the Lord or saints that are carnal, get so upset when the other leaves.

It takes their control away, you have submitted(withdrew) from their demands and they don't know what to do with themselves. They are forced to change or lose their love one.

Ever been in a relationship that you didn't want to end, the more you pursued it the further you pushed the other away, but when you stopped calling, stopped writing letters, the phone rings "whats up" you took away that persons control over you.

Naphal
Oct 20th 2007, 12:06 AM
Funny you ask, I've thought of this as well, since we will no longer have a physical body, but a spiritual one, I'm sure the love that we will experience from the light of God will surpass any physical love that our flesh has known.

Ooooooooh I just cant wait

The spiritual body is still a physical body. Angels are always described as having real, physical bodies with mass.

hdt
Oct 20th 2007, 03:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GothicAngel
No... your confusing being the same with being equal. Yes we are different, but we still are equal.

We are not equal and we should not desire to be, no two women are equal to one another, this mindset is what sometimes causes coveting, I'm "equal" I should have what this one or that one has.

We are unique! we have our callings our desires, our needs, our strongholds, we are all precious in the sight of God, and he has no respect for one person over another, knowing that his creations are not equal in all things but unique he loves us the same.



How can we compare apples to oranges...and yet that is what we do with men and women. I will agree that we are not equal, but only because we are different.....and you can't compare!

He gave us both roles, and gave men more responsibility. That doesn't mean we are NOT equal in a sense...again different is a better word for things. God doesn't love man MORE than women...that love is equal! That is the "equal" we should be looking at. We can't be on the same playing field with man - if you are a women. LOL same with the man on the same playing field with women! That is like saying a rentangle is better than a circle! LOL they are both shapes, but they will never be equal! The are both important shapes tho!

I'm not so sure we should be comparing HOW much he loves certain man/women over others. Coveting is different to me. COMPLETELY different issue! Anyone can say God loves me more, but that doesn't make it so!

God loves men and women equally.....and that is the real issue.

kayte
Oct 20th 2007, 04:03 AM
IT is possible for women to become pregantn through sceintific means without men.
I just can't leave this one alone. :D
Women can not have children without men. Without intercourse, yes, but without men.... nope. They still happen to carry the other necessary biological ingredient that is required to make a baby.

always
Oct 20th 2007, 04:08 AM
The spiritual body is still a physical body. Angels are always described as having real, physical bodies with mass.

refer to my post to Humble

GothicAngel
Oct 20th 2007, 03:11 PM
science has come very far in that aspect, to have children without men is possible, but I would not say it is the best way or the way God intended, children need a mother and a father.

Maybe children do turn out better with a father. Nevertheless, at this point in time, men are superfulous, as technological advances have made it possible for women to get pregnent without men, which is really the only thing they can do that women cant.

Thus you cant say that men are better in any way than women, because now they arent neccesary for human survival.



We are not equal and we should not desire to be, no two women are equal to one another, this mindset is what sometimes causes coveting, I'm "equal" I should have what this one or that one has.

We are unique! we have our callings our desires, our needs, our strongholds, we are all precious in the sight of God, and he has no respect for one person over another, knowing that his creations are not equal in all things but unique he loves us the same.


No... equal means the same in importance, status, etc.

Yes men and women are different, but they are nevertheless equal.

Equal (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/equal) does NOT mean the same (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/same).



There are degrees of control, there is a abusive issue with control on both sides men and women.

in a marriage and this is why it is imperative to pray and seek God before marriage, we accept the others strengths and weaknesses

some individuals are more needy than others, do you not submit as the word says because that person, that you in many cases prayed for ( Lord send me a husband) has a problem with needing you around more than you would like? of course not

what I mean by allowing a spouse to deal with their problems by withdrawing for them,


I dont really understand what you are saying here, sorry.

Whta kind of problem could a spouse have that (s)he would need privacy to solve?


is one definition of the word submit is (withdraw) by taking yourself away from the situation, it makes that person deal with himself and his actions, that is why those who do not know the Lord or saints that are carnal, get so upset when the other leaves.

It takes their control away, you have submitted(withdrew) from their demands and they don't know what to do with themselves. They are forced to change or lose their love one.

Ever been in a relationship that you didn't want to end, the more you pursued it the further you pushed the other away, but when you stopped calling, stopped writing letters, the phone rings "whats up" you took away that persons control over you.

ravi4u2
Oct 20th 2007, 03:32 PM
Nevertheless, at this point in time, men are superfulous, as technological advances have made it possible for women to get pregnent without men, which is really the only thing they can do that women cant. Thus you cant say that men are better in any way than women, because now they arent neccesary for human survival.So, let's get rid of all the men and when all the sperm in the sperm bank dries up, I guess woma will somehow evolve to be bi-sexual...like an earthworm...like they say in Jurrasic Park, "Nature always finds a way" huh???:bounce:

always
Oct 21st 2007, 01:52 AM
Maybe children do turn out better with a father. Nevertheless, at this point in time, men are superfulous, as technological advances have made it possible for women to get pregnent without men, which is really the only thing they can do that women cant.

Thus you cant say that men are better in any way than women, because now they arent neccesary for human survival.

alriiiiiiiight baby, you finally came around to the meat of the issue, it's quite obvious for some reason you have lost respect for men in general.
You are going to have to look beyond your disappointment in them and focus on what God says in his word.

No one again has said anything about one gender being better than an other, what has been stated is that we are not equal.

"The all men are created equal"in the preamble is a lie

not necessary for human survival????????? where do you think the seed that impregnates come from?




I dont really understand what you are saying here, sorry.

Whta kind of problem could a spouse have that (s)he would need privacy to solve?

problems that are strongholds in their lives, working out jealousies, over possessiveness, control issues......

GothicAngel
Oct 21st 2007, 10:05 PM
alriiiiiiiight baby, you finally came around to the meat of the issue, it's quite obvious for some reason you have lost respect for men in general.

Not respect really. I just recognize that they arent neccesary for survival. They tend to be decent people most of the time.



You are going to have to look beyond your disappointment in them and focus on what God says in his word.

No one again has said anything about one gender being better than an other, what has been stated is that we are not equal.


No... look up the definitions of equal, and same. They are different words, and you are confusing them.



"The all men are created equal"in the preamble is a lie

not necessary for human survival????????? where do you think the seed that impregnates come from?


problems that are strongholds in their lives, working out jealousies, over possessiveness, control issues......

I suppose so... but how does giving privacy equate to submission?

always
Oct 21st 2007, 10:27 PM
I suppose so... but how does giving privacy equate to submission?

submission is a synomyn of surrender, when ever you surrender your stand on anything you are in an act of submission.

When you surrender you turn over to one, privacy to do what they want to do, without your prescence, wether they want it that way or not. they are totally in control, and they must deal with that privacy, some learn their faults, some don't and they are ones that lose.

equal (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/equal) implies being identical in value, magnitude, or some specified quality

We are only identical in value to God, (remember this is man's definition)
magnitude refers to size or extent, man and woman are not equal in this, no one is.

As for some specified quality. We are (women) able to give birth,

men are able to give us the seed to do that, through whatever means.

They are necessary for survivial of mankind, just as Jesus had to borne of woman, a man to save mankind.


I don't see how it can get any plainer than that