,
29 tweets,
11 min read
Read on Twitter
This is my unsolicited but humble REBUTTAL of every assertion made in this thread. I also dig some digging, and my answer is... Well, I'll let you decide. 😉
Warning: Long #thread
Warning: Long #thread
Yes, this is the reason Paul gave in 1 Timothy 2:12-13.
About your car analogy, as long as the Bible says a 1957 car model is better than a 2017 model, it is accepted as truth by Christians. So there's that.
About your car analogy, as long as the Bible says a 1957 car model is better than a 2017 model, it is accepted as truth by Christians. So there's that.
What about Genesis 2:18-23? Why didn't you quote that? Doesn't it suggest that the woman was an afterthought to the man, and even contingent on him? Why cherry-pick the one that fits the narrative you want to push?
I'm pretty sure some Christians disagree with you on that interpretation. (I'll share some examples after posting the thread.) Also, if that were the case, how come it continued into the New Testament, after Jesus had done his redemptive work?
And Genesis 2:18 shows that the woman was created as a "help meet" for the man, not necessarily as a human in her own right. That's why her creation was contingent on his, and till date women are perceived as "incomplete" without a man.
Our bodies consist of many "vestigial" organs, so that analogy doesn't fly. Also, your assertion about Mosaic law is wrong. The 10 commandments, for example, seems to include women among the list of men's property. (Exodus 20:17)
Also, the so-called "Proverbs 31 woman" is a projection of what was acceptable for a wife as her marital duties to fit the whims of a patriarchal culture, and the attributes were aimed at satisfaction for men, not necessarily herself. (Proverbs 31:31)
But in Numbers 36:1-13, it was said that this inheritance was contingent on the kind of man they married. They HAD TO marry within their tribe so that their HUSBANDS would be able to keep the land within the tribe. Is it really theirs in such a case?
If I began to list the Mosaic law verses that debunk this assertion, time would fail me, so I'll only cite one. Leviticus 12:2 & 5 is a good example.
Hannah was never a prophetess. (I guess you meant Deborah, who was an outlier.) There were almost no female clergypersons at all in Jewish history.
Jesus did not counter them! It's so easy to see that Jesus was not addressing misogyny in any of the verses you cited. Do you think your readers are stupid or something?
Now let's see how yo go about proving this. 🍿🥤
Quite interesting how Jesus never mentions that a wife can divorce her husband. He only mentioned the husband [not] divorcing. I wonder why that is!
He taught women, but didn't consider them good enough to have even one slot of the 12 disciples. Legit!
He taught women, but didn't consider them good enough to have even one slot of the 12 disciples. Legit!
No, that's not what he showed. He was saying it is more important to him that he's listened to than served physically. If anything, he was being strident here!
Lol really!? Jairus' daughter is proof he didn't support misogyny!? That you even mentioned this shows how hard you're trying and how easily you're failing to make this makes sense!!
Jesus did NOT choose those who testified of his resurrection (assuming the stories are true in the first place). They did so of their own accord and adoration for him. Citing this is so laughable. Stop trying too hard, please!
Yeah, except you're Paul, the one to whom Jesus revealed the new creation realities most Christians hold on to today. 😏
The best we could say about Jesus is that he was completely silent on the matter, so we wouldn't know either way.
The best we could say about Jesus is that he was completely silent on the matter, so we wouldn't know either way.
And Genesis 2 and 3 as well. Those are also part of God's plan. Unless you wanna admit that God isn't all-knowing or all-powerful.
So it was Paul, not God?? I feel like I know where this is going.
So it was Paul, not God?? I feel like I know where this is going.
Oh, so now Paul is giving his "personal opinions"? When he was dropping the "dope" Christian rhema, it wasn’t personal. Now that you disagree with him in equality 2019, you're trying to explain it away as his "personal opinions"? Legit! Very legit!
Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:16 and 14:37-38 that what he wrote is A COMMANDMENT FROM THE LORD and that Christians should ignore people like you. So why should we trust your assertion that it was his "personal opinion"?
No, it's according to the Bible. The New Testament. It was a revelation given to Paul. Why should we listen to you above Paul? Why are you changing "God's word"??
Oh, I get it! The "context" card. Legit!
Oh, I get it! The "context" card. Legit!
"We sinned and perverted his intentions". Classic victim blaming. And I wonder why Jesus' sacrifice wasn't enough to fix this our perversion. Why was Adam's work stronger than Jesus' work? Why didn't Jesus' work undo ALL what Adam did?
What you are doing is a classic cherry-picking of data to fit your narrative. Why not factor in the entire thing and accept that the Bible is inherently misogynistic? No one will beat you for it bro; and you get to keep your religion!
The best we can say about your original question is that Jesus was totally silent on the matter. And considering that Paul claimed he got his revelation from Jesus, (and hardly any Christian disputes this) one would be forgiven for thinking Jesus gave him these ideas.
It's funny. You bend pop culture to fit your religion; and when that doesn't work, you bend your religion to fit pop culture.
LEGIT!! 🙂🙂
Anyway, I'm done here. Cheers! 👋🏾
LEGIT!! 🙂🙂
Anyway, I'm done here. Cheers! 👋🏾
@Mayoveli I'm done. It's long sha. 😄😅
@GhostDoLL_ @DiaryOfMitya @okemzuruoke @sa_vvy_ @chaotictwitch @cerebralistic thought you guys might be interested.
*make
