David wrote: What I meant was that the MODERATOR did not have a history with you, so I was stepping in to help the moderator out a little bit. I am the list administrator.
Daniel repsonded: Yet you did not take it upon yourself to rebuke Ruben and hit two birds with one stone. Probably because you have a case of "jude syndrome". Refer to the Book of Jude and you will read about those who "hold mens' persons in advantage". I know how it works -- you pick on the guy you don't like or esteem, and let it slide with those you deem honorable. It's hypocricy and sick, David Miller. Daniel wrote: > I Timothy chapter 2. Shall I quote it for you? > > 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. > 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp > authority over the man, but to be in silence. > 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. > 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being > deceived was in the transgression. > 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, > if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with > sobriety. David wrote: The passage seems to omit the part you have added about burning in Hell for all eternity. We also need to talk about what the word "teach" means here in this particular context. Somehow you equate this with "posting doctrine on this forum." Daniel responds: Only because your brain has an omission, David. Does YHVH have to spell everything out for you? When a command is given in scripture, it is implied that if the commanmdent is broken, you will burn in hellfire. Or when YHVH commands us not to commit adultery in Exodus 20 -- are you going to promote adultery merely because the consequence is not given in that same chapter??? Gee, David Miller, with logic like yours I'm beginning to more and more wonder why this forum is called truthtalk at all. David wrote: >From my perspective, much of what we call "teaching" in modern times is highly feminized and not at the level being discussed in this passage. The stress in this passage is not teaching, per se, as much as it is the woman not usurping authority over the man. Daniel responds: Oh, give me a break. You're about as obfuscating as any politician. Teaching is teaching is teaching. If I put forth a concept concerning scriptural doctrinal matters -- it's teaching. Even if my "pupils" want to discard it. When Judy Jezebel Taylor took it upon her female self to dissect my Romans 7 article it was her TEACHING the interpretation of scriptural doctrines. This is strictly forbidden in I Timothy 2. The only thing feminized is you and the rest of the pencil necked wimps who refuse to abide by scripture and put these jezebels in their place. David wrote: By your agreement here that women may prophecy, pray, share, relay a joke, or tell about their cat or dog, you have just agreed that the word "silence" in 1 Timothy 2:11 does not mean absolute silence all the time. In other words, you are interpreting silence in a particular context, and not arguing that women ought to be silent all the time. However, you do not seem to be applying this same method of interpretation to the word "teach." When it comes to the word "teach" you have a much broader application. Daniel responds: Paul wrote for a woman to be "in silence" as it pertains to teaching doctrine to men. It's not too difficult to understand when you've been delivered from the effiminate devils that control your soul, David Miller. Daniel wrote: > You brought up Titus 2:3 . . . try completing Paul's > thought by reading verse 4. Women are allowed to teach > OTHER WOMEN. Not other men. David wrote: My Bible in verse 4 does not say, "not other men." Daniel responded: I Timothy 2 tells women not to teach or usurp authority over men. Titus says women can teach good things -- to other women. Is this really so difficult for you? I am convinced more than ever that you are not filled with the Holy Spirit as the simplicty of YahShua the Messiah has been squeezed out by your effeminate parsing of the Word. David wrote: Did your mother ever teach you? Daniel responded: Why, she sure did. But she NEVER taught me doctrinal matters. That was my dad's department PER I TIMOTHY CHAPTER 2. As I say, let the women teach other women and children -- but not doctrinal matters to man. That is what the jezebels on this forum are doing and that is why they are headed for eternal torment -- along with you men for allowing the women to become so unscriptural in their actions. David said: I do not believe that women should exercise authority over men and teach them from that kind of context. Daniel said: There is only one way for a woman to teach men doctrinal matters. It's called teaching men doctrinal matters. Judy's done it, and others have as well during the short time I've been here. Don't play these silly games Miller, you know what scripture demands -- you're just squirming under the weight of the Word and conviction. Hypocrite, David -- like a slippery contact on the bottom of a pool -- always trying to slip away from the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. David said: You are not a good listener if you came away thinking that I support women teaching doctrine to men. Daniel responds: You're actions speak louder than words. Try speaking out and telling judy to stop promoting her doctrinal interpretations to other men -- then I'll believe you. I don't have trouble listening -- you have trouble with taking responsibility for your own actions (or lake thereof). David said: What you do not seem to comprehend is that we do not allow either men or women on this list to teach in that fashion. Daniel responds: Now, David, you are a liar. A hypocrite and a liar. Your sins don't follow behind you, they crash out before you like a tidal wave on rocks. I've put forth my teaching, judy has put forth her teaching, many have put forth their own teachings -- just because the pupils don't accept them does not invalidate them as teaching. Your statements are pure bullshit, David. And that's straight from the Holy Spirit, so don't despise my word to you, wicked wretch. David wrote: This sounds like a very selfish attitude to me. A man of God would be concerned about those who profess Christ who have no clue about the fundamentals of Scripture. A man of God would desire out of a meek heart to help those who are ignorant. Daniel responds: More bullshit from you, Miller. The Ruach looks at you as dung, even as Jeremiah spoke of thousands of years ago. It is not selfish of me to realize the fruitless wickedness that goes on in this forum -- a forum dedicated to disobeying scripture. And you are one of its champions. Your sins stink and YHVH needs to remove you with His mighty plunger. I pray He does so speedily. David said: I repent of not warning Ruben earlier. Ruben, you know the rules... no ad hominem arguments. There, are you satisfied now? Daniel said: Nope, neither is YHVH. Your mockery and sarcasm in "repenting" is recored in heaven for the wretched thing that it is. Laugh and scorn all you want, you will suffer for your sins on Judgement Day when YahShua mocks you and laughs at your calamity. May your teeth be knocked out (Psalm 3), and may you become ensared in the very nets of deceit that you constantly try to entrap others within. In YahShua and by His Ruach ha Kadosh, Daniel John Lee -- www.TorahandSpirit.com _____________________________________________________________ TheFreeSite.com: Home of the Web's best freebies. http://www.thefreesite.com ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
