tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13365727.post112723922307369168..comments2008-05-20T02:51:03.304-07:00Team Kerbelnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13365727.post-1130602959917798342005-10-29T09:22:00.000-07:002005-10-29T09:22:00.000-07:00

As a non-believer, I have to scoff a little at Peter's comment - the weaker vessel. Right. Maybe in upper arm strength, but in general - then why was the weaker vessel chosen to be the one that gives new life? I would say that women are definitely the stronger vessels.We resist temptation to evil more often - women are less violent, less likely to end up in prison or addicted to drugs or alcohol,

Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13365727.post-1127963302428628872005-09-28T20:08:00.000-07:002005-09-28T20:08:00.000-07:00

Thanks for the clarification Simon. And thanks so much for our wonderful comments on my blog. They really inspired me and reassured me in my prupose in having the blog. You really touched me. God bless ^_^

Amshttp://arora.pitas.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13365727.post-1127948911781646162005-09-28T16:08:00.000-07:002005-09-28T16:08:00.000-07:00

Ams:I'm sorry about the lack of clearness in my statement. I actually meant that most people interpreted the verse to say that the unbelieving husband is more likely to get saved if his wife was a Christian, because she could share her faith with him at a more intimate level in a more intimate relationship.Michele: Awesome comments as always. Yours are the comments I must look for in this section

Team Kerbelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07484140028247139266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13365727.post-1127689220934975722005-09-25T16:00:00.000-07:002005-09-25T16:00:00.000-07:00

I enjoyed both your posts on these verses. I've actually been on a quest with God relating to women and the church. Most of what you have said I agree with because it is based on the Bible rather than your opinion. I will disagree with your statement "Most people think the husband is more likely to be saved because there is a godly influence in his most intimate sphere of life, and I agree with

Amshttp://spaces.msn.com/members/amsspace/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13365727.post-1127502070739161792005-09-23T12:01:00.000-07:002005-09-23T12:01:00.000-07:00

Simon, I have never heard either of those interpretations, and find them quite thought-provoking.The first, us having a unique relationship in heaven with our spouse, is nothing we can prove or disprove from scripture. However, I'm sure you see a romantic or sexual relalationship is absolutley denied by Jesus in Matthew 22:29-, and he seems to almost deride his listeners for considering it,

Michelenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13365727.post-1127427359859868062005-09-22T15:15:00.000-07:002005-09-22T15:15:00.000-07:00

Beautiful.I like it!

Susan L. Princehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08382434848789827353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13365727.post-1127405944389124272005-09-22T09:19:00.000-07:002005-09-22T09:19:00.000-07:00

thank you for this clear explanation. my husband and I have read this passage many times, and each time something new jumps out. thanks

Lisahttp://www.webloxonline.com/blog/lisa/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13365727.post-1127403839224472952005-09-22T08:43:00.000-07:002005-09-22T08:43:00.000-07:00

Very interesting musings. Of course, they may make us uncomfortable in contemplating them, they are worthwhile considerations nonetheless as they force us to reconcile our own theological biases.Brad

Broken Messengerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09794765061672250971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13365727.post-1127327495817223982005-09-21T11:31:00.000-07:002005-09-21T11:31:00.000-07:00

I agree, Christians have always stumbled from the inconsistencies of the Bible. Striving to find the harmony is best, that is for sure.I bring up the Gospels of MMLJ only because they are all so interesting - separately and together. Such different perspectives from for very different men. I find it fascinating.For me, the Bible is not 100% accurate nor infallable. I accept the inconsistencies

The Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13258372552197392530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13365727.post-1127323462105834242005-09-21T10:24:00.000-07:002005-09-21T10:24:00.000-07:00

Sadie--That's very interesting. I so much enjoy reading Matthew Henry's commentary, and the quotes you've given show why his is one of the most popular. I think that this interpretation is a very viable alternative; I would however, point out that his interpretation requires that instead of the husband or wife themselves being sanctified it is the relation itself. Which I can live with. Phoenix--

Team Kerbelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07484140028247139266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13365727.post-1127274095046876122005-09-20T20:41:00.000-07:002005-09-20T20:41:00.000-07:00

What do I think?To be honest, this is the problem with evangelical Christianity. You are looking at the bible as if it were an instructional manual, seeking literal meaning in every word, every sentence, every paragraph.What you end up with is a million interpretations in varying degrees.The Bible also speaks of God-sanctioned ethnic cleasing, for example.The Bible was written by so many

The Phoenixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13258372552197392530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13365727.post-1127247216635209282005-09-20T13:13:00.000-07:002005-09-20T13:13:00.000-07:00

Matthew Henry says something entirely different about 1 Cor 7:14 2. We have here the reasons of this advice. (1.) Because the relation or state is sanctified by the holiness of either party: For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by the husband (v. 14), or hath been sanctified. The relation itself, and the conjugal use of each other, are sanctified to the

Sadie Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03079565454430230094noreply@blogger.com