The Christian gender roles set up in the NT are contrary to the OT:

Context: First, my opponent made a strawman for my argument. He is making it seem like my intentions and arguments are the same as those of Islamic culture who beat their wives. This is not true. I have not given any sources from my case to condone abuse. Do not let my opponent trick you into believing that. Second, I have already explained Ephesians 5: 22-24. My opponent can't make a proper attack on this scripture without looking at the background and detail of it's chapter, like I have already done. He is just taking the scripture and placing his own meaning on it without backing it up with sources. Therefore, how can we believe that he has proved this wrong? Pot calling the kettle: My opponent seems to justify sexually abusing ones wife with proverbs 5:19. It's kind of funny: He believes that it is unjust for a Muslim to use a bible verse to have a man beat his wife but it is perfectly fine for a Jew to use the old testament for a husband to sexually assault his wife. His hypocritical attack seems to contradict his whole arguments platform. My opponent fully supports Genesis 1:27, but he also condones a man to "draw pleasure from his wife" like she is an object, or a piece of property. My opponent says that the New Testament contradicts the Old Testament by demeaning women's rights, but how can he prove this when his own argument condones demeaning women's rights and contradicts itself. Revelation: Yes, I do believe that men are the leaders of the family. I have said so many times. Genesis 3:16: After the fall, God commanded Adam and Eve to fill the earth with their posterity. In this verse, God lays out the gender roles that Adam and Eve will now follow to build and bring their family through this fallen world. God shows Adam that he needs to be the leader of the family to fulfill his role. With his priesthood authority, Adam will now protect his family from the newly fallen world with the help of the divine power of God. The role of leadership in every family should fall upon the male, because that is how God set it up in the beginning. Even Jewish Rabbi Michoel Reach agrees that men should have leadership over their families. "The Hebrew phrase there is "v"hu yimshol bach" " and he shall rule over you. There are two words for "rule" in Hebrew: "Melech" and "Moshel". The Vilna Gaon writes in his commentary that" Melech" means a king who rules with the consent of the governed, but a "Moshel" is a dictator: He rules by force. The leadership role comes more naturally to a man than to a woman, but it doesn"t work as smoothly now as it did then." This also agrees with Paul that men should be the leaders of the family (Ephesians 5: 22-24). Therefore, the Old Testament, A Jewish Rabbi, and Paul in the New Testament all believe in the same thing: Men should be the leaders of their families. Also, eating the forbidden fruit was a commandment for Adam and Eve, not a prophecy. You need to learn the difference between prophecy and commandment. "God said it didn't he?" Man created first: I feel that I have already proven that Adam was a man. We can see that the first person on earth was called Adam. The second person was called "woman" (female) and then later on Eve. If Adam was a woman, he wouldn't have been able to procreate and fill the earth. I think I will just go over my opponents last point by saying that through sources, I have shown that Adam was a man and Eve was a woman. He has failed to show any sources to hold his claim on Adam being a hermaphrodite besides Adam being "human" in Hebrew. I'm not sure if my opponent is trying to say that hermaphrodites are better than individual male and female persons. All I can say is that Genesis 1:27 says: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." This scripture doesn't say: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; hermaphrodite created he them." Gender roles: Gender roles are not nonsense. Through my debate, I have reminded my opponent time and time again that Gender roles are essential for the fulfillment of a family. Gender roles have been established in both the Old and New testament, as I have proven. So my opponent has no reason to say that Gender roles are nonsense. "It"s that simple, the NT says that women shouldn"t teach, while in the OT we had prophetesses..." I have proven that the NT doesn't say that women shouldn't teach, that is just your opinion and claim, not a fact. I have also shown that the title prophetess is not an actual leadership title in the gospel. No contradiction there. "the NT says that wives should submit to their husbands while the OT says that it can go either way..." Yes, wives should follow their husbands, but you have no proof that shows that the Old Testament says that it can go either way. No contradiction here. "the NT says that the man was created first while the OT says that the Hermaphrodite was created first." Well both New and Old Testament agree that Adam was a man, like I have shown. My opponent has made little to no attempt to prove that Adam was a hermaphrodite. Zero contradiction. The New Testament does NOT contradict the Old Testament in gender roles. I would like to thank you for your time and I strongly urge you to vote for the negative side of this debate. Sources: http://www.jewishanswers.org... www.google.com www.lds.org http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...