>What did I read into it? I just quoted the text, I did not ask for a commentary (yet I got it) and do not intend to comment the commentary.
Narkissos,
This is exactly why I am not going to go into a full explanation of how you have violated the context of this latest text. You are just as facetious as Jgnat. You asserted a completly fabricated, convenient interpretation of Galations 3:28 and I nailed you on it. You dishonestly ignore this consistent, contextual commentary. BTW, I checked my interpreation with the scholars, did you?
Leolaia,
I am not getting into a hair-splitting exercise in futility with you either. The whole point to the discussion is that we have translations available today that are superior to ages past. Yet the word of God has survived intact and is 'inspired and reliable for 'teaching, reproving and rebuking', despite the assertions by skeptics like the three of you. The bottom line is that we have the most reliable translations today that have ever been published. I can go into a long winded explanation of the dead sea scrolls with appropriate backing references but then what is the point?
For both of you,
I do not accept either of you as authoritative on textual interpretation either. You have no apparent track record to back it up (that I have seen). If you are going to get into any linguistic discussions with me, you had better 'appeal to real authorities' and not your own alternative renderings of koine greek or hebrew word use and definition. I am saying that you need to cite well respected Biblical scholars if you are going to dispute the nuances of present day translations.
What you seem to be doing is using the common methods of cultists to twist scripture out of context in order to impugn the orthodox teachings of Chrsitianity. I believe that your goal is to oppose anyone who takes scripture seriously and it is very convenient for both of you to side with Jgnat regardless of how much solid interpretaion that I show you.
Rex
Shining One
JoinedPosts by Shining One
-
163
The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?
by jgnat ini read the most extraordinary claim the other day.
"the bible is factual.
" i wondered, how could the speaker possibly back up such a claim?
-
-
Shining One
-
163
The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?
by jgnat ini read the most extraordinary claim the other day.
"the bible is factual.
" i wondered, how could the speaker possibly back up such a claim?
-
-
Shining One
>I think the whole point Shining One, are we to take it literally or not? To pick and choose is to be arbitrary, and therefore, inconsistent in application. Which you are.
Jgnat,
You are being facetious. I have repeatedly explained the difference between 'pick and choose', arbitrary decisions on what to believe and consistent hermenutical principals. Do you wonder why people lose patience with you?
Rex -
163
The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?
by jgnat ini read the most extraordinary claim the other day.
"the bible is factual.
" i wondered, how could the speaker possibly back up such a claim?
-
-
Shining One
Hey Narkissos,
I do agree that the idea of 'inerrancy' is a philosophical point and cannot be proven. In this respect it is much like the philosophy of the naturalists, LOL. It is useless to argue inerrancy since it does not exist for us to examine in the first place.
Ms Jgnat,
I understand what you are saying about interpretation but that still does not give excuse to not make use of the solid tools and scholarship that is available today. However, I do not think that Nark and Leo qualify as authorities. I would have to see their credentials and work beyond this arena. My impression is that they are skeptics who have a bias agsainst any conservative version (maybe even moderate as well) of scriptural interpretation.
Rex -
163
The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?
by jgnat ini read the most extraordinary claim the other day.
"the bible is factual.
" i wondered, how could the speaker possibly back up such a claim?
-
-
Shining One
Narkissos,
Don't talk to me about 'spiritual courage' when you won't even acknowledge that you 'read into' Galations 3:28 exactly what you wanted. Don't so qickly change the subject, stick with the context of Galations. BTW, after you address the issues that I raised above, go ahead and show me the alleged contradiction of 1 Corinthian 11 and 14. This is not a game of JW Bible 'ping pong'.
I do acknowledge that some interpreters may view the head covering issue as one applying to today. Those ones usually fall into the category of legalists. They are welcome to be of that opinion and so are you. I suspect that you bring it up to disparage scripture, though. You have a solid interpretation in my post to deal with, please do so.
Rex -
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
Shining One
>Logic does not transcend space and time.
Logic only exists where human minds think. Before humans became self aware logic did not exist.
Prove that assertion please.
Rex -
163
The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?
by jgnat ini read the most extraordinary claim the other day.
"the bible is factual.
" i wondered, how could the speaker possibly back up such a claim?
-
-
Shining One
Hi Jgnat,
You said: I see. You thought I was ASKING for your interpretation on the matter. I think your fatal flaw is in thinking you have mastered the Truth, at least 99.99% of it.
This was in reply to what I said below:
My own preference is to give God the benefit of the doubt in each instance until proven other wise; to take text at literal reading until it proves to be otherwise; and always insist on the contextual interpretation. This is something that we all do to some extent naturally and with training it is a real skill to master.
I am not a master by any means. I am a pupil who has some good practical experience at hermenutics. I have been taught by some very intelligent pastors and am a seminary student who will soon have a degree to go with my experince.
Whenever we read anything we are in the mode of interpretation without even realizing it. Methodical interpretation of scripture is a science that is never truly mastered. We often bring our own axioms to the table so to speak. We read things into scripture that is not there. I am trying to be a 'empty vessel' and go through a logical method of interpreting scripture. I also let scripture itself interpret other scripture to secure the context. I recommend Virkler's 'Hermeneutics' and McQuillan's 'Understanding and Applying the Bible as a good place to start. Your own pastor should be a good source for guidance and I would ask him about the doubts you have expressed here. If you don't feel comfortable doing that then by all means consult a pastor or seminary professor.
God Bless,
Rex -
163
The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?
by jgnat ini read the most extraordinary claim the other day.
"the bible is factual.
" i wondered, how could the speaker possibly back up such a claim?
-
-
Shining One
Hi Again Narkissos,
Let's get into part two of my answer now, you said:
>If you think this is just a "spiritual principle" with no social and ecclesial implications, do you think those Christians who fought for the abolition of slavery on the very same grounds were wrong?
A wrong premise to begin with results in a wrong interpretation. We must not be too quick to make assumptions. Don't feel bad though, as I am guilty of this as well. I was referring to this below:
(1) headscarf and long hair (1 Corinthians 11), silence in the congregation (1 Corinthians 14) --> contextual and only applies to the 1st-century Corinthian church. Now, slavery was the result of the worst kind of exegesis that caused things to be 'read into' scripture to justify prejudice.
>You also know that the special office of "pastor" (actually distinct from "bishop," "elders" and "deacons") as exists in most Protestant churches today doesn't belong to NT ecclesiology.
It absolutely does belong to NT doctinal teaching. It is not an 'essential' but it is a clear teaching. This is one of my points about the church letting the mores of society influence it instead of vice versa.
>Yet you apply to this non-scriptural function a supposedly scriptural rule. Don't you find that strange?
My point: you too "pick and choose" in the Bible, and thereby reveal who you are. Hiding behind "scriptural authority" doesn't help.
I have just explained my understanding here. I agree that 'pick and choose' is not the way to observe scriptural commands. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve. He put Adam in the garden and gave him the authority to name all the animals. Afterwards, God made Eve as a helper to Adam.(1) This is an important concept because Paul refers to the order of creation in his epistle to Timothy when he discusses the relationship between men and women in the church context. Let's take a look.
"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression" (1 Tim. 2:12-14).
At the very least, there is an authority structure set up by God. The woman is not to have authority over the man in the church context. But this does not extend to the political/economic world. In the Old Testament Deborah was a judge in Israel over men. Also, in the New Testament, Phoebe played an important role in the church at Cenchrea (Romans 16). There is no doubt that women supported Paul in many areas and were great helpers in the church (Act 2:17; 18:24; 21:8). But what Paul is speaking of in 1 Tim. 2 is the relationship between men and women in the church structure, not in a social or political context.
When we look further at Paul's teachings we see that the bishop/overseer is to be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2) who manages his household well and has a good reputation (1 Tim. 3:4-5, 7). Deacons must be "men of dignity"(1 Tim. 3:8). Paul then speaks of women in verse 11 and their obligation to receive instruction. Then in verse 12, Paul says "Let deacons be husbands of one wife..." Again, in Titus 1:5-7, Paul says, "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward..." Notice that Paul interchanges the word 'elder' and 'overseer'.
In each case, the one who is an elder, deacon, bishop, or overseer is instructed to be male. He is the husband of one wife, responsible, able to "exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict" (Titus 1:9). We see no command for the overseers to be women. On the contrary, women are told to be "dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things" (1 Tim. 3:11). Why is it that it is the men who are singled out as the overseers? It is because of the created order of God that Paul references (Gen. 1-2; 1 Tim. 2:12-14).
This is not merely a social custom that fell away with ancient Israel.
Additionally, in the Old Testament in over 700 mentions of priests, every single one was a male. There is not one instance of a female priest. This is significant because priests were ordained by God to hold a very important office of ministering the sacrifices. This was not the job of women. Therefore, from what I see in Genesis 1-2, 1 Timothy 2, and Titus 1, the normal and proper person to hold the office of elder/pastor is to be a man.
Let's review my points on Galations 3:28 again for clarity. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus," (Gal. 3:28).
You used this verse to support the idea that women can hold the offices of elder and pastor because there is neither male nor female in Christ. The argument states that if we are all equal, then women can be pastors.
Unfortunately, you totally missed the context. Verse 23 talks about being under the Law "before faith came" and how we are brought closer to Jesus and have become sons of God by faith. We are no longer under law, but grace and we are "Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise," (v. 29).(2) The point of this passage is that we are all saved by God's grace according to the promise of God and that it doesn't matter who you are, Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, or female. All are saved the same way, by grace. In that, there is neither male nor female.
This verse is not talking about church structure. It is talking about salvation "in Christ." It cannot be used to support women as pastors because that isn't what it is talking about. Instead, to find out about church structure and leadership, you need to go to those passages that talk about it: 1 Timothy 2 and Titus 1.
I realize that this answer is getting long but please bear with me. In creation, God made Adam first and then Eve to be his helper. This is the order of creation. It is this order that Paul mentions in 1 Tim. 2:11-14 when speaking of authority. Being a pastor or an elder is to be in the place of authority. Therefore, within the church, for a woman to be a pastor or elder, she would be in authority of men in the church which contradicts what Paul says in 1 Tim. 2:11-14.
Male leadership does not belittle women. Jesus was given his authority by God the Father (Matt. 28:18). He was sent by God (John 6:38). He said the Father was greater than He (John 14:28). Did this belittle Jesus? Of course not.
Does the wife's submission to the husband mean that she is less than the husband, less important, or belittled? Again, not at all. Not having a place of leadership in the church does not mean a woman is less of a person, less important to God, or inferior. In the church, God has set up an order the same way he set one up in the family. The chain of command is Jesus, the man, the wife, and the children.
Let's now deal with the question of women who say they are called by god to be pastors.
There are women pastors in the world who love their congregations and have stated that they are called by God to be pastors. Of course, I cannot agree with this considering the previous analysis of the biblical position. Instead, I believe they have usurped the position of men and gone against the norm of scriptural revelation.
This is very important here: Those who state that they are called by God because of the great job they are doing and the gifting they have received are basing their theology upon experience and not scripture.
The issue is simple: are they submitting to the word of God or are they making the word of God submit to their desires?
As Christians we apply what we learn from the word, to the situations at hand. So, what about the situation where a woman missionary has converted a group of people, say in the jungle somewhere, and she has established a church? In that church, she is then functioning as a pastor and teacher having authority over men in the church. Should she not do this?
First of all, she should not be out there alone. She should be with her husband or, at the very least, under the oversight of a church body in the presence of other women and men. Missionary work is not a lone endeavor to be handled by single women and is almost universally not done!
Second, if in some highly unusual set of circumstances there is a woman in a lone situation, it is far more important that the word of God be preached and the gospel of salvation go forth to the lost than not. Whether it be male or female, let the gospel be spoken. However, I would say that as soon as there is/are males mature enough to handle eldership, that she should then establish the proper order of the church as revealed in scripture and thereby, show her submission to it.
Does this also mean that women shouldn't wear jewelry?
Some argue that if we are to forbid women to be elders then the context of 1 Tim. 2:9-13 demands that we require women to no have braided hair, wear gold, or have costly garments. Since no one wants to put that sort of a demand on a woman (since it is cultural), then why should we also demand that they not be elders since it would logically follow that it was also a culturally based admonition?
The problem here has many sides. First, the objection ignores what the scriptures plainly teach about the elder being the husband of one wife. Second, it fails to address the real issue of biblical headship residing in the male.
Third, it fails to properly exegete the scripture in question.
In 1 Tim. 2:9-13 Paul tells us that women should be modestly dressed. He uses the example of then present day adornment as an example of what not to do, definitely culturally based assessment by Paul. Notice that Paul emphasizes good works and godliness as a qualifier (as does Peter, see 1 Pet. 3:2). This is not a doctrinal statement tied to anything other than being a godly woman in appearance as well as attitude.
In verse 11, Paul says that a woman should quietly receive instruction. Please note that "The word, heµsychia, translated “quietness” in 1 Timothy 2:11 and silent in verse 12, does not mean complete silence or no talking. It is clearly used elsewhere (Acts 22:2; 2 Thes. 3:12) to mean “settled down, undisturbed, not unruly.
A different word (sigaoµ) means “to be silent, to say nothing” (cf. Luke 18:39; 1 Cor. 14:34).”3 Paul is advocating orderliness in this verse.
Then in verse 12-13, Paul says, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve." Notice that Paul directly relates the authority issue with the created order. He does not do this with the woman's dress code. Therefore, the dress code can be seen as cultural and the authority issue as doctrinal since the later is tied to the creation order and the dress code and authority issue are not, especially since they are separated by the conjunction "but" which is showing contrast, i.e., here we have one thing, but over here we have another.
So, what is the 'bottom line'? God's word clearly tells us that the elder is to be the husband of one wife. A woman cannot qualify for this position by virtue of her being female. Whether anyone likes it or not is irrelevant to the fact that this is what the Bible teaches.
Blessings,
Rex -
163
The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?
by jgnat ini read the most extraordinary claim the other day.
"the bible is factual.
" i wondered, how could the speaker possibly back up such a claim?
-
-
Shining One
Dear Narkissos,
I am going to handle this in two parts:
>Sounds like you mean: (1) headscarf and long hair (1 Corinthians 11), silence in the congregation (1 >Corinthians 14) --> contextual and only applies to the 1st-century Corinthian church.
Yes, that is what I am saying.
>(2) no teaching or authority (Pastorals) --> absolute, applies to any church at any time, whatever the >changes in society. Did I misunderstand you?
NO, you did not misunderstand me.
>Of course you know that the appeal to patriarchal (or even creational) order runs against fundamental Pauline theology according to Galatians 3:28: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." Yet you insist that sexual discrimination in the Church is an all-time rule.
Let's establish the context of this verse. It is not speaking specifically to women's roles in the church. To use it in that manner is faulty exegesis and instead of letting scripture say what it says, you are 'reading something into it' that is not there.
Galatians 3
1. You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3. Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4. Have you suffered so much for nothing--if it really was for nothing?
5. Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard? 6. Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 7. Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham.
We have to go clear back to the start of the chapter to establish the context of verse 28. The Galations were going back to the law covenant, having been misled by Judaistic false teachers. Paul is correcting them and in verse seven he emphasizes that ‘those who believe are children of Abraham…Christians.
8. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." 9. So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. 10. All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11. Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."
Paul continues to admonish the Galations that they do not need to ‘become Jews’ in order to be Christians, as the Judaizers were teaching.
12. The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." 13. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."
This is a reference to Christ 'becoming sin', (incurring God's wrath on the cross) that we who believe can attain righteousness.
14. He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
15. Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. 17. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19. What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator.
20. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. 21. Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.
22. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
23. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
Throughout this passage, Paul is building the case that none of us can be justified by observing the law. The purpose of the law was to lead us to Christ. The one mediator and redeemer of mankind and that we gain life by our faith in Him.
26. You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27. for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 8. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Therefore the purpose of the passage is to show that we are all saved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus: Jew, Gentile, slave, freeman, man, woman. We are all heirs to the promise as we are all ‘Abraham’s seed’. You can’t build a teaching around single scripture exegesis, Narkissos.
Blessings,
Rex -
163
The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?
by jgnat ini read the most extraordinary claim the other day.
"the bible is factual.
" i wondered, how could the speaker possibly back up such a claim?
-
-
Shining One
Hello Again Jgnat,
Yes, I did write that. I am happy that it was sufficient to explain my position. You had a question about the roles in a Christian congregation. When the apostle Paul explains the respective roles for men and women He is agreeing with the patriarchal order as set by God in Genesis. He allows not that a woman have authority over a man in the church. Christianity was actualy an improvement in women's rights. This does not speak to the role of women in general society. That is determined by the particular culture at that point in the stream of time. This is why scripture does not have to change for society. We as Christians are called to be 'salt and light', not the other way around. When society influences the church then the church begins the downhill slide. You can see this in the decline of the liberal mainstream denominations and conversely, the blessing of the moderate and conservative evangelical churches.
A woman who is 'called' can hold any office except pastor. This is not an equality issue. It is an issue of orderliness and Paul cites this in his reasoning. When you view scripture as inspired it is totally irrelevant what society thinks of any particular teaching in the church. Pastor and elder are both terms for the same office (as is Bishop). Deacons are another issue. The pastor is the herald of the word of God. It is just as important to be an evangelist, missionary, teacher, etc...
An additional bit of information about Corinth is in order. The pagans had female priests and this was not one of the examples for the infant church. Paul stressed the importance of separation from the world in general. This is the reason for the head covering for women and cutting of hair for men. This is why the women were to remain silent in the congregation. I hope this answers some of your questions. I am rather tired today and may sit down later and go into the scriptural references to help clarify this.
God Bless,
Rex -
3
From William Paley.........
by Shining One ina theologian and scientist from darwin's age: .
"in crossing a heath, suppose i pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; i might possibly answer, that, for anything i knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer.
but suppose i had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; i should hardly think of the answer which i had before given, that, for anything i knew, the watch might have always been there.
-
-
Shining One
http://www.crosscurrents.org/darwin.htm
The link to the portion of the article. It even contains a simple graph or two that should interest Jgnat.
Rex