Defd,
You really need to consider leaving the Watchtower. Chruches are not at all perfect but they are usually not cultic, despite what some say about a fundy like me. LOL
Rex
Of the disassociated class, 2000
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
Leolaia,
What an accurate and detailed exposition on the scrptures in question and the proto-gnostic heresies....
However, the reference about 'women being saved by childbearing' is not talking about personal, eternal salvation, otherwise it would conflict with too many previous scripture, 'we are saved by grace, in faith alone and in Christ alone', as the reformers put it. You may have not mean't it that way and I just wanted to be sure.
Did you learn about the heresies in a church history course or possible one on the book of John?
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
Little Toe,
Calvinist amillenialist, perchance?
I am calvinist with the reservation that 'free will' works in concert with 'predestination' and is not opposed to it. Some calvinists are not clear about this in their teaching of the 'golden chain' of Romans 8: 29-20. My eschatological beliefs have shifted between premillenialism and partial preterism.
You are right, I am too qick too judge people....sorry about that!
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 Narkissos,
>Thanks for reminding that. Would you care to explain? What is "this"? If you refer to Galatians 3:28, to which you deny any practical implication, I fail to see how it can be any "improvement in women's rights". If you refer to 1 Timothy which you hold as a "permanent practical instruction," how so? For which women specifically?
First of all, I did not deny any practical implications. The 'practical implication' in Galations 3 is Paul's exposition on justification of faith. The topic of equality is expressed only as a vehicle to demonstrate that all persons who become Christians are saved the same way. The same applies to the master/slave situation.
Historically, women were not even considered competent to testify in a Jewish court. This is why it is so surprising that women came back from the gravesite of Jesus and testified to His resurrection. If one were making up a story it would be more likely that men would 'discover' this fact! Anyways, if I believe that if you check the historical references you will find that the emergence of Christianity was itself a boost for women to be closer to 'equal footing' with men. Look at the last paragraph to see the answer to, 'which women specifically'.
1 Timothy 2: 8-13
I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
This should be enough for the context. You see the phrases, 'I want' and 'A woman should'. These remarks are different from 'I do not permit'. This is a prohibition in contrast to a preference. The Holy Spirit is speaking directly through Paul in this manner to make it clear the order of preference that God expects. Paul finishes with the reference to Genesis, where the created order of God is first outlined.
1 Timothy 3: 1-13
Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task.
Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
Husband of one wife is literally, 'one woman man' and speaks to sexual purity and not marriage, divorce or singleness. It also adds to the previous reasoning for 'a woman not to hold authority over a man'. Note that Paul is saying overseer, which is another title name for 'bishop' and 'elder'.
He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.
Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.
We again see the reference to 'husband of one wife', which puts the office of deacon out of reach to women and that is exactly how the largest protestant denomination in the U.S. interprets this (Southern Baptists). You even see the reference to 'deaconess' which is 'their wives'. A deaconess is the wife of a deacon. It is not a position in the church. Paul does not specify any particular group of women, therefore the absence of this specification makes it all inclusive.
I have not addressed any other part of the previous post by you. I see no 'dissonance' at all here. I try to stay within the text itself for an individual interpretation then make comparisons with other scripture to arrive at a full context.
Titus 1: 7-9
Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless--not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
Titus does indeed back up what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy. Scripture interprets scripture and that is the final authority to me. It may be an 'appeal to authority to others' but that is irrelevant from where I reside.
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
You are quite welcome, Leolaia.
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
OK Narkissos,
>The question being, is the church order to reflect the old or new creation? (Cf. 2 Corinthians 5:14ff).
A better question is: What does the text in dispute say (despite your contention that it is somehow contradictory)?
>in spite of the Galatians theological principle the NT texts did not condemn slavery on a practical level. Yet later Christian generations felt that the ongoing practice of slavery was incompatible with it. Were they wrong? Perhaps exegetically they were. But if practically they were not, might modern Christians who feel that the ongoing practice of sexual discrimination in church is incompatible with the same principle have a point too?
First of all, you say it is 'sexual discrimination' for a woman not to hold the office of pastor. If that is your view that's fine. Within this discussion, I did make some important points: 1) historically this was a huge improvement in women's rights; 2) It is a role situation and again, is this what the text says?
You know what? Men and women are different emotionally and in their application of intellect (a statement in general and not mean't to be universal). The radical feminists keep insisting that 'equality' means 'ignore biology' and it just doesn't hold water when you see the nonsensical applications of this idea.
Context, context, context.
If I am correct about the interpretation of the text, then that is the correct view, regardless of any modern social customs. You see, I do view the Bible as being the inspired word of God and that is where my axiom begins. I respect the word of God as just that. Even if I don't like what it says I am bound by it. When one preaches the word of God one must do justice to the text. One must also stay within the bounds of the text. A text out of context is a pretext!
The issue of slavery in the ancient world was not a priority of the church. The church was busy getting itself established in the midst of change, heresy and persecution. If you have a master and a slave get converted and they apply Jgnat's catch-all excuse, the law of love, as outlined in the book and epistles of John, then the master/slave issue was not important. The same can be said today for the issue of headship in a family where both are Christians who take their Lord's commands seriously.
Are we making any headway?
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
Leolaia,
I think I see where the misunderstanding happened and I apologize for my poor paragraph structure. I said:
'Inerrancy' is the concept that no amount of error is extant in the original, inspired manuscripts. It does not apply to any translation that exists so we have a 'moot point'. It does show a 99.95 accuracy of the harmony where the major texts are compared.
This was a figure that I got from one of my course books. This speaks to the manuscripts in use, in comparison to one another. This does not include the dead sea scrolls. I agree that Isaiah is the one that is the most harmonic....
Then I said: With the dead sea scrolls we have some of the Old Testament that goes back to 200 BC and the 'errors' are miniscule. They do not compromise the texts from the 10 and 12th centuries.
Adding this statement to the above caused the misunderstanding.
You said: But I never see them discuss other books like Jeremiah or 1-2 Samuel or the Psalms where the situation is quite different. Thus, your claim of only a "miniscule" difference sounded rather misleading to me.
I agree, it was just that. I also did not need to add to the carnage with the remainder of the post. It would indeed be ridiculous to continually cite sources when this would be only needed for a critical point in any discussion. I see that you are indeed careful in your post content and I could myself could use more of your patience!
I catch flak on all sides here and sometimes try to answer too much from too many people. Please forgive my inaccurate assumptions. We are all in a learning mode and need to be teachable. Thank you for your insight.
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
Jgnat,
You are a unique audience that I know I will never convince.....
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
>Let's stick to the quality of their arguments, shall we?
What a joke.
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
Defd,
I used to be a JW and guess what? I think you are better off there than with the likes of the skeptics here. Many have taken the great leap from disagreement with the Watchtower to extreme, liberal scripture interpretation and outright unbelief. If you decide to leave the JWs please do investigate evangelical Christianity before you surrender to pointless agnosticism. Feel free to IM me at any time.
God Bless,
Rex