 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Redundancy is... |
Aaron Scott |
| Using additional words to convey nothing additional. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
7/27/17 12:36 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
bonnie knox |
It can be annoying to have to repeat oneself over and over and over and over (yes, that was intentionally redundant) when one doesn't get through the first time.
It's like when Aaron says, "Do you have any scriptures which show women as leaders in the NT? I didn't think so because there aren't any."
And I say Junia, Phoebe, Syntyche, and Euodias were leaders (Philippians 4:2, Romans 16).
And then Aaron says, "There were no female leaders in the NT." |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/27/17 12:46 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Now, Bonnie... |
Aaron Scott |
| bonnie knox wrote: | It can be annoying to have to repeat oneself over and over and over and over (yes, that was intentionally redundant) when one doesn't get through the first time.
It's like when Aaron says, "Do you have any scriptures which show women as leaders in the NT? I didn't think so because there aren't any."
And I say Junia, Phoebe, Syntyche, and Euodias were leaders (Philippians 4:2, Romans 16).
And then Aaron says, "There were no female leaders in the NT." |
If I said that, I did not mean to say there were no female leaders. My point is that there were no women--at least so far as we know--in the top levels of leadership. That is, a woman might have led a local congregation, but in no case (that we know of) did a woman lead at the "denominational" level (for instance, as did the Jerusalem Council).
I'll be waiting for that verse.... |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
7/27/17 2:15 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Junia was an apostle.
If you mean to say there was no woman on the Jerusalem Council, just say that. But that doesn't mean the Bible intends for there to be a prohibition on women in leadership positions since there most certainly were women in leadership positions in the New Testament. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/27/17 2:24 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Bonnie...NOT SO |
Aaron Scott |
| bonnie knox wrote: | Junia was an apostle.
If you mean to say there was no woman on the Jerusalem Council, just say that. But that doesn't mean the Bible intends for there to be a prohibition on women in leadership positions since there most certainly were women in leadership positions in the New Testament. |
It has never been clear whether Junia was an apostle...or simply esteemed of the apostles.
In fact, there is even debate over whether Junia was a woman.
To say that the Bible PROHIBITS women in leadership is taking it a bit too far, I think. But to say that the Bible gives us a clear example of women NOT being in leadership (except as exceptions)...and to say that it appears that the early church looked to men for leadership...those things are bomb-proof. WHICH IS NOT TO SAY that that means we must or ought to do it that way today. I tend to think that what has worked pretty well for 2000 years is probably the way forward, but that's me.
We know that the husband is the head of the wife. But some (WHOM I SHALL NOT MENTION HERE EXCEPT IN ANAGRAM FORM: MONSTERS SERMONET) have already decided that that is no longer the case.
I DO believe that we should know more now--2000 years later--than the Church did then. But while we should know more...it is entirely possible that we have lost essential things, too. And if we go with the whole "evolution of theology" thing, it is a simple leap to hit the bullseye of apostacy. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
7/27/17 2:37 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | It has never been clear whether Junia was an apostle...or simply esteemed of the apostles. |
It's clear. Some people are still in denial about it though. Please do your research. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/27/17 3:16 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | I tend to think that what has worked pretty well for 2000 years is probably the way forward, but that's me. |
Why don't you take a look at the history of women in leadership in the church?
I highly recommend this book. You might really be surprised at what has actually worked for 2000 years.
https://www.amazon.com/Women-Church-Biblical-Theology-Ministry/dp/0830818626
Even if most of the leaders in the Bible are men, why do you discount the women leaders? What percentage would it have to be before they are actually legitimate in your eyes?
Why do you keep saying that people who interpret headship as "source" have somehow denied "headship" altogether? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/27/17 3:23 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Bonnie... |
Aaron Scott |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | I tend to think that what has worked pretty well for 2000 years is probably the way forward, but that's me. |
Why don't you take a look at the history of women in leadership in the church?
I highly recommend this book. You might really be surprised at what has actually worked for 2000 years.
https://www.amazon.com/Women-Church-Biblical-Theology-Ministry/dp/0830818626
Even if most of the leaders in the Bible are men, why do you discount the women leaders? What percentage would it have to be before they are actually legitimate in your eyes?
Why do you keep saying that people who interpret headship as "source" have somehow denied "headship" altogether? |
Because "source" is an interpretation that is used PRECISELY to NOT have to deal with actual headship.
Is Jesus the HEAD of the Church? Yes. He is also the source...but He is still the HEAD.
Headship connotes "authority over." Period. I know that doesn't fit in our modern day understandings, but it is still the case. The letters to the Seven Churches makes it crystal clear that Jesus is the HEAD of the Church.
Now, I'm not by any means arguing that men ought to "lord over" their wives. But I do hold that when a man and wife are at odds, the husband ultimately should be the one who makes the call. If he wants to do what his wife says, fine. If not, then fine, too.
I have read quite a bit about women in leadership, headship, etc., in the church. I do not argue that women are not fully capable--THEY ARE! The argument is that DESPITE women being fully capable and fully equal in the spiritual realm, the Lord STILL chose to place men in authority. Go figure.
If a woman is elected GO next Assembly, I won't move to Canada (or whatever it we are supposed to do in such cases). But IF we are going to argue the point, then the Bible's CLEAR example and CLEAR statements lead us to male-centric role.
Now, there are plenty of NON-CLEAR statements or extrapolations that might lead us elsewhere. But if we go on what IS clear...there is only one answer: Men lead the church. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
7/27/17 5:04 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Bonnie |
Aaron Scott |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | It has never been clear whether Junia was an apostle...or simply esteemed of the apostles. |
It's clear. Some people are still in denial about it though. Please do your research. |
Not so, my dear sister.
It may seem clear to those who take your position. But it is not at all clear that Junia was an apostle. If so, she would be the ONLY apostle mentioned outside of the 11 and Paul (if I recall correctly). Were there, then, only 13, and Junia (if a woman) was the other one?
Not likely, I don't think. If there were a list of apostle beyond the ones we tend to know about, and Junia (and perhaps another woman or two were included), that might lead us to see things very differently. But if ANYONE would have been deemed suitable to be an apostle, it would surely be one of the Marys mentioned in the gospels, right? I mean, they were there at the beginning with the disciples (at least virtually).
So, assuming Junia is a female (and I have no problem with that being the case--it is just no crystal clear to everyone that that is the case), then it still does not mean she was an apostle. Esteemed by the apostles? Sure. But IS an apostle? I don't think the case can be made at this point.
Like I have said, I won't lose any sleep either way. But I do think we ought to seek to be as close to what the example of scripture seems to be. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
7/27/17 5:09 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | If so, she would be the ONLY apostle mentioned outside of the 11 and Paul (if I recall correctly). |
Not only do you need to research, you need to read your Bible. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/27/17 6:02 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | Because "source" is an interpretation that is used PRECISELY to NOT have to deal with actual headship.
Is Jesus the HEAD of the Church? Yes. He is also the source...but He is still the HEAD. |
No, if headship was meant to convey "authority over," a different word besides kephale would probably have been used. Jesus is some things to the church that a man is not to his wife. You are using the word head to mean authority over, then you are saying since Jesus is in authority over the church, that must be the correct meaning (that is circular logic, i.e., begging the question).
Of course, making a hierarchy out of God>Christ>man>woman requires scrambling the order of what Paul actually has written as well as making the Son of God subordinate to God (which you may not have a problem with, and that's a whole 'nother can of worms). |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/27/17 6:13 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Bonnie... |
Aaron Scott |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | If so, she would be the ONLY apostle mentioned outside of the 11 and Paul (if I recall correctly). |
Not only do you need to research, you need to read your Bible. |
OK, maybe Barnabas, too. Can't find any others. And Revelation even gives us some indication that there might be only 12 (though I do believe there are more--even some today).
Bonnie, I do feel for the case of the women. But reading things into a passage will not serve well for the women. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
7/27/17 9:12 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Aaron Scott |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | Because "source" is an interpretation that is used PRECISELY to NOT have to deal with actual headship.
Is Jesus the HEAD of the Church? Yes. He is also the source...but He is still the HEAD. |
No, if headship was meant to convey "authority over," a different word besides kephale would probably have been used. Jesus is some things to the church that a man is not to his wife. You are using the word head to mean authority over, then you are saying since Jesus is in authority over the church, that must be the correct meaning (that is circular logic, i.e., begging the question).
Of course, making a hierarchy out of God>Christ>man>woman requires scrambling the order of what Paul actually has written as well as making the Son of God subordinate to God (which you may not have a problem with, and that's a whole 'nother can of worms). |
OK, I do believe that while Jesus is God, He is also subordinate to the Father. He has told us that He cannot determine who sits on his left or right hand. He doesn't know the when He will return. He call God "MY GOD." He will turn everything over the Father at some point. So, yes, subordinate in hierarchy, but the same in divinity.
The word for head is NEVER used as source (best I can tell)...except when someone finds it inconvenient to believe that a husband is the head of the wife. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
7/27/17 9:23 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | The word for head is NEVER used as source (best I can tell)...except when someone finds it inconvenient to believe that a husband is the head of the wife. |
Aaron, I might be getting a bit redundant, but I am going to quote from something written by Gordon Fee here:
The earliest extant consistent interpretation of the metaphor in this passage is to be found in a younger contemporary of Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444?), who explicitly interprets in terms of the Greek metaphor: "Thus we can say that 'the head of every man is Christ.' For he was made by [dia] him . . . as God; 'but the head of the woman is the man,' because she was taken out of his flesh . . . Likewise 'the head of Christ is God,' because he is of him [ex autou] by nature" (Ad Arcadiam et Marinam 5.6). That is, as with Chrysostom's understanding of the two pairs (God-Christ, Christ-man), Cyril is ready to go this way with all three pairs because of what is said in verse 8: that the woman was created from the man. Not only was the idea that the head is the source of supply and support for all the body's systems a natural metaphor in the Greek world, but in this case it also supported Cyril's Christological concern (not to have Christ "under" God in a hierarchy), just as it did for Chrysostom.
Yes, I just transcribed all that from a book; I do hope you will take the time to read it. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/27/17 9:48 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| More redundancy done over and repeated (L) (L) |
bonnie knox |
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Bonnie... |
bonnie knox |
Aaron, this is what becomes redundant to me. You will make a claim. I will refute it with scripture, but the conclusion you have drawn from your initial claim remains unchanged.
You claim that Junia would be the only apostle mentioned outside of the 11. Then at my prompting to "read your Bible" you remember Barnabas, but still you are clinging to whatever relevance you feel there is that Junia would be unlucky 13.
Now, what about these folks (oh, my, here I go getting redundant and it will not make a bit of difference)--
James the brother of Jesus: Galatians 1:19
Silas and Timothy: 1 Thessalonians 1:1 when taken in conjunction with 1 Thessalonians 2:6
Apollos: 1 Corinthians 4:6-9
And of course Barnabas and Andronicus!
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | If so, she would be the ONLY apostle mentioned outside of the 11 and Paul (if I recall correctly). |
Not only do you need to research, you need to read your Bible. |
OK, maybe Barnabas, too. Can't find any others. And Revelation even gives us some indication that there might be only 12 (though I do believe there are more--even some today).
Bonnie, I do feel for the case of the women. But reading things into a passage will not serve well for the women. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/27/17 10:43 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Redundancy is... |
Tom Sterbens |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | Using additional words to convey nothing additional. |
Having the same letter in your name twice in a row? |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4508
7/27/17 11:43 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Bonnie... |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | Aaron, this is what becomes redundant to me. You will make a claim. I will refute it with scripture, but the conclusion you have drawn from your initial claim remains unchanged.
You claim that Junia would be the only apostle mentioned outside of the 11. Then at my prompting to "read your Bible" you remember Barnabas, but still you are clinging to whatever relevance you feel there is that Junia would be unlucky 13. |
I didn't follow this one. But Paul or Barnabas or James the Lord's brother would have had to have dibs on 13, or Matthias if we still count Judas in the 12 and add Matthias on.
Paul implicitly accepts Matthias as the 12th apostle in I Corinthians 15.
The thing with Andronichus and Junia is that it is ambiguous as to whether they are apostles or highly regarded by the apostles without being apostles themselves.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
7/28/17 2:18 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Bonnie... |
Aaron Scott |
| bonnie knox wrote: | Aaron, this is what becomes redundant to me. You will make a claim. I will refute it with scripture, but the conclusion you have drawn from your initial claim remains unchanged.
You claim that Junia would be the only apostle mentioned outside of the 11. Then at my prompting to "read your Bible" you remember Barnabas, but still you are clinging to whatever relevance you feel there is that Junia would be unlucky 13.
Now, what about these folks (oh, my, here I go getting redundant and it will not make a bit of difference)--
James the brother of Jesus: Galatians 1:19
Silas and Timothy: 1 Thessalonians 1:1 when taken in conjunction with 1 Thessalonians 2:6
Apollos: 1 Corinthians 4:6-9
And of course Barnabas and Andronicus!
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | If so, she would be the ONLY apostle mentioned outside of the 11 and Paul (if I recall correctly). |
Not only do you need to research, you need to read your Bible. |
OK, maybe Barnabas, too. Can't find any others. And Revelation even gives us some indication that there might be only 12 (though I do believe there are more--even some today).
Bonnie, I do feel for the case of the women. But reading things into a passage will not serve well for the women. |
|
Bonnie, I have to stand with what I said. I do not consider James an apostle, even though he is often mentioned in the same breath, but rather more like the General Overseer. Notice that James is often mentioned separately from the apostles (e.g., "James and the elders," etc.).
But the point of all this is that you simply cannot make Junia an apostle with the scripture that you have offered. Was she an apostle? MAYBE! But the verse doesn't even seem to imply that! To "be of note" among the apostles is not necessarily (at all!) saying the same things as "a noted apostle."
Again, the literature offered in support of women in high leadership makes all sorts of good sense. But things like divorce and remarriage for couples who are miserable also makes good sense...and yet is not supported by the scriptures.
Women are every bit as good as men in organizing and leading. For that matter, some teenagers could outclass some of us. For that matter, there may be Jews or Muslims who could lead the Church of God in an effective manner in terms of administration. But all of these things would not align with the examples of scripture, the text of scripture, and the traditions of the church. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
7/28/17 5:25 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Redundancy is... |
Aaron Scott |
| Tom Sterbens wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | Using additional words to convey nothing additional. |
Having the same letter in your name twice in a row? |
And don't forget the two "t"s at end of my last name. I start redundant...I end redundant. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
7/28/17 5:26 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
