 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Another way of looking at this as opposed to having a right to be on a council floor is to ask what the leadership structure is in the Bible. |
We absolutely mustn't do that because we will come across people like Chloe, Junia, Huldah, the woman of Abel Bethmaachah, Deborah, and Phoebe. That just won't work at all. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/19/16 9:04 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | Are you saying that 'an eye for an eye' is a part of the law that is not holy? Do disagree with Paul that the law is holy, just, and good. If God gave a law, can we say it is not holy? What is your point here? |
You don't need to ask what my point is. Ask what Jesus' point was in the revolutionary things he said about the law in Matthew 5. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/19/16 9:05 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | God is Father and He was Father before He created human beings in his image who had the potential for Fatherhood. Every patria in heaven and earth derives its name from the Father. |
The definitions I'm finding for patria say natural habitat or native homeland. Anyway, you are trying to make God male in a way that limits God.
Being able to procreate as a father is not how man was created in the image of God. Animals which were not created in the image of God procreate as male and female as well. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/19/16 9:09 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Adam wasn't formed from the animals for the animals. God gave man, male and female, dominion over the earth. |
For? So why do you stop reading at verse 9 and not continue through verse 12
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/19/16 9:16 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | Adam wasn't formed from the animals for the animals. God gave man, male and female, dominion over the earth. |
For? So why do you stop reading at verse 9 and not continue through verse 12
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. |
I don't stop reading there. My view is consistent with this passage.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/19/16 9:28 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | God is Father and He was Father before He created human beings in his image who had the potential for Fatherhood. Every patria in heaven and earth derives its name from the Father. |
The definitions I'm finding for patria say natural habitat or native homeland. Anyway, you are trying to make God male in a way that limits God.
Being able to procreate as a father is not how man was created in the image of God. Animals which were not created in the image of God procreate as male and female as well. |
I was transliterating a Greek word translated 'family', related to the Greek word for 'father' used in Ephesians 3:15. I'm arguing that Fatherhood existed first in God before being created into the human race.
Ephesians 3
14 For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15 from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
Your other comments don't really have much to do with the point I was making.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/19/16 9:32 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | Another way of looking at this as opposed to having a right to be on a council floor is to ask what the leadership structure is in the Bible. |
We absolutely mustn't do that because we will come across people like Chloe, Junia, Huldah, the woman of Abel Bethmaachah, Deborah, and Phoebe. That just won't work at all. |
There are certain requirements to be a presbyter/overseer in the Christian church, found in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Not the requirements to be a deaconess, propetess, etc.
If there is a gathering of presbyters, it makes sense that they be required to be qualified as presbyters to function as presbyters.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/19/16 9:35 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | I'm arguing that Fatherhood existed first in God before being created into the human race. |
But you are going beyond that if I'm understanding you correctly. Are you not saying that because God is a Father, then fathers should rule? If that is what you are saying, what do you do with the scriptures that compare God to a mother? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/19/16 9:42 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Jesus didn't endorse a modified communism that has the 'patriarchy' with 'male privelege' continually oppressing women. I don't know if the majority of the preachers in the meeting picked up on the verbage, either. |
Link, the argument being made was that allowing licensed ministers on the council floor should not be objectionable to those who want men leading because the Council of 18 and the Executive Committee would still be restricted to males.
As to the "tear down this wall," I expect most people recognized that as the famous line of Reagan to Gorbachev about the Berlin Wall. It was obviously used for effect and it elicited some chuckles, but the speaker also tied the analogy of wall to the partition that separates believers into different groups (see Ephesians 2 and Galatians 3). |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/19/16 9:43 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
So is Jesus qualified to be Bishop of our souls or not? Can you not see how silly it is when you take the guidelines Paul made in a specific instance and try to make a universal application. Even Paul would not be qualified to be a bishop according to your interpretation.
| Link wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | Another way of looking at this as opposed to having a right to be on a council floor is to ask what the leadership structure is in the Bible. |
We absolutely mustn't do that because we will come across people like Chloe, Junia, Huldah, the woman of Abel Bethmaachah, Deborah, and Phoebe. That just won't work at all. |
There are certain requirements to be a presbyter/overseer in the Christian church, found in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Not the requirements to be a deaconess, propetess, etc.
If there is a gathering of presbyters, it makes sense that they be required to be qualified as presbyters to function as presbyters. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/19/16 9:44 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Your view demands a hierarchy that verses 11 and 12 refute.
| Link wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | Adam wasn't formed from the animals for the animals. God gave man, male and female, dominion over the earth. |
For? So why do you stop reading at verse 9 and not continue through verse 12
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. |
I don't stop reading there. My view is consistent with this passage. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/19/16 9:47 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Oh, and another thing that Quiet Wyatt pointed out ages ago (but was probably missed by anyone who was busy holding forth and not reading others' posts)--if the phrase husband of one wife means only men can be bishops, it would necessarily follow that only men could be deacons since the same phrase is used about deacons.
Poor Phoebe, I guess she didn't know that. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/19/16 9:58 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | Oh, and another thing that Quiet Wyatt pointed out ages ago (but was probably missed by anyone who was busy holding forth and not reading others' posts)--if the phrase husband of one wife means only men can be bishops, it would necessarily follow that only men could be deacons since the same phrase is used about deacons.
Poor Phoebe, I guess she didn't know that. |
A deacon passage says "And their women" which could be translated "And their wives..." It doesn't say that about elders.
Btw, Paul did not tell anyone to appoint Jesus as the Head of the Church. Jesus is the Bishop of our Souls, and He also has a bride.
Paul's ministry was that of apostle. For local church leadership, he laid out a description of the type of men to look for, twice.
Elders carried over from the elders, zaqenim, in the Old Testament. How many female 'bearded ones' do you know?
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/21/16 6:35 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | Your view demands a hierarchy that verses 11 and 12 refute.
| Link wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | Adam wasn't formed from the animals for the animals. God gave man, male and female, dominion over the earth. |
For? So why do you stop reading at verse 9 and not continue through verse 12
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. |
I don't stop reading there. My view is consistent with this passage. |
|
Those verses do not refute hierarchy. Be specific with your argument. It does show us that men and women are both important. We are interdependent. That doesn't preclude hierarchy.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
8/21/16 6:37 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Link, I'm responding to specific points of your argument.
You have tried to base your hierarchy on the fact that Adam was first formed. However, the animals were formed before Adam, so that logic doesn't work.
Then you say, well, he was first formed in the pair of humans, and the woman was formed from him and for him. Yet as we see, when Paul speaks of the woman being formed for the man that speaks to interdependence as you say, not hierarchy. By itself (and I know this is complex, so try to follow through the whole point and not just the first half), it would not refute hierarchy, but IF your argument for hierarchy DEPENDS on the woman being made from the man and for the man, the fact that Paul shows in verses 11 and 12 that the relationship is reciprocal would mean this passage as an argument for hierarchy is not valid. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/21/16 7:29 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | If there is a gathering of presbyters, it makes sense that they be required to be qualified as presbyters to function as presbyters. |
I'm guessing you don't want to include the prestbyteros πρεσβύτερος mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:2. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/23/16 8:58 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
In another thread you asked
| Link wrote: | | If you do allow female bishops, does she have to be a monogamous lesbian, too? |
and here you are asking how many bearded women I know. Those statements sound disrespectful to me (because I have a sneaking suspicion the readers of Acts do NOT want me to enlighten you on what I know about women and facial hair).
Now, if you want to say there is an assumption that the bishops appointed by Timothy and Titus were to be married men with children, I think I would agree that there does seem to be that assumption. However, the phrase "husband of one wife" is not what leads me to believe that since, quite obviously that phrase is also used for deacons which you admit is not restricted to male. However, in order to determine whether the assumption that the bishops appointed by Timothy and Titus would be men is a supra-cultural prohibition on women as bishops, one has to look at scripture in its entirety. One also has to ask what exactly does a bishop do, and if any of those duties or responsibilities are prohibited to women.
Ultimately that brings us to the question with is being explored by the Church of God: what is a bishop.
I think I will start another thread on that.
| Link wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | Oh, and another thing that Quiet Wyatt pointed out ages ago (but was probably missed by anyone who was busy holding forth and not reading others' posts)--if the phrase husband of one wife means only men can be bishops, it would necessarily follow that only men could be deacons since the same phrase is used about deacons.
Poor Phoebe, I guess she didn't know that. |
A deacon passage says "And their women" which could be translated "And their wives..." It doesn't say that about elders.
Btw, Paul did not tell anyone to appoint Jesus as the Head of the Church. Jesus is the Bishop of our Souls, and He also has a bride.
Paul's ministry was that of apostle. For local church leadership, he laid out a description of the type of men to look for, twice.
Elders carried over from the elders, zaqenim, in the Old Testament. How many female 'bearded ones' do you know? |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/23/16 9:25 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Link wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | | Paul did say Adam was formed first, and that is indeed true. That is the way it happened. I don't think the implications of that are what you think they are because I believe Paul was correcting wrong teaching about Eve being formed first. |
That last sentence is highly. |
Did you mean to finish that sentence with the word "speculative"? By saying "I believe" in the sentence, I'm acknowledging that it is my opinion. I'm well aware that Paul doesn't say, "Hey, I'm correcting the gnostic teaching that is going around that says Eve was formed first." However, what is not speculative is that Paul, in 1 Timothy, is addressing false teachings. It is also not speculative that the idea that Eve came first has been a gnostic belief.
What is not speculative is that Paul cannot be placing a supra-cultural prohibition on women teaching when we consider Paul's attitude toward Priscilla, when we considered that women spoke things that are recorded in scripture to instruct us (such as the Magnificat), when we consider the actions of Deborah, Huldah, and others.
In addition, if this was a supra-cultural prohibition on women teaching, it would be wrong for women to teach children's Sunday school classes.
If you were to take these verses in 1 Timothy 2 out of context, you might think women aren't allowed to teach; you might also look at verse 14 and think that Adam was not in transgression. Surely by looking at verse 14, you can see what happens if you take this passage in isolation from other scripture. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/25/16 10:03 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
