Gender Roles, the home and the Local Church

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
mjrhealth said:
Again yo uwill have to wait to find out...
Noew which is teh greater, teh dead letter as scripture is called or the living word who is Christ Jesus??????
Its ood that you demand everyone should beleeve you while all I ask is that people seek out Christ, he is teh truth and in Him there is no lie.
I already know.
Scripture is not called the dead letter which you would know if you're actually read Hebrews 4:12.
I don't demand anything I just show the word of God you're the one that demands that people listen to you without any scriptural proof whatsoever. If there is no lie in him and there is no lie in the word of God then I guess you lied when you said the scripture is dead.
 

junobet

Active Member
May 20, 2016
581
165
43
Germany
StanJ said:
2 Tim 3:16 addresses your concern here, and it's always best to be specific when you're going to advocate a certain position.
I’m sorry my answer to your question was not precise enough for your liking. What I referred to were the Tablets of Stone (Ex. 31:18) and Jesus writing in the sand (John 8:6).

As for 2 Tim 3:16:

1.) 2 Timothy was written long before any Biblical Canon was agreed upon and later got to be part of the Canons. Which scriptures this letter may possibly have referred to remains an open question. The best bet would simply be the Tanakh, but the lack of a definite article here may also suggest that the author of 2 Timothy meant any kind of literature, even non-Biblical gentile literature such as for example “Phainomena” by Aratus, which Acts has Paul quoting from in Athens (Acts 17:28).
2.) What does it mean to be “God-breathed”? According to Gen 2:7 both you and I are in a sense God-breathed. Doesn’t make us inerrant, does it?

It was at the time in the known world. ​
Wow! Not even sure, whether that’s true or not. (I’ve got a jar of mustard seeds in my spice rack and the things look pretty big to me, but what do I know? I'm not an expert on 1th century Middle Eastern botanics.) But never mind: I’m quite astonished and delighted that you agree with the very point I was trying to make:
quite obviously the Biblical authors were not all-knowing but thought within their own times’ cultural horizons. So what in my original statement to Wormwood did you take issue with?



[SIZE=12pt]For 2000 years people have been trying to disprove the word of God and of course there are many theories out there but none of them hold any water including this one. Of course it's also debatable that people who say certain spores are considered seeds may be wrong, but that is not the issue. [/SIZE]
If you somehow got the impression that I tried to disprove the Word of God, I’m really sorry for expressing myself badly. The contrary is the case: Just like Karl Barth I trust the Gospel of John when it tells me that the Word of God became flesh and lived among us” (John 1:14). And the fact that I believe the Gospel of John when it tells me this, shows that I believe that the Bible gives sufficient testimony of the Word of God, which is God: Jesus Christ.
However, all of this is vastly off-topic. So if you are interested in discussing various Christian views on Biblical inerrancy, I suggest you open a new topic for that.
Be blessed
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
junobet said:
I’m sorry my answer to your question was not precise enough for your liking. What I referred to were the Tablets of Stone (Ex. 31:18) and Jesus writing in the sand (John 8:6).
Being facetious doesn't help and I have no idea what you were referring to, which is why I said what I did.
junobet said:
As for 2 Tim 3:16:
1.) 2 Timothy was written long before any Biblical Canon was agreed upon and later got to be part of the Canons. Which scriptures this letter may possibly have referred to remains an open question. The best bet would simply be the Tanakh, but the lack of a definite article here may also suggest that the author of 2 Timothy meant any kind of literature, even non-Biblical gentile literature such as for example “Phainomena” by Aratus, which Acts has Paul quoting from in Athens (Acts 17:28).
2.) What does it mean to be “God-breathed”? According to Gen 2:7 both you and I are in a sense God-breathed. Doesn’t make us inerrant, does it?
1.) He was talking about Holy Scriptures, not necessarily the Bible that we know, as confirmed in 2 Peter 3:15-16, so rather than deflect from the original question please just answer it with a simple yes or no. What Paul said in Acts 17:28 is no different from what he was teaching in Romans 1:20.
2.) The Greek uses θεόπνευστος (theopneustos), which is rendered as either 'God breathed' or 'divininely inspired', and nowhere near to what Genesis 2:7 refers to. Your equivocation aside, God's word is inerrant and I find it rather surprising that you as a moderator don't hold this position when the site does?
junobet said:
Wow! Not even sure, whether that’s true or not. (I’ve got a jar of mustard seeds in my spice rack and the things look pretty big to me, but what do I know? I'm not an expert on 1th century Middle Eastern botanics.) But never mind: I’m quite astonished and delighted that you agree with the very point I was trying to make quite obviously the Biblical authors were not all-knowing but thought within their own times’ cultural horizons. So what in my original statement to Wormwood did you take issue with?
Too bad you couldn't care to look it up ahead of time before you made your first statement and now you just dismiss it out of hand without even bothering to check. I'm sure if you put some effort into it you can find online support for my viewpoint.
I don't agree with you at all, despite your efforts to twist my words. The author of The Bible and all of its books is God, who used men called by Him to convey his words. I'm also not impressed by you feigning obtuseness in this response either.
junobet said:
If you somehow got the impression that I tried to disprove the Word of God, I’m really sorry for expressing myself badly. The contrary is the case: Just like Karl Barth I trust the Gospel of John when it tells me that "the Word of God became flesh and lived among us” (John 1:14). And the fact that I believe the Gospel of John when it tells me this, shows that I believe that the Bible gives sufficient testimony of the Word of God, which is God: Jesus Christ.
However, all of this is vastly off-topic. So if you are interested in discussing various Christian views on Biblical inerrancy, I suggest you open a new topic for that.
My impression was based exactly on your response. As James said in his letter comma believe is not enough because even the devil believes. Faith and commitment to God's inspired written word is what it's called for, and not equivocating about whether or not it contains flaws or errors that have never been proven. That is the point.
If you don't want to go off topic in threads, then don't go off topic, so that people are forced to address your responses. I have a distinct feeling that even if I did open another thread on this topic, you would back away from it as you already have done previously.
 

junobet

Active Member
May 20, 2016
581
165
43
Germany
StanJ said:
Being facetious doesn't help and I have no idea what you were referring to, which is why I said what I did.
1.) He was talking about Holy Scriptures, not necessarily the Bible that we know, as confirmed in 2 Peter 3:15-16, so rather than deflect from the original question please just answer it with a simple yes or no. What Paul said in Acts 17:28 is no different from what he was teaching in Romans 1:20.
2.) The Greek uses θεόπνευστος (theopneustos), which is rendered as either 'God breathed' or 'divininely inspired', and nowhere near to what Genesis 2:7 refers to. Your equivocation aside, God's word is inerrant and I find it rather surprising that you as a moderator don't hold this position when the site does?
Too bad you couldn't care to look it up ahead of time before you made your first statement and now you just dismiss it out of hand without even bothering to check. I'm sure if you put some effort into it you can find online support for my viewpoint.
I don't agree with you at all, despite your efforts to twist my words. The author of The Bible and all of its books is God, who used men called by Him to convey his words. I'm also not impressed by you feigning obtuseness in this response either.
My impression was based exactly on your response. As James said in his letter comma believe is not enough because even the devil believes. Faith and commitment to God's inspired written word is what it's called for, and not equivocating about whether or not it contains flaws or errors that have never been proven. That is the point.
If you don't want to go off topic in threads, then don't go off topic, so that people are forced to address your responses. I have a distinct feeling that even if I did open another thread on this topic, you would back away from it as you already have done previously.
[SIZE=12pt]Why so hostile StanJ?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]The Bible, which - as I tried to outline - I indeed deem to be divinely inspired, offers some good advice on how to conduct ourselves in graceful discussions:[/SIZE]

“My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry,” (James 1:19)

For a debate to be constructive all parties should at least try to understand the others’ position and arguments, rather than getting all huffing and puffing at the first comment we take to be a red flag.
The reason I chose not to answer your comment in the other thread was that it was so clearly beyond the point I had been trying to make and had already exhaustively and respectfully debated with Wormwood, that I decided to take heed of the recommendations made in the forum rules and let it go, rather than starting the entire discussion from scratch just to have the last word.
I do indeed not subscribe to the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, but tend to accept the findings of Biblical scholarship as taught not only in my home-towns theological faculties but (as far as I'm aware of) also in Cambridge, Oxford, Princeton, Yale … . If you take issue with it, that a Christian who is fine with Higher Criticism got made Moderator on this Board, I suggest you make your complaint via the appropriate channels.
With kind greetings, your sister in Christ,
junobet
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
junobet said:
Why so hostile StanJ?
The Bible, which - as I tried to outline - I indeed deem to be divinely inspired, offers some good advice on how to conduct ourselves in graceful discussions:
“My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry,” (James 1:19)
You assume I'm angry because I am up front or confrontational? What exactly were the words I posted that conveyed that I was angry?
junobet said:
For a debate to be constructive all parties should at least try to understand the others’ position and arguments, rather than getting all huffing and puffing at the first comment we take to be a red flag.
The reason I chose not to answer your comment in the other thread was that it was so clearly beyond the point I had been trying to make and had already exhaustively and respectfully debated with Wormwood, that I decided to take heed of the recommendations made in the forum rules and let it go, rather than starting the entire discussion from scratch just to have the last word.
Well if you would have posted that in the first place then I might have been a little more understanding but seeing as though you decided to just outright dismiss your responsibility to reply I was not impressed. That doesn't mean I was angry. By the way it wasn't just that one instance, it was a series of posts that you have been loathe to properly address.
junobet said:
I do indeed not subscribe to the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, but tend to accept the findings of Biblical scholarship as taught not only in my home-towns theological faculties but (as far as I'm aware of) also in Cambridge, Oxford, Princeton, Yale … . If you take issue with it, that a Christian who is fine with Higher Criticism got made Moderator on this Board, I suggest you make your complaint via the appropriate channels.
With kind greetings, your sister in Christ,
junobet
I had never heard of this document until you mentioned it above, but I have to say I'm quite impressed by the names that are attached to it, despite the fact that I may not agree with some of their doctrinal positions.
You'll find I take issue with many things so get used to it but as far as 'Higher Criticism' is concerned, I find that a rather elitist description of Ivy League institutions, and you provide no corroboration that they subscribe to your prospective on the Bible.
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
If there is no lie in him and there is no lie in the word of God
YEs you are right, since He is teh word of God there is no lie in Him,

Scripture is not called the dead lette
2Co_3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Why because,

Joh_6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Or as the bible puts it,

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Seems Jesus declared that life was only in Him and if that is so than teh letter is dead, why, well there is plenty of evidence on that on these forums. But than you dont beleiev te hbible which is odd considereing I actually do hold a lot of it in High regard, but than Stan I do hear voices in my head if i did not I would be dead because my brain would not be functioning. At least there are some who know the voice of there master.

I don't demand anything I just show the word of God y
No you just show the bible they can watch it on youtube, and get a different opinion to you.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The problem is that human beings – myself included – have the tendency to believe that God hates whatever they hate. And they can usually point to passages from Holy Scripture that seem to confirm their views. My grandfather for example, a very typical conservative German Protestant of his time, thought that his anti-Semitism was soundly grounded in the Gospel of John. I suppose both you and I would say that this was bad exegesis. But who can really tell whether ours is much better?
Hmm. I have to say, junobet, these arguments you make concern me. It's like saying, "Well, the Nazi's thought they were right, but they were mistaken. Who knows, maybe we are mistaken too. Therefore, lets just live and let live."

I dont think the Bible is as hard to understand as you imply. As I see it, saying the Bible validates hatred for a race of people is no different than saying that God has no problem with homosexual marriages. The Bible CLEARLY says that God loves all people and that he loves the Jewish nation (along with every other nation). So, someone pretty much has to ignore very plain passages to validate this kind of evil. In the same way, the Bible very clearly says homosexuality is wicked on numerous occasions, and someone pretty much has to ignore plain passages to validate it.

Obviously we just have two very different approaches to Scripture. Your view seems to be that there are a lot of different ideas out there, so who knows who is right. We should just accept pretty much everyone and everything. My view is that Scripture is pretty easy to understand and we are called to obey it and not figure out reasons why much of it no longer applies. I mean, if we cannot understand it when it clearly says that women should not have authority over men in the local church and that men and women should not lust after the same sex, them maybe we dont understand any of it. Perhaps we should just all throw up our hands and do whatever we want to do? After all, if some people misunderstood it, maybe we dont really have to love one another? Maybe your grandpa was right? Who are we to say he was wrong?

Personally, when I stand before God, I want to stand with a clear conscience knowing that I obeyed exactly what he said to the best of my ability and trusted in his grace to help me where I failed. I dont want to stand before him and say, "Well, Lord, I know you said that was evil, but there were some people who felt like there was a good reason to ignore that and so I just decided to go with them on the issue and taught others to ignore your Word."
 

junobet

Active Member
May 20, 2016
581
165
43
Germany
Wormwood said:
Hmm. I have to say, junobet, these arguments you make concern me. It's like saying, "Well, the Nazi's thought they were right, but they were mistaken. Who knows, maybe we are mistaken too. Therefore, lets just live and let live."

I dont think the Bible is as hard to understand as you imply. As I see it, saying the Bible validates hatred for a race of people is no different than saying that God has no problem with homosexual marriages. The Bible CLEARLY says that God loves all people and that he loves the Jewish nation (along with every other nation). So, someone pretty much has to ignore very plain passages to validate this kind of evil. In the same way, the Bible very clearly says homosexuality is wicked on numerous occasions, and someone pretty much has to ignore plain passages to validate it.

Obviously we just have two very different approaches to Scripture. Your view seems to be that there are a lot of different ideas out there, so who knows who is right. We should just accept pretty much everyone and everything. My view is that Scripture is pretty easy to understand and we are called to obey it and not figure out reasons why much of it no longer applies. I mean, if we cannot understand it when it clearly says that women should not have authority over men in the local church and that men and women should not lust after the same sex, them maybe we dont understand any of it. Perhaps we should just all throw up our hands and do whatever we want to do? After all, if some people misunderstood it, maybe we dont really have to love one another? Maybe your grandpa was right? Who are we to say he was wrong?

Personally, when I stand before God, I want to stand with a clear conscience knowing that I obeyed exactly what he said to the best of my ability and trusted in his grace to help me where I failed. I dont want to stand before him and say, "Well, Lord, I know you said that was evil, but there were some people who felt like there was a good reason to ignore that and so I just decided to go with them on the issue and taught others to ignore your Word."
[SIZE=medium]Well, Wormwood, I think you make it too easy for yourself and you can only do so by blending out large parts of the Bible. If the Bible was so easy to understand, why do you think we have so very many different denominations who argue about what it is that it says. In this forum alone you won’t find two people who always understand it in the exact same way.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]For example I agree with you that “God loves all people and that he loves the Jewish nation”. However, I arrived at this belief through hard prayerful study and via the grace of living faith, that put passages like 1 Samuel 15:2-3 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]and John 8:37-47 into perspective. (And no, it was not just the Nazis who failed to do put such passages into perspective. Anti-Semitism and the blessing of weapons for wars against other people has a long-standing tradition in Christianity.)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]With Martin Luther (himself a roaring Anti-Semite, by the way) I agree that Scripture interprets Scripture. That means you can’t just pick out single verses and chapters and claim they ‘prove’ God wants female subordination and hates homosexuality, which I think is what you’ve been doing here. We need to read the Bible in its entirety, to make light of such passages and we have to read them with Christ at its center and with His Spirit opening our heart for understanding. Only then does the Bible become the word of God (seeing that I’ve still got the window open from another thread, this may explain what I mean: http://www.academia.edu/658913/The_Word_as_Event_Barth_and_Bultmann_on_Scripture).If we read the Bible in any other way, the letter will indeed kill. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I see the problem you have with my relativism and with my call for constant critical self-reflection and prayer concerning one’s own views. It stems from the humble realization that - however fiercely I hold my personal convictions about what I think it is God tells me through Scripture that bears witness of Him - that God is ultimately beyond our limited human understanding. Alas, it's a humility that many Evangelicals, who've turned the Bible into an Idol, don't share. Seems 1 Cor. 13:12 ain't high up on their reading list.[/SIZE]
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
mjrhealth said:
He is teh word of God there is no lie in Him,
No, he is God the word. That's not the same thing. The word of God always refers to the Scriptures of God.
mjrhealth said:
2Co_3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Why because,
Joh_6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Again I don't know why you use the KJV when you don't understand it?
What Paul said was;
who made us adequate to be servants of a new covenant not based on the letter but on the Spirit, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Paul was referring to the Old Covenant not the New Covenant.
mjrhealth said:
Or as the bible puts it,
Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
What John said in chapter 5 in context is;
You people have never heard his voice nor seen his form at any time, nor do you have his word residing in you, because you do not believe the one whom he sent. You study the scriptures thoroughly because you think in them you possess eternal life, and it is these same scriptures that testify about me, but you are not willing to come to me so that you may have life.
Jesus was telling the Pharisees that they didn't have his written word in their hearts they only read it from the book and the book was not something to have a relationship with. Eternal life is in Jesus but unless you listen to God's written word to show you who Jesus is you cannot possess eternal life. Jesus showed very clearly that the scriptures testify about him and that the Pharisees were not WILLING to come to him.
mjrhealth said:
Seems Jesus declared that life was only in Him and if that is so than teh letter is dead, why, well there is plenty of evidence on that on these forums. But than you dont beleiev te hbible which is odd considereing I actually do hold a lot of it in High regard, but than Stan I do hear voices in my head if i did not I would be dead because my brain would not be functioning. At least there are some who know the voice of there master.
Jesus declared that life was only in him but that you could only find him in the written word of God. John said the same thing in chapter 20:31. You either have to use and believe all of God's word or none of it. You can't just pick and choose what you want to use for your own point of view.
mjrhealth said:
No you just show the bible they can watch it on youtube, and get a different opinion to you.
We're dealing with this issue right here right now with the word of God, not on YouTube. I don't watch YouTube.
You need to deal with these issues right here and right now, not deal with issues that have nothing to do with what we're talking about here. YouTube is full of false teaching.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
junobet said:
I see the problem you have with my relativism and with my call for constant critical self-reflection and prayer concerning one’s own views. It stems from the humble realization that - however fiercely I hold my personal convictions about what I think it is God tells me through Scripture that bears witness of Him - that God is ultimately beyond our limited human understanding. Alas, it's a humility that many Evangelicals, who've turned the Bible into an Idol, don't share. Seems 1 Cor. 13:12 ain't high up on their reading list.
Anyone who knows Jesus will have a problem with your relativism because God is absolute and the words of Jesus are absolute as is the written word of God. I don't see critical self-reflection in your words I see criticism. And especially of evangelicalism which again makes me wonder what you're doing here on an Evangelical board?
The totality of God may be beyond our limited human understanding but what we may know of God is in his written word. It is clear and constant and as such he never changes. That is absolute.
There are a lot of things in 1st Corinthians 13 that people forget about including verse 4.
 

junobet

Active Member
May 20, 2016
581
165
43
Germany
StanJ said:
I don't see critical self-reflection in your words I see criticism. And especially of evangelicalism which again makes me wonder what you're doing here on an Evangelical board?
Did I misunderstand this welcome message?

"We are a nondenominational Christian forum in that we welcome the diversity of Christianity and we are not attached to any one denominational Group."
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
junobet said:
Did I misunderstand this welcome message?
"We are a nondenominational Christian forum in that we welcome the diversity of Christianity and we are not attached to any one denominational Group."
Evangelicalism is not a denomination but as I said things may have changed a lot since I was last here a few months ago.
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
junobet said:
[SIZE=medium]Well, Wormwood, I think you make it too easy for yourself and you can only do so by blending out large parts of the Bible. If the Bible was so easy to understand, why do you think we have so very many different denominations who argue about what it is that it says. In this forum alone you won’t find two people who always understand it in the exact same way.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]For example I agree with you that “God loves all people and that he loves the Jewish nation”. However, I arrived at this belief through hard prayerful study and via the grace of living faith, that put passages like 1 Samuel 15:2-3 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]and John 8:37-47 into perspective. (And no, it was not just the Nazis who failed to do put such passages into perspective. Anti-Semitism and the blessing of weapons for wars against other people has a long-standing tradition in Christianity.)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]With Martin Luther (himself a roaring Anti-Semite, by the way) I agree that Scripture interprets Scripture. That means you can’t just pick out single verses and chapters and claim they ‘prove’ God wants female subordination and hates homosexuality, which I think is what you’ve been doing here. We need to read the Bible in its entirety, to make light of such passages and we have to read them with Christ at its center and with His Spirit opening our heart for understanding. Only then does the Bible become the word of God (seeing that I’ve still got the window open from another thread, this may explain what I mean: http://www.academia.edu/658913/The_Word_as_Event_Barth_and_Bultmann_on_Scripture).If we read the Bible in any other way, the letter will indeed kill. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I see the problem you have with my relativism and with my call for constant critical self-reflection and prayer concerning one’s own views. It stems from the humble realization that - however fiercely I hold my personal convictions about what I think it is God tells me through Scripture that bears witness of Him - that God is ultimately beyond our limited human understanding. Alas, it's a humility that many Evangelicals, who've turned the Bible into an Idol, don't share. Seems 1 Cor. 13:12 ain't high up on their reading list.[/SIZE]
In my opinion, one of the reasons we have so many denominations is that traditions, cultural expediencies and philosophies have usurped the authority of the Scriptures in many cases. Yet, Im sure there would still be a number of denominations even if only the Bible was used as the sole authority for Christian faith and practice. Yet again, it seems your approach to the Bible is, "well who can really say?" I mean, rather than expounding on Scripture, your arguments on women roles and homosexuality has been that other people have got it wrong in the past, and chances are we are wrong too. I think this is a very misguided approach. It seems that doubt is your guiding principle in interpreting the Bible rather than faith.

I object to your implication that I practice Bibliolatry. In fact, I think the very concept of idolatry toward the Bible is nonsense. If the Bible truly is God's Word and breathed out by Him, then it cannot be idolized. Unlike our words, God's Word is an extension of himself and his very character and being. The Bible is the way by which God has revealed himself, his will, his desires and his character. The Words of the Bible are the Words of God. Therefore, in my opinion, one cannot take those words too seriously or make an idol out of them any more than someone can make an idol out of Jesus. Jesus was the Word made flesh and we worship and obey him. The Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God carried on to us by the guidance of the Spirit and the blood of the saints. To suggest one can make an idol out of it tells me that you do not understand its nature or purpose very well.

I agree with you that we should be humble and self-critical. We should not act as if our own view is the only view or imagine our own interpretations are incapable of error. I am not saying we should not be humble in our approach to the Scriptures. However, I simply think you go too far by suggesting that because Luther had flaws and there are people who are anti-semites out there that we should therefore approve of homosexuality, female pastors and whatever else seems good to us. I mean, it seems to me there is little to no attempt here to even make the Scriptures have a voice on the matter. You still havent answered my questions. Do you believe a person should be able to engage in pedophilia and beastiality? Based on your approach to Scripture, it would seem that we shouldnt draw any lines because, after all, people have been wrong in the past. Maybe 100 years from now everyone will engage in such practices and we will be looked back upon as narrow-minded bigots toward those who "love" their animals, and children.
 

junobet

Active Member
May 20, 2016
581
165
43
Germany
Wormwood said:
In my opinion, one of the reasons we have so many denominations is that traditions, cultural expediencies and philosophies have usurped the authority of the Scriptures in many cases. Yet, Im sure there would still be a number of denominations even if only the Bible was used as the sole authority for Christian faith and practice. Yet again, it seems your approach to the Bible is, "well who can really say?" I mean, rather than expounding on Scripture, your arguments on women roles and homosexuality has been that other people have got it wrong in the past, and chances are we are wrong too. I think this is a very misguided approach. It seems that doubt is your guiding principle in interpreting the Bible rather than faith.

I object to your implication that I practice Bibliolatry. In fact, I think the very concept of idolatry toward the Bible is nonsense. If the Bible truly is God's Word and breathed out by Him, then it cannot be idolized. Unlike our words, God's Word is an extension of himself and his very character and being. The Bible is the way by which God has revealed himself, his will, his desires and his character. The Words of the Bible are the Words of God. Therefore, in my opinion, one cannot take those words too seriously or make an idol out of them any more than someone can make an idol out of Jesus. Jesus was the Word made flesh and we worship and obey him. The Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God carried on to us by the guidance of the Spirit and the blood of the saints. To suggest one can make an idol out of it tells me that you do not understand its nature or purpose very well.

I agree with you that we should be humble and self-critical. We should not act as if our own view is the only view or imagine our own interpretations are incapable of error. I am not saying we should not be humble in our approach to the Scriptures. However, I simply think you go too far by suggesting that because Luther had flaws and there are people who are anti-semites out there that we should therefore approve of homosexuality, female pastors and whatever else seems good to us. I mean, it seems to me there is little to no attempt here to even make the Scriptures have a voice on the matter. You still havent answered my questions. Do you believe a person should be able to engage in pedophilia and beastiality? Based on your approach to Scripture, it would seem that we shouldnt draw any lines because, after all, people have been wrong in the past. Maybe 100 years from now everyone will engage in such practices and we will be looked back upon as narrow-minded bigots toward those who "love" their animals, and children.
You’ve overlooked that the Bible itself tells us about women taking on pastoral roles. I’m afraid it’s your traditional bias that makes you deny that Paul counts Junia as an apostle.
I have already answered your question on paedophilia and bestiality: neither children nor animals have the necessary ability to consent to sexual acts and we know that forcing adult sexuality on sexually immature children does grave psychological harm to children. We also know that any attempt to get people to deny or change their sexual orientation will not only be unsuccessful but does significant harm to their psychological well-being. Love does forbid to harm another person. Instead it always puts the well-being of others first.
As for why I fear you are on the way of turning the Bible into an idol by basically adding it to the Trinity, see the linked article about Karl Barth’s view on Scripture, which I share. You’ll find my short summary of it here: http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/23020-is-our-bible-of-66-books-the-inerrant-word-of-god/
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
junobet said:
You’ve overlooked that the Bible itself tells us about women taking on pastoral roles. I’m afraid it’s your traditional bias that makes you deny that Paul counts Junia as an apostle.
Paul did not count Junia as an apostle. The proper rendering in Romans 16:7 is; Greet Andronicus and Junia, my compatriots and my fellow prisoners; they were well known to the apostles, and they also were in Christ before me.
Jesus was the only one that appointed apostles.
 

junobet

Active Member
May 20, 2016
581
165
43
Germany
StanJ said:
Paul did not count Junia as an apostle. The proper rendering in Romans 16:7 is; Greet Andronicus and Junia, my compatriots and my fellow prisoners; they were well known to the apostles, and they also were in Christ before me.
Jesus was the only one that appointed apostles.
[SIZE=medium]That’s what I meant by bias. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]I prefer translations that are as close to the original as possible. Imho the NIV seems to make a good job of that: [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.“ [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Still leaves it as open as the Greek original does whether Junia was an outstanding apostle or whether the apostles thought her outstanding. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Obviously some scribes – when copying manuscripts still written in uncials whilst they themselves already used minuscules with accents - thought the first reading was what was meant. That’s why they turned ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ not into [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]᾿Ιουνίαν [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]=[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] Junia but into into [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]᾿Ιουνιᾶν [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]= [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Junias. Living centuries after the Council of Laodicea (the 4[/SIZE][SIZE=small]th[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] century Council on which the Roman Catholic Church bases its rejection of women priests), they thought it impossible that a woman could have been an apostle. Of course they could have been wrong not only in their gendering of ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ but also in leaning towards the idea that Paul counts ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ as an apostle – to me the latter question [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]remains undecided. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Do I agree with the Council of Laodicea, which barred women from touching the holy vessels? No. I’m a Protestant and as such I think Councils can be wrong. [/SIZE]
 

lforrest

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Admin
Aug 10, 2012
5,546
6,793
113
Faith
Christian
I'll join the conversation now specifically to discuss the role of women in the local Church.

1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent."
I understand this command is due to the natural order of things that has been established by God.

Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
This does not negate the scripture above, It shows all are equal in Christ. This is a spiritual reality, whereas the above natural order is merely symbolic of the spiritual reality that we are subject to Christ.

So to what extent are we beholden to symbols when it comes to our lives on this earth? What about surgery to prolong our lives, the natural order is for people to die so why resist?

It is my opinion that if a woman is called to one of these positions of leadership that call is spiritual, and therefore negates the symbolic.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
junobet said:
That’s what I meant by bias.
I prefer translations that are as close to the original as possible. Imho the NIV seems to make a good job of that: Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.“ Still leaves it as open as the Greek original does whether Junia was an outstanding apostle or whether the apostles thought her outstanding.

Obviously some scribes – when copying manuscripts still written in uncials whilst they themselves already used minuscules with accents - thought the first reading was what was meant. That’s why they turned ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ not into ᾿Ιουνίαν = Junia but into into ᾿Ιουνιᾶν = Junias. Living centuries after the Council of Laodicea (the 4th century Council on which the Roman Catholic Church bases its rejection of women priests), they thought it impossible that a woman could have been an apostle. Of course they could have been wrong not only in their gendering of ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ but also in leaning towards the idea that Paul counts ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ as an apostle – to me the latter question remains undecided.
Do I agree with the Council of Laodicea, which barred women from touching the holy vessels? No. I’m a Protestant and as such I think Councils can be wrong.
I don't have a problem with what the NIV says either, but MOUNCE is a reverse Greek Interlinear and as such I find it much more accurate than anything else out there. You can meet all the English versions in the following link and I'm sure if you're honest with yourself that you'll find they say exactly what MOUNCE says.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans%2016:7
FYI, MOUNCE was part of the translation team for the NIV. There's little doubt that Paul is speaking of their reputation and not their status. As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I have no problem with women leadership as pastors or elders or deacons or overseers or whatever you want to call them. I clearly excerpted, from your post, what I wanted to deal with.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
lforrest said:
I'll join the conversation now specifically to discuss the role of women in the local Church.

1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent." [/size]
I understand this command is due to the natural order of things that has been established by God.

Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
This does not negate the scripture above, It shows all are equal in Christ. This is a spiritual reality, whereas the above natural order is merely symbolic of the spiritual reality that we are subject to Christ.

So to what extent are we beholden to symbols when it comes to our lives on this earth? What about surgery to prolong our lives, the natural order is for people to die so why resist?

It is my opinion that if a woman is called to one of these positions of leadership that call is spiritual, and therefore negates the symbolic.
I've dealt with this issue many many times over the years so forgive me if I can't remember whether I dealt with it here or not.
In 1 Tim 2:12, Paul is dealing with a specific issue there in Ephesus, that was manifesting itself in the home life of new converts. The context of verses 9-15 is about how women should govern themselves in their home settings, not the corporate Church setting. In the home there can only be one head and that head must be, according to scripture, the man. Obviously women were teaching men because women worked with Paul as fellow workers.
I agree with the rest of your post however I don't agree that it's symbolic, just that it is misunderstood according to the context it is given in.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
StanJ said:
I don't have a problem with what the NIV says either, but MOUNCE is a reverse Greek Interlinear and as such I find it much more accurate than anything else out there. You can meet all the English versions in the following link and I'm sure if you're honest with yourself that you'll find they say exactly what MOUNCE says.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans%2016:7
FYI, MOUNCE was part of the translation team for the NIV. There's little doubt that Paul is speaking of their reputation and not their status. As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I have no problem with women leadership as pastors or elders or deacons or overseers or whatever you want to call them. I clearly excerpted, from your post, what I wanted to deal with.
Stan,

The purpose of a Greek-English interlinear NT is to provide the Greek text in one line with the literal English translation word-for-word in the second line - right under the Greek text.

However, there is no parsing or understanding of the Greek grammar in an interlinear translation.

Benefits of an interlinear translation include:
  1. One translation of each word of the text. It does not give an interpretation. It does not parse any word. To do that an Analytical Greek Lexicon is of great help (for those of us who sometimes forget conjugations of verbals and declensions of nouns or adjectives).
  2. It demonstrates how word-for-word from Greek to English is impossible to make sense in many circumstances. It shows how some extra words are needed to make sentences to make sense. Compare any verse of Mounce and ESV or NRSV and you'll see how extra words are needed to make a text flow into a sentence.
Going to an interlinear does not prove much help when one is trying to do exegesis. Knowledge of the Greek grammar is what is needed for that.

Oz