Petition, Role Of Women in Minstry, SDA, Stand For The Word Of God and Christ Jesus

[Ubuntu]

Personally I prefer to assume that people are truthful, and in this case he later explained that he had been misinterpreted. Of course you're entitled to having your own opinion, so you're naturally free to denounce our leaders as apostates if that's what you want. Just keep in mind that by the standard we judge our brother, we ourselves will be judged!

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about this one...

 

[The Fundamentalist]

Back to the OP topic.

What is truly astounding, is that no one even attempts to address the Scriptural and SoP, neither Roman Hierarchical doctrine, nor photographic evidence as already given here -

Deal with this evidence, no more distractions:

awhn.webs.com/woeuntous.htm

http://www.christianforums.com/t7664260-3/#post67010391

Deal with the evidence as cited by another brother in regards a certain theologian, and his methodology at arriving at the conclusion he did- http://www.christianforums.com/t7664260-3/#post67036718

 

[JojotheBeloved]

Back to the OP topic.

What is truly astounding, is that no one even attempts to address the Scriptural and SoP, neither Roman Hierarchical doctrine, nor photographic evidence as already given here -

Deal with this evidence, no more distractions:

awhn.webs.com/woeuntous.htm

http://www.christianforums.com/t7664260-3/#post67010391

Deal with the evidence as cited by another brother in regards a certain theologian, and his methodology at arriving at the conclusion he did- http://www.christianforums.com/t7664260-3/#post67036718

First, you tell me two things.

One: Show me Jesus and His love in anything argued by those sources. Mary of Bethany sat at Jesus' feet along with His other disciples. She was with the apostles at Pentecost, and she was first to carry the message that the Savior had risen from the dead. Jesus respected and trusted her with such discipleship and such a message. Show me Jesus.


Two: Show me how you reconcile a young woman from midwestern America in the 1800s, who did not go beyond the third grade in formal academic knowledge... a young woman who was less than the picture of health her entire life (in other words, "the least of these")... was trusted by God to carry the most influential messages of her entire faith community and how those messages have continued to influence in dramatic and powerful ways the Seventh-day Adventist World Church long past her lifetime... show me how you reconcile THAT with the arguments put forth against women ministering in some of the exact same ways she did during her lifetime and still consider the faith community God built through her to be valuable or valid.

Paul, the one whose letters are often used to argue against women being in church leadership positions yet who openly states in several letters in the Bible that he worked with and supported specific women by name who were leaders in the early church, said in 1 Corinthians 12 - "Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good... All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines... Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ... The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor... God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it." Shouldn't we all have equal concern for anyone who is called by God to minister? Shouldn't we, as a faith community, align our hearts in harmony with Christ's as He gives honor to the parts of His body whom have lacked it for so long? Show me where the arguments put forward uplift the least of these, as Christ does. Show me where the arguments put forward show equal concern for all parts of Christ's church body - male or female. Show me how we may be united in Christ when we divide ourselves and the roles WE allow GOD to ordain along lines of gender in our community.

Show me Christ's love for all humankind.
1 Corinthians 13:4-8, 13 says, "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails... And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." Show me God's love for men, women, children, young, old, and even every creature or object He chooses to speak on His behalf. For Christ said that even the rocks would cry out if those who proclaim Christ are silenced.

 

[The Fundamentalist]

First, you tell me two things.

Will you now demand, and yet again not deal directly with any of the materials already given?

Sister, will you address any point in any of the materials given?

One: Show me Jesus and His love ...

Sister, I will ask, did you read the entire article in the link and the material therein? Will you please answer "yes" or "no"?

The definition that seems to undergird the word "love" you are using, seems to not be Biblically based, but herein is a few texts to begin with:

Revelation 3:19 KJB - As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Deuteronomy 11:1 KJB - Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, alway.

2 Timothy 4:2 KJB - Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Titus 2:15 KJB - These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.
​

etc.

One: Show me Jesus and His love in anything argued by those sources.

Therefore, it was "love" [1 Cor 13] that motivated the article, in which it is warning you with all, that you might be spared falling into the snare of the devil, and of the harlot [the pit, deep ditch]. In the love of Christ, the trumpet and warning was sounded, and if you or any continue to disregard and so fall in, I and others are released from your blood. However, that blood and the blood of any others taken into the same snare, pit and death will be upon you, and those which do the same.

Mary of Bethany sat at Jesus' feet along with His other disciples.

So did others, including children. And? Will you now ordain children to sacred office? Sister, by every word that is now spoken, and not in the manner of addressing what was already provided, the hole is being dug deeper and deeper. Soon, a line will be crossed with God, in which you cannot go back. If only you understood Ezekiel 5-9.

She was with the apostles at Pentecost, and she was first to carry the message that the Savior had risen from the dead.

And? No one is saying a woman cannot be a messenger of God [indeed they can be and have been], except as such as they erroneously foist it upon us, even though it be not our position from Scripture. Again, what does this have to do with countering any of the evidence provided, and how does it possibly make any valid connection to the subject at hand? Sister, it does no such thing. Mary Magdalena is not in the office of Apostle/Bishop/Elder, etc.... Of course, this was already demonstrated in the materials provided you, even in the first link, she instead goes unto those who are the Apostles, the men chose by Jesus Christ and so designated by Him as such:

Luke 24:10 KJB - It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary [the mother] of James, and other [women that were] with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
​

Clear as the water of life.

Jesus respected and trusted her with such discipleship and such a message.

And? Male and female are all called to be disciples, and to "follow" Jesus. Each are to bear a message to the world for Christ Jesus. What does any of that have to do in answering the materials presented in the links, or in any way making a connection to the subject at hand?

Who is saying that women are not to be disciples, and not to be messengers?

Strawmen and straws, sister.

Show me Jesus.

I have. You refused Him. You did not like the character set forth as Christ Jesus being the submissive to the Father. That relationship is in the model God gave from Creation, even before [as demonstrated in the links], in Adam and Eve.

You refuse to submit to the word, even the Word, even to the Man, even as that Whorish religion who refuses to submit to her husband [Christ], and seeks to stand in His place [anti-christos; vicarivs christi, etc] and exalts her own position, being not so made of God, but she glorifieth herself.

Ephesians 5:23 KJB - For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

1 Corinthians 11:3 KJB - But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

1 Timothy 3:5 KJB - (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
​

What shall you do with these texts sister, in their context? Read the materials provided and see how they connect to the Great Controversy in Heaven. You do not realize that you are following the same reasoning as Lucifer, and I do not in any way mean to be derogatory, but with all love [1 Cor 13], and so I comment from concern for your heart/life/safety. At the root of this argument, is the same argument Lucifer had against the Godhead, and position of Jesus Christ. Turn sister, please go back, read and turn, before judgment comes upon you. If you understood Ezekiel, it is already coming.

Two: Show me how you reconcile a young woman from midwestern America in the 1800s, who did not go beyond the third grade in formal academic knowledge... a young woman who was less than the picture of health her entire life (in other words, "the least of these")... was trusted by God to carry the most influential messages of her entire faith community and how those messages have continued to influence in dramatic and powerful ways the Seventh-day Adventist World Church long past her lifetime... show me how you reconcile THAT with the arguments put forth against women ministering in some of the exact same ways she did during her lifetime and still consider the faith community God built through her to be valuable or valid.

Simple, and if you had read the articles and material at all in any detail, slowly and prayerfully, you would recognize that sister Ellen G White was called of God to be a Messenger of the LORD, a Prophetess. However, I do hope you notice that God called two men first to that place?

Yet, what does sister Ellen G White being in the place of Prophetess have to do with countering what was stated in the least? This is already acknowledged, approved, accepted, taught, exhorted, believed, etc.

No one is saying women ought not to minister. No one is saying sister Ellen G White did not minister. What is being said is that she was not ever in the office of an Apostle, Elder, Bishop, etc.

The problem lies in how you would define "minister" apart from the Scriptural [KJB] definition of the word and in how God defines that for women in Scripture as well as for men.

To minister is not automatically to be ordained Bishop/Elder, etc. It simply means to serve, and all in Christ Jesus are called to serve. Yet, Scripture is clear not all are to serve in the same function or offices.

Women are being sucked away from ministering in the home and community, and the lives of their children and of the society are paying for it. Much blood... Yet this also goes for men, refusing to take up that which God hath given them to do...

Isaiah 3:12 KJB - [As for] my people, children [are] their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause [thee] to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
​

 

[The Fundamentalist]

Paul, the one whose letters are often used to argue against women being in church leadership positions yet who openly states in several letters in the Bible that he worked with and supported specific women by name who were leaders in the early church,

Paul is very clear as already shown, and he quoting the unbreakable Scripture [John 10:35] under the guidance of the Holy Spirit Himself. Do not seek to misplace the blame upon us, but take it up with God sister, for it is currently Him and His doctrine you presently are despising so easily. Please reconsider.

That is very vague sister in regards "church leadership". Define who and what please and you will see it was already addressed in the link originally given you.

[1] Deborah was a prophetess [Judges 4:4], when she eventually judged in Israel [in a time when "every man did what was right in his own eyes", etc], and we will notice that she herself needed the aide of Barak, the male to take the lead. Hebrews 11:32 also gives the mention to Barak. It is a different gift and not the office of a Priest/Apostle/Bishop. As 1 Corinthians 12:8 and Ephesians 4:11; etc reveal, we see that Apostles and Prophets are not the same gift, neither office.


[As for] my people, children [are] their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause [thee] to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. Isaiah 3:12


[2] Miriam was a prophetess. It is a different gift and not the office of a Priest/Apostle/Bishop., for also Aaron and Moses were also prophets, but only of the Males was Moses the Messenger of the Lord, and Aaron the Highpriest, and only of those two ever had entered into the Most Holy Place, and only Aaron served as High Priest.


[3] Huldah was a prophetess [2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chronicles 34:22]. It is a different gift and not the office of a Priest/Apostle/Bishop.


[4] Isaiah's Wife, a prophetess [Isaiah 8:3]. It is a different gift and not the office of a Priest/Apostle/Bishop.


[5] Esther, aka Hadassah, was a Queen of Persia [Esther 2:17], along with King of Persia Ahasuerus [Xerxes I the Great], not a prophetess, nor Priest, High Priest, nor Apostle, nor Bishop, etc. Queen is a different office of an earthly Kingdom, even under the rule of her husband.


[6] Mary Magdalene, is nowhere stated in Scripture as having any office, but is called a disciple of Jesus, though if she were of the 120 in the upper room at Pentecost, then a gift was bestowed.


It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary [the mother] of James, and other [women that were] with them, which told these things unto the apostles. Luke 24:10


It is clear by this text, that these women, as devoted and Christian as any, are not “apostles” themselves, but went unto to those who were.


[7] Anna in the Temple, the daughter of Phanuel is a prophetess [Luke 2:36]. It is a different gift and not the office of a Priest/Apostle/Bishop., and even though she was in the Temple, she was never to be considered in the office of "Priest", "High priest", etc. and she could not enter into certain areas of the Temple, nor their functions.


[8] Elizabeth, John the Baptist's mother, was married to a Priest ["Son of Aaron", Zecharias], but herself was not in the office of Priest, even though she was a "daughter of Aaron". It is not the office of a Priest/Apostle/Bishop.


[9] The 4 Daughters of Philip the Evangelist [Acts 21:9] were prophetesses. It is a different gift and not the office of a Priest/Apostle/Bishop.


[0]Priscilla, aka “Prisca” is the wife of Aquila, and both are called by Paul, "my helpers in Christ Jesus". Who is the head of household, it is Aquila according to Scripture. Priscilla, is always mentioned with her husband in every single text which names her, and the Husband is the Head of the Wife: Acts 18:2,18,26; Romans 16:3; 1 Corinthians 16:19; 2 Timothy 4:19 [“Prisca”]. “Helpers” is from the Greek “συνεργούς”, and means fellow laborer, fellow worker, fellow helper, etc and is not the same as “Apostle”, “Bishop”, etc. As for their teaching Apollos, notice, “they took him [Apollos] unto [them]” [Acts 18:26], apart unto themselves, privately.


[1]Phebe, “our sister”, was a “servant” [Greek: “διάκονον”, Tr. Greek “diakonon”] of the church [Romans 16:1]. It is a different position [whether an actual office or no] and not the office of a Priest/Apostle/Bishop.


[2] Jezebel, that symbol of the self-styled prophetess, which deemed to teach false things. She was not called to be a prophetess by God, but she “calleth herself a prophetess” [Revelation 2:20], and “glorified herself” [Revelation 8:17]. That False Church of Revelation 17, even attempts to stand in the place of the Husband, Christ Jesus. Very dangerous...


Therefore, those particular women and the context in which they are given unto us, do not say that a woman can take the office of "Pastor"/"Priest"/"High Priest"/"Apostle", etc. Verily a woman may speak, teach, preach, even be a prophetess, “servant” or a Queen, even judging Israel, but there shall not be found that any of those texts in their context ever designate those godly women with such "offices" as "Priest"/"High Priest"/"Pastor"/"Apostle"/”Bishop”. Those functions which they did occupy are not synonymous with such offices.

said in 1 Corinthians 12 - "Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good... All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines... Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ... The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor... God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it." Shouldn't we all have equal concern for anyone who is called by God to minister? Shouldn't we, as a faith community, align our hearts in harmony with Christ's as He gives honor to the parts of His body whom have lacked it for so long? Show me where the arguments put forward uplift the least of these, as Christ does. Show me where the arguments put forward show equal concern for all parts of Christ's church body - male or female. Show me how we may be united in Christ when we divide ourselves and the roles WE allow GOD to ordain along lines of gender in our community.

All of those texts are correct and there is no argument against any of them sister.

The argument only comes when it is misused as you have just done.

Men and women are equal in nature [they are both human], not function/office/estate. "Concern" is not the issue either, though you would make it to be so. You are acting as if because you cannot have a certain office/position it is as if it is somehow removing you from ministering to others in the capacity Scripture allows for you. That is foolishness. You are removing yourself, in seeking a place you cannot have by divine structure. it is even as the hellish angels:

Jude 1:6 KJB - And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
​

Those fallen angels sought for places of office God did not give to them to have. in seeking to exalt themselves and choose for themselves outside of the will of God, to a place He did not designate them for, they are forever fallen. The division is coming from those that are constantly pushing their agenda into a voting booth. It will fail, even as the earthly Korah, Dathan and Abiram's did. All the people are Holy, eh? You are warned in the Scripture. Go and learn...

Show me Christ's love for all humankind.

Already done. Just as God gave to the Jews the oracles of God to share with the other nations and to teach them.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8, 13 says, "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails... And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

I prefer the King James Bible myself, however, it is only yourself that is claiming that we dishonour women. Not so. It is fantasy. If you understood what place God has for you, as a woman, you would recognize the real honour, real dignity, real mission, and ministry in that role, that estate, that position and not covet that which was given to men, which is exactly what you are doing, whether you recognize it or not. Eve, do not eat from that Tree which is not yours...

Show me God's love for men, women, children, young, old, and even every creature or object He chooses to speak on His behalf.

All that are Christ's may speak as He directs. No argument there sister. Neither is there any question that God loves all His children. It is again straw men.

If this is truly the material, as you are regurgitating [for clearly you did not think this through, nor come of it on your own] that is being taught in the school system and from pulpits, I weep as Jeremiah.

The definition of love you offer, is not Scriptural, and it is a mere sentimentalism, devoid of all real substance and meaning.

For Christ said that even the rocks would cry out if those who proclaim Christ are silenced.

You do not understand who the rocks are... and again you are conflating a messenger, and an office of Elder/Bishop etc...

There is a right way according to God and the false way of the devil...

Acts 16:16 KJV - And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:

Acts 16:17 KJV - The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.

Acts 16:18 KJV - And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

 

[The Fundamentalist]

First...

Will you also push for "trans-gender" and "hermaphrodites", etc to such places in offices of the Church? If not why not?

 

[Ubuntu]

@The Fundamentalist:

Brother, a couple of thoughts... First, a note about how forums such as these function. It's okay to share external material, and if you're lucky other people might even have a look at it. But you cannot expect other people to comment in length about external material. For instance, earlier in this thread I linked to a theological paper over 70 pages long. I would be happy if people read the paper, but I won't demand that people do so in order to have a discussion with them. For instance, a lot of the assertions you made in your last posts have been debunked in great detail in the paper I linked to, but I wouldn't blame you if you didn't find the time to read it. It's common sense that it's not possible to read (and give a detailed refutation of) all the material that you encounter on the Internet.

If you want to increase your chances that people will respond to you, you should try to keep your posts reasonably short. You shouldn't format your text with weird fonts, and you should also avoid heaping bible quotations on top of each other. (This is also the case for what I assume is your blog.) Your posts in general are long and tiresome to read, and this makes it likely that people will ignore you.

Finally, the question of female ordination isn't a question of salvation. It's possible to have different viewpoints about this issue without condemning those who view things differently. You might tell yourself that you're merely sharing the “straight testimony”, but what you're really doing is to alienate yourself. Language that reeks of fire and brimstone doesn't do anything to strengthen your case, and it doesn't edify those you wish to influence.

In your posts you do present some viewpoints opposing female ordination that would be interesting to discuss further with you, but to be completely honest your confrontational and inflammatory style of writing makes it difficult to engage in any meaningful discussion with you.

 

[The Fundamentalist]

...In your posts you do present some viewpoints opposing female ordination that would be interesting to discuss further with you, but to be completely honest your confrontational and inflammatory style of writing makes it difficult to engage in any meaningful discussion with you.

Brother,

If you refer to the two links about brother "A..." then it was already shown by the video in the subsequent response to yours that his methods have a double standard. See again - http://www.christianforums.com/t7664260-3/#post67036718

Additionally, even in the very beginning of brother "A..."'s article it begins with that which is not accurate:

"...Unfortunately they never resolved it leaving it for us to struggle with it in the search for a final solution..."
​

He makes several not unbiased assumptions, namely:

"... opening a way for His church to move forward."
​

Since when is the church not moving forward? His article is written in an obviously negative context. His viewpoint is clearly seen. He is far from presenting from a foundation of Scripture, though he claims to start with a "statement of fact" from Scripture, yet he did not do so, since it already "began" with an incorrect apriori and continues from there.

In fact, Scripture disagrees with his so-called 'fact':

"...The Scriptures do not explicitly command and neither do they explicitly forbid the ordination of women to the gospel ministry. ..."
​

This was already demonstrated to be falsified, in the links provided you and all in charity and in warning, yet again, where is it ever dealt with here? http://www.christianforums.com/t7664260-5/#post67092748

Brother, what I continually see is distraction from those points, and not anyone addressing those points, point by point.

Brother, the last comment, is it really the state of matters?

 

[JojotheBeloved]

@The Fundamentalist:

Brother, a couple of thoughts...
the question of female ordination isn't a question of salvation. It's possible to have different viewpoints about this issue without condemning those who view things differently. You might tell yourself that you're merely sharing the “straight testimony”, but what you're really doing is to alienate yourself. Language that reeks of fire and brimstone doesn't do anything to strengthen your case, and it doesn't edify those you wish to influence.

Thank you for bringing balance back. I appreciate it very much.

 

[JojotheBeloved]

Will you also push for "trans-gender" and "hermaphrodites", etc to such places in offices of the Church? If not why not?

That is not the issue at hand. Thus, as you have encouraged let's stick to the actual issue at hand. It is illogical to jump from the ordination of women in ministry positions to that of various LGBT issues.

 

[The Fundamentalist]

That is not the issue at hand. Thus, as you have encouraged let's stick to the actual issue at hand. It is illogical to jump from the ordination of women in ministry positions to that of various LGBT issues.

Sister it is the issue at hand, and it is more amazing that the question is not answered.

Are you suggesting that women may be 'ordained' and yet you are refusing the "transgender" group and the "hermaphrodite" group? Upon what grounds?

 

[The Fundamentalist]

Thank you for bringing balance back. I appreciate it very much.

Here is another quotation from brother U's linked article to brother A's material, and see if it lines up with Scripture:

"No one was limited to a particular role within the Kingdom of God."
​

Really? Then Lucifer was right to attempt to claim for himself the particular role that the Son of God was in by the Father's will?

Are you sure you want to take that same position as brother A?

 

[JojotheBeloved]

I have actually read the materials presented, point by point, and as Ubuntu pointed out - found them exhausting to read and pointless to reply to, as they are of a combative nature which tears down the opposing views in negative ways and I do not desire to do that.

 

[JojotheBeloved]

Are you suggesting that women may be 'ordained' and yet you are refusing the "transgender" group and the "hermaphrodite" group? Upon what grounds?

It is not the same issue. It is not the same thing. Whether or not one believes that people who identify as LGBT or otherwise non-male/female should hold such roles, that issue must stand on its own. It is illogical to lump the two issues together. Why? Because a) women are created women by God and are usually content with that identity, and b) the Bible does not claim women are inherently sinful or are behaving sinfully by identifying and behaving as women no matter what roles they may hold in society.

Here is another quotation from brother U's linked article to brother A's material, and see if it lines up with Scripture:

"No one was limited to a particular role within the Kingdom of God."
​

Really? Then Lucifer was right to attempt to claim for himself the particular role that the Son of God was in by the Father's will?

Are you sure you want to take that same position as brother A?

*sigh* I was simply thanking a brother-in-Christ for his statement that the issue of whether or not the SDA Church practices ordination which includes women and men, rather than only men at this point, is not an issue of salvation and it is not appropriate to treat it as such or attack the character of our opposition in such a way. It was helpful to me in that moment to remember. It brought balance back. It's not logically necessary to agree with everything a person has ever said in order to recognize that they made a good and valid point in a particular instance. I also think there is an illogical jump in the reasoning that you present. But that's a side note.

 

[The Fundamentalist]

I have actually read the materials presented, point by point, ... - found them exhausting to read and pointless to reply to, as they are of a combative nature which tears down the opposing views in negative ways and I do not desire to do that.

Sister, then in charity, and an attempt to again to try having atonement between all involved based upon Scripture and SoP, let us begin from the beginning, asking questions as we go.

According to Scripture, even to the Law and to the Testimony [Isaiah 8:20]:

Q. Are the Father and Son two persons?

Q. Have the Father and Son always been two persons in eternity?

Q. Are Adam and Eve two persons?

Q. Were Adam and Eve to always be two persons from their creation?

Q. Are Father and Son to be "one" [Scripturally Def.] according to John 10:30, Deuteronomy 6:4, and Mark 12:29?

Q. Are Adam [Husband; Genesis 3:6,16] and Eve [Wife; Genesis 3:8,17] to be "one" [Scripturally Def.] according to Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5 and Ephesians 5:31?
​

 

[JojotheBeloved]

Sister, then in charity, and an attempt to again to try having atonement between all involved based upon Scripture and SoP, let us begin from the beginning, asking questions as we go.

If you can, than I will also. Sometimes we all need a fresh start.

According to Scripture, even to the Law and to the Testimony [Isaiah 8:20]:

Q. Are the Father and Son two persons?

Q. Have the Father and Son always been two persons in eternity?

Q. Are Adam and Eve two persons?

Q. Were Adam and Eve to always be two persons from their creation?

Q. Are Father and Son to be "one" [Scripturally Def.] according to John 10:30, Deuteronomy 6:4, and Mark 12:29?

Q. Are Adam [Husband; Genesis 3:6,16] and Eve [Wife; Genesis 3:8,17] to be "one" [Scripturally Def.] according to Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5 and Ephesians 5:31?
​

I suggest also to read Isaiah 9:1-2...

Okay,... A: As far as we understand in our finite knowledge ("as in a mirror" to quote Paul the Apostle 1 Cor. 13:12), God the Father and God the Son are two individual persons.

A: If we are to understand both as equally infinite and eternal God, than both must have existed in partnership from the beginning and beyond eternity. (John 1:1-2)

A: We understand man and woman (in this instance speaking of Adam and Eve - the first of both) as two individual created beings.

A: Were Adam and Eve always to be two persons from creation? Well, that depends on which Genesis story you are referencing and how you interpret them. In Genesis 1:26-31 mankind was created in God's image - two parts of the same complete whole unit. In Hebrew the word translated in English as humankind or mankind is in fact "ADAM" and the female is included in ADAM. ADAM is one complete whole made up of two variate parts. In Genesis 2:5-23 identifies Adam and Eve as separate individuals both created by the same God but at different times and in different ways. Yet, even in this telling of the tale asserts that although they are individuals, as husband and wife they are still one unit; "one flesh." Even the way that Eve is created asserts her unity with Adam; she is created from his flesh, thereby they share the same flesh the same maker and the same bone, etc. It is also interesting to me to note that the Hebrew word for ground or dust of the earth - from which Adam was created in the Genesis 2 telling - is ADAMAH the feminine of the same root word. It is non-conclusive, but to some this can show a level of meaning in which Adam is just as much united with Eve in her femininity as she is in his masculinity. God created him from ADAMAH and created Eve from ADAM. But, that's a small detail and wouldn't be the basis for a strong case. However it is interesting to note.

A: From those texts, it is reasonable to believe God the Father and God the Son are united as one. I would also add John 14:9 as evidence for such an understanding.

A: Genesis 2:24 I have already referenced and would answer the same. Matthew 19:5 and Ephesians 5:31 affirm by quoting the exact same phrase from Genesis to be applied for their own purposes. I do not follow what you are getting at from Genesis 3:6-7, 16-17. That reference requires a separate question for logical progression.

 

[The Fundamentalist]

Let me see if I properly understood your answers and make a comment or two before asking further questions [I have taken the liberty to place the Questions before your answers in the re-quotation of your response, as it makes for easier reading, and following at least for myself]:

If you can, than I will also. Sometimes we all need a fresh start.

I suggest also to read Isaiah 9:1-2...

Okay,...

...

My original questions are in Blue for easier following, response.

[Q. Are the Father and Son two persons?] A: As far as we understand in our finite knowledge ("as in a mirror" to quote Paul the Apostle 1 Cor. 13:12), God the Father and God the Son are two individual persons.

Sister, if I may make a comment about this response as a whole?

The question was not asking about men's 'finite knowledge', but what God, infinite in knowledge, has revealed to men in His word. Therefore, again if I may, the question as intended is not asking whether it is a matter of "as far as we understand", but instead, being based upon Scripture, as far as what God has revealed to us therein. The question is not trying to be overly complicated, but simply asking as it is written, even as all of the questions are asked in this manner.

For instance, if it were asked, Are you a woman? A simple answer is expected. This is all that was being asked for in regards the original questions.

However, as far as I understand your answer to the intended question, you have affirmed that, 'Yes, based upon Scripture and the SoP', "... the Father and ... the Son are two ... persons.", correct?

[Q. Have the Father and Son always been two persons in eternity?] A: If we are to understand both as equally infinite and eternal God, than both must have existed in partnership from the beginning and beyond eternity. (John 1:1-2)

Sister, I will not belabour my previous comment about the answers to the questions too much, but simply ask that you may please refer back to the simplicity of the questions intent and the original comment.

In other words, a simple "yes" or "no", based upon said text, would have sufficed for each question. If there was a question as to the intent about the simplicity of the questions, a question in return would have been all that was necessary and I would have [and will do] attempted to clarify any question in future.

That we may not belabour each other with such extended answers, as someone else had commented about earlier, I will also attempt to do.

However, as far as I understand your answer to the intended question, you have affirmed that, 'Yes, based upon Scripture and the SoP', "... both [Father and Son] must have existed ... from the beginning and ... eternity. (John 1:1-2)", correct?

Also, as a further comment and clarification for myself, I am not quite sure what you meant "from ... beyond eternity".

Q. Did you mean "from eternity"? If yes, I will accept it in the included affirmative. If no, I cannot understand the answer of something which is "from ... beyond eternity" and will have to ask you another question. This is why I am asking about simplicity of answers to the simplicity of the questions, and this one asked about "in eternity", not "beyond" it. I hope my question and comment is clear.

Secondarily, the original question, in its simplicity asked nothing about "partnership", but simply asked about 'existence'.

If you could therefore, readdress the Question one more time for me and leave out the additional unasked for material on "partnership", and I do ask for patience in this, as I am not looking for extra material to be included in any answers, but only that which the questions are intended as asking in their specifics. Therefore, if you would not mind doing so in favour?

Q. Have the Father and Son always been two persons in eternity?

[Q. Are Adam and Eve two persons?] A: We understand man and woman (in this instance speaking of Adam and Eve - the first of both) as two individual created beings.

Sister, if I may ask a subquestion? Q. Who is "we" that you referred to? The questions are being asked directly to yourself and no other, based upon Isaiah 8:20. If you please would clarify this for me, thank you.

If I may make another comment about the original intent of the question again, and not to make this longer than necessary, but the question was not asking about "man" and "woman" in those terms, but rather specifically in the terms of "Adam" and "Eve". The question was at that point unconcerned with which was either "man" or "woman". I hope you see what I am saying, asking.

Also, in a secondary matter, the word "person" and "being" are being interchanged, when the original question did not ask about "beings", but rather "persons". God is being, but more than one person. Therefore, would you mind re-addressing the question once more please in simplicity? I dislike having to re-ask you at each point, as I do not want you to be weary of me, but I do need clarification in this. Here is the question once more, if you will please:

Q. Are Adam and Eve two persons?

[Q. Were Adam and Eve to always be two persons from their creation?] A: Were Adam and Eve always to be two persons from creation? Well, that depends on which Genesis story you are referencing and how you interpret them. ..."

Sister, if you do not mind too readily, I will shorten this reply to the first pertinent section, and not go into non-sequitur, as I think from there, a question should have been asked for clarification and the remainder that followed would have been unnecessary.

In comment, I do not refer to Genesis as "story", but history, yet this is still unnecessary to the original question, and interpretation according to Isaiah 8:20, would include Isaiah 28:10,13; Proverbs 1:6; 2 Peter 1:20, etc and so there is no question as to interpretation, meaning there is only one, and it is Gods'. However, please allow me to re-ask the question.

Q. After Adam and Eve were created were they to always be two persons?

A subquestion may be later asked in regards your knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, in regards the non-sequitur portion of the exempted reply, but this is not relevant at this time.

[Q. Are Father and Son to be "one" [Scripturally Def.] according to John 10:30, Deuteronomy 6:4, and Mark 12:29?] A: From those texts, it is reasonable to believe God the Father and God the Son are united as one. I would also add John 14:9 as evidence for such an understanding.

As far as I understand your answer to the intended question, you have affirmed that, 'Yes, based upon Scripture and the SoP', "... the Father ... and ... the Son are united as one. ...", correct?

Sister, as a comment once more, the question, in simplicity, did not include the word "God", as it only focused upon "the Father" and "the Son" aspects. This was intentional to the original question.

Thank you for the additional reference to John 14:9, though we both may include a multitude more of textual references. The questions intent was to be short and as succinct as possible so that their answers would reflect the same.

[Q. Are Adam [Husband; Genesis 3:6,16] and Eve [Wife; Genesis 3:8,17] to be "one" [Scripturally Def.] according to Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5 and Ephesians 5:31?] A: Genesis 2:24 I have already referenced and would answer the same. Matthew 19:5 and Ephesians 5:31 affirm by quoting the exact same phrase from Genesis to be applied for their own purposes. I do not follow what you are getting at from Genesis 3:6-7, 16-17. That reference requires a separate question for logical progression.

Sister, if I may make another comment here, Genesis 3:7 was not referenced in the original question.

However, for your clarification, Genesis 3:6,16 is for the reference to the word "Husband" in respect to "Adam", and Genesis 3:8,17 is for the reference to the word "Wife" in respect to "Eve", which is the reason for placing those textual references inside of the brackets with the words "Husband", besides "Adam" and "Wife", beside "Eve". This is simply utilizing the Scripture to define Scripture for us, without assuming Adam was the husband of Eve, nor assuming Eve the Wife of Adam.

Therefore, I do not understand what you mean when you state, "That reference requires a separate question for logical progression."

Q. What is the "logical progression" you are referring to, and am I supposed to be making it or yourself?

Sister, so that I do not assume where your answer was given in regards to Genesis 2:24, etc, would you please directly repeat it here for myself? I do not mind repetition, so long as it directly answers the question in simplicity.

Also, I am not quite sure what you mean by saying that, "... Matthew 19:5 and Ephesians 5:31 affirm by quoting the exact same phrase from Genesis to be applied for their own purposes. ..."

Perhaps I may ask a subquestion later about this, but it is not necessary at this point.

Could you please re-address the question for me? Thank you!

Q. Are Adam [Husband; Genesis 3:6,16] and Eve [Wife; Genesis 3:8,17] to be "one" [Scripturally Def.] according to Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5 and Ephesians 5:31?

New questions:

Q. Is "man" [Genesis 1:26] made in the "image" [Genesis 1:26] of "God" [Genesis 1:26]?

Q. Is "man" [Genesis 1:26] made in the "likeness" [Genesis 1:26] of "God" [Genesis 1:26]?

 

[The Fundamentalist]

A brief interlude:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYuc...LIWJyuxBfZ7jKwtx6d4bIhZ2EsjBzwtRv&spfreload=1

 

[JojotheBeloved]

Let me see if I properly understood your answers and make a comment or two before asking further questions [I have taken the liberty to place the Questions before your answers in the re-quotation of your response, as it makes for easier reading, and following at least for myself]: ...

That's fine. Thank you for taking time to be sure you understand.

My original questions are in Blue for easier following, response.Sister, if I may make a comment about this response as a whole?

The question was not asking about men's 'finite knowledge', but what God, infinite in knowledge, has revealed to men in His word. Therefore, again if I may, the question as intended is not asking whether it is a matter of "as far as we understand", but instead, being based upon Scripture, as far as what God has revealed to us therein. The question is not trying to be overly complicated, but simply asking as it is written, even as all of the questions are asked in this manner.

For instance, if it were asked, Are you a woman? A simple answer is expected. This is all that was being asked for in regards the original questions.

However, as far as I understand your answer to the intended question, you have affirmed that, 'Yes, based upon Scripture and the SoP', "... the Father and ... the Son are two ... persons.", correct?

The reason I answer the way I do is because I do not wish to be misunderstood or to have answers put in my mouth that I do not intend. I have learned in discussing subjects in such details that this kind of discussion often requires specificity. Therefore a simple yes or no answer can be equally misleading as a more thought out answer. That's why I am more specific, saying that as far as we - meaning human beings - understand from biblical evidence God the Father and God the Son are individual persons. You did understand that correctly.

In other words, a simple "yes" or "no", based upon said text, would have sufficed for each question. If there was a question as to the intent about the simplicity of the questions, a question in return would have been all that was necessary and I would have [and will do] attempted to clarify any question in future.[/SIZE][/FONT]

I will attempt to keep my responses brief and as direct as possible. However, I will not simply state yes or no for the aforementioned reason.

However, as far as I understand your answer to the intended question, you have affirmed that, 'Yes, based upon Scripture and the SoP', "... both [Father and Son] must have existed ... from the beginning and ... eternity. (John 1:1-2)", correct?

You understood correctly.

Also, as a further comment and clarification for myself, I am not quite sure what you meant "from ... beyond eternity".

Q. Did you mean "from eternity"? If yes, I will accept it in the included affirmative. If no, I cannot understand the answer of something which is "from ... beyond eternity" and will have to ask you another question. This is why I am asking about simplicity of answers to the simplicity of the questions, and this one asked about "in eternity", not "beyond" it. I hope my question and comment is clear.

I apologize if my manner of speech was misleading. I indeed was agreeing with the statement. "beyond eternity" was simply a manner of speaking, it wasn't intended to denote a difference in perspective. I will attempt to be more clear in future.

Secondarily, the original question, in its simplicity asked nothing about "partnership", but simply asked about 'existence'.

If you could therefore, readdress the Question one more time for me and leave out the additional unasked for material on "partnership", and I do ask for patience in this, as I am not looking for extra material to be included in any answers, but only that which the questions are intended as asking in their specifics. Therefore, if you would not mind doing so in favor?

For the purpose of being non-combative I will release the word "partnership" for now and say that I agree. However, as a Seventh-day Adventist I believe the Godhead is by nature united and a partnership; and so I have difficulty understanding or referencing them as "existing" without existing in partnership with one another. To have multiple persons defined as god that simply exist is too polytheistic for me. But for now, I'm willing to leave that aside.

Q. Have the Father and Son always been two persons in eternity?

As far as there is evidence in Scripture, yes.

Sister, if I may ask a subquestion? Q. Who is "we" that you referred to? The questions are being asked directly to yourself and no other, based upon Isaiah 8:20. If you please would clarify this for me, thank you.

I say "we" as a manner of speech to attempt to be objective and non-combative. "we" meaning human beings or even Seventh-day Adventists. It's not intended to be misleading, but to be able to discuss objectively and with an intelligent information.

As to Isaiah 8:20 - I don't at all understand what you want me to do with that. I read it, and it was talking about people whose minds are in darkness - in context it was specifically talking about ancient oracles and people who conjured up spirits of the dead. I don't see how that applies here. If you intended it to mean that my mind was in darkness and you were supposed to teach me something - that's why I referenced Isaiah 9:1-2 because it says those who walk in darkness will see a bright light and this light shines on those who live in the land of darkness and that this light is from the Lord Himself. So even if I am "in darkness" as you would suppose - let the Lord deal with it and let's get back to the discussion. Anyway, if it was intended in the way I interpreted than that's not a fair way to approach discussion nor is it an intelligent use of the text. So, since you want me to be direct - I don't see how it applies to the discussion.

If I may make another comment about the original intent of the question again, and not to make this longer than necessary, but the question was not asking about "man" and "woman" in those terms, but rather specifically in the terms of "Adam" and "Eve". The question was at that point unconcerned with which was either "man" or "woman". I hope you see what I am saying, asking.

I don't see what you are saying. They cannot be one without the other. They are male and female as much as they are Adam and Eve. So I don't see what's wrong with the way I answered. I think you understand and you're being a little wearisome in your need for me to word for word copy everything you say.

Therefore, would you mind re-addressing the question once more please in simplicity? I dislike having to re-ask you at each point, as I do not want you to be weary of me, but I do need clarification in this.

Since you want me to be direct - you are being wearisome. But I will seek to be more clear nonetheless.

Q. Are Adam and Eve two persons?

I hesitantly say yes.

In comment, I do not refer to Genesis as "story", but history, yet this is still unnecessary to the original question, and interpretation according to Isaiah 8:20, would include Isaiah 28:10,13; Proverbs 1:6; 2 Peter 1:20, etc and so there is no question as to interpretation, meaning there is only one, and it is Gods'.

I also believe the Bible accurately depicts historical events, however history still includes narratives or in common terms "stories" and there is nothing wrong with recognizing such.
As to "there is no question as to interpretation, meaning there is only one, and it is Gods'" - I disagree. I disagree because this logic often is used to say that your way is God's way and my way is not - even if we both are intelligently studying and handling God's Word. Therefore anything I say is automatically discounted even if it is understood from my reading of Scripture. This is what I mean by my needing to be specific about what I think rather than saying yes or no because if I did not clarify this, you could use my answer to make me say something I am not and will not say. Everything we communicate always needs to be interpreted by the hearer, which is why you need to clarify that you are interpreting what I am saying in a way that I intended to say it. I feel it is absolutely necessary to do the same with Scripture. To seek to hear what the author God used was trying to communicate. I believe this is in harmony with Scripture and SoP.

Q. After Adam and Eve were created were they to always be two persons?

I will not change my answer on this. Genesis 1 & 2 are different in their accounts of Adam and Eve in a way that I think is very relevant to this premise. Eve is included in ADAM as one part of the same whole in Genesis 1. Even in Genesis 2 where they are created separately, there is still affirmation of their oneness.

A subquestion may be later asked in regards your knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, in regards the non-sequitur portion of the exempted reply, but this is not relevant at this time.

I have been formally taught how to read and write Hebrew and Greek, and where to research and use the languages responsibly.

As far as I understand your answer to the intended question, you have affirmed that, 'Yes, based upon Scripture and the SoP', "... the Father ... and ... the Son are united as one. ...", correct?

You understand correctly.

Sister, if I may make another comment here, Genesis 3:7 was not referenced in the original question.

Ooops. I made an error. I thought I saw 7 but in reality it was 8.

However, for your clarification, Genesis 3:6,16 is for the reference to the word "Husband" in respect to "Adam", and Genesis 3:8,17 is for the reference to the word "Wife" in respect to "Eve", which is the reason for placing those textual references inside of the brackets with the words "Husband", besides "Adam" and "Wife", beside "Eve". This is simply utilizing the Scripture to define Scripture for us, without assuming Adam was the husband of Eve, nor assuming Eve the Wife of Adam.

Okay, fair enough. Thank you for clarifying that.



[/COLOR]Sister, so that I do not assume where your answer was given in regards to Genesis 2:24, etc, would you please directly repeat it here for myself? I do not mind repetition, so long as it directly answers the question in simplicity.

Also, I am not quite sure what you mean by saying that, "... Matthew 19:5 and Ephesians 5:31 affirm by quoting the exact same phrase from Genesis to be applied for their own purposes. ..."

Perhaps I may ask a subquestion later about this, but it is not necessary at this point.

Could you please re-address the question for me? Thank you!

Q. Are Adam [Husband; Genesis 3:6,16] and Eve [Wife; Genesis 3:8,17] to be "one" [Scripturally Def.] according to Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5 and Ephesians 5:31?
[/QUOTE]

I meant that Matthew 19:5 and Ephesians 5:31 both exactly quote Genesis 2:24. So in the way they are being used in the question, they can be taken to mean the same thing. So yes, Adam and Eve are one.

...

New questions:

Q. Is "man" [Genesis 1:26] made in the "image" [Genesis 1:26] of "God" [Genesis 1:26]?

Q. Is "man" [Genesis 1:26] made in the "likeness" [Genesis 1:26] of "God" [Genesis 1:26]?

A: mankind is made in the image of God.
A: I don't see how they are different, but sure, mankind is made in the likeness of God.

 

[JojotheBeloved]

Since you wish me to be direct, btw, I would appreciate it if you refrained from calling me "sister" anymore. You may intend it affectionately, but in my mind it feels derogatory. It feels like when some people in the American South call you "honey" or "sweetie" when they think you're a complete idiot. Other people have used such words, including "sister," to talk down to me so please stop. You may address me by my online tag or even a shortened version of it if you wish to do so. Thank you.