Are women inferior to men?

[Brokenhill]

All the best with your move. We did that recently; it can be stressful.

Thanks! It went pretty well.

Exactly!
One or two verses suggest that women should be silent in church - but look at other areas of Scripture where we see women prophetesses, deacons and evangelists. Where women met with Jesus, received his healing, his word or a revelation and then went to tell others; the woman at the well, Mary Magdalene who was chosen, in place of a man, to be the first witness to the resurrection, Phoebe, the deacon, Lydia and other women who faithfully held prayer meetings in Philippi and may have been co founders of the church there, all those women who were co workers with Paul and were commended for their work for the Gospel.
Women were part of Paul's ministry. He made tents alongside Priscilla and Aquila, must surely have known that they taught Apollos and later greeted the church which met in their house. He wrote a letter to a church he had never visited, Rome, and gave it to a woman to deliver. He told people in that church how much he appreciated women's ministry. He instructed women in another church in prayer and prophecy - that WHEN they did these things, they were to cover their heads. In yet another church he spoke of two deaconesses; even though at that point they had a disagreement, yet they were faithful workers in the Gospel. As I said, that church, Philippi, started after Paul visited the city, found some women at the place of prayer, and converted, and then stayed, with them.
Knowing all this, and that as a Jew he would have been well aware of the roles that Miriam, Deborah, Huldah and Esther played in the life of his nation; why would he, in one of the last letters that he wrote, suddenly say "I want women to be silent and not have authority"?

There is no female deacon in the NT.
All of the other examples you gave go to just how involved women can be in the work of God WITHOUT USURPING male authority.
Paul did not contract himself when he talked about women being silent/under male authority. We can infer that because of Paul's COMMAND, that all those other examples (in the NT) you gave were acceptable because they were different than the idea of deaconship/eldership/teaching with authority in the church. The office of deacon/elder/preacher in the church is different than being a a general servant ("diakonos") of God, or evangelizing to lost souls outside of the church. Paul said what he said because of important God's hierarchy of authority is. He wasn't opposing or disregarding things that he once found acceptable...the things that are acceptable for women to do have certain regulations/applications. That's where the distinction comes in--we shouldn't assume that Paul only commanded silence because of the immediate culture...because then he would have contradicted himself since he praised women for their service at other times. You have to look at things from the opposite end of the spectrum.

And it's interesting you bring up head coverings. I believe the bible teaches they are also still relevant and essential today. My wife wears one when she prays along with men.
So 1 Cor. 11 teaches that women could prophesy and pray in the church, but the REGULATION of that kind of service had to be done SHOWING SUBMISSION to men/Christ/God...hence the head-coverings!
It all makes sense.

Intro to head-coverings:

Maybe they do; don't see what that has to do with this thread though.

It has everything to do with every Christian/scriptural discussion ever.
Our flesh, both the mind's ego and the body's desire for comfort, constantly get in the way of our spiritual growth with God. Head coverings (for example since we just mentioned it) is one of the biggest testaments to how we don't dedicate enough time in exegesis or submission to God's word because of our flesh's weaknesses. Thanks be to Christ that we can overcome our imperfections.

Granted.
But many churches have decided/agreed that women DO qualify for this aspect of God's work. Ultimately it's up to God; it's his work, he is the One who calls and he wants people to serve him.

You're right, it is up to God...hence why he spoke about it through Paul! Therefor, church's should not be deciding what women qualify for...only scripture.
We wouldn't have the church if we didn't have the bible.

And what of the women who are putting God first by obeying his call to be preachers and Ministers? YOU don't believe them; the church does.

I would agree that they are choosing the better thing to serve God with more focus rather than having a family. It goes back to WHAT their role/service is...not that they don't have a family. They can serve God without being in the pulpit or serving as a congregational overseer. Your first paragraph gave a lot of ways that God can be served, without breaching Paul's (God's) command.

And yet earlier you said that God is leaving women in the "sin" of preaching and will punish them on judgement day. If he will always make a way to do what is right, why doesn't he stop them before they get anywhere near a pulpit?

Making a way to do what is right is not the same as stopping them. He gives all men/women who have bibles an equal opportunity to read it to a point of familiarity and understand it.
And maybe right now, God's scripture being transcribed through me is making an outlet for you to know the truth so that you can make other women (that you may know) to fix the error of their ways.

The flesh is weak. We are all tempted by different things.
God allows us to be "given over" to our degrading passions. (Romans 1:26): now I'm not saying that this is a degrading passion as in the context of Romans 1, but the principal of GOD LET'S PEOPLE HAVE FREE WILL remains for all time.

And I wouldn't be surprised if many female preachers, at least in their beginning, had troubles with their conscience regarding that service. Maybe I should talk to some and find out.

Yes.
And sometimes he tells women to go out to work and men to stay at home. Sometimes he calls women specifically to preach and be Ministers in the church. It happens; fact.

If I can't read about it in my bible, then I won't believe it.
That is my foundational source.

That might be the ideal; it doesn't always happen.
In the UK it's possible for a couple to meet at university. They may become engaged, as my nephew did, leave, owing £hundreds in student loans, get married and find a house together. Unless they have super rich parents, win the lottery or are left legacies from rich relatives, how are they going to afford to repay their student loans, pay a mortgage AND have enough for council tax, insurance, buying furniture and for daily living unless they both work? These days, cars and computers are a necessity, not a luxury. It shouldn't be that way, with all the poverty in the world, but it is. And this is before they even think of having children.
Supposing a man is made redundant but is desperate to work, so takes a lower paid job? They might still have a mortgage and young family, or they might have children who want to go to university, get married or buy their first house. How are they to afford that unless the wife takes a job as well?

I see you ask a lot of specific application questions. Don't worry about all the specific applications (at least not unless you yourself are currently in a relevant one). Don't use other people's situations as evidence for why something should be binding or not.
I debate with atheists at work regarding God and they're always looking to point at some kind of problem going on in the world to denounce God's existence. Or they mention things "will people in obscure isolated tribes that has never heard of Jesus be sent to Hell?"...as evidence for why THEY shouldn't believe in God. It's IRRELEVANT. They have heard of Jesus, they have brains that can comprehend God's plan, therefor they need to believe in Jesus.

We could go through a lot of specific examples, but if we take passages like 1 Timothy 6:8 at face value, it's really easy to solve the answer every time.
We live in a physical world that ultimately means nothing. One day it will melt with intense heat according to 2 Peter 3. God never said we should get college educations, or that we deserve houses and cars. I'm NOT saying it's wrong to have these things...but it's all about priorities. A husband and wife can both work, while still fulfilling their roles under God.

I'll take your example and make it personal: My wife works, but it's part time and we don't have children...so she can be a keeper of the home and help generate income because we have a student loan too. But I would still make ends meet even if she didn't work. Right now we have 2 cars, I could get rid of one or both of them, or we could rent a cheaper place (no need to own a house and incur more debt), or we could not go out to eat once a week, or we could cut back on our grocery spending, etc., etc.
It can always be done...GOD WILL MAKE A WAY.
BUT IT INVOLVES US HUMANS BEING UNCOMFORTABLE. Most Europeans and Americans are near the top of the capitalistic/free market world. We like our EASY LIVES. We are super comfortable with how things are.
That doesn't make our lifestyles ESSENTIAL.

With food and covering, be content!

Why are you assuming that a husband and wife choose to work just so that they can have those things and live the good life? Some have to work to keep their heads above water. Two of my sisters-in-law wanted to stay at home with their new baby after their maternity leave; they couldn't afford to. If they had tried, they may have defaulted on their mortgage payments and lost their home. What good would that have done their family?

You're right. However, don't forget that many times people get into bad situations due to poor planning. And trying to take on things they aren't ready for.

But sometimes that's life, and therefor yea, they might not have a choice and have to give their baby over to daycare or a nanny. So maybe it is better for them to work instead of being homeless or accumulating more debt.
But that still doesn't prove that it's acceptable in God's eyes to forsake their duties as wives.
They're just in a sucky situation.

But if they're Christians, theoretically...whether it was poor planning that got them into their mess, or just the chance of life, they should be able to go to the church and say "we need financial help so that we can serve in God's desired roles for us". And maybe the church helps until their husbands can make more money, or pick up a 2nd job, etc. to make it work without that assistance.
The church is supposed to aid its members (which probably doesn't happen enough).

Paul hadn't been to Rome when he wrote his letter to the church there.
I'm sure that, as a Roman citizen, he knew all about Roman orgies and he had no proof that the church weren't being corrupted by them, yet he doesn't even mention it.

Maybe it's just my misunderstanding but this seems like speculations.

That example was besides the point. The point was: just because a text wasn't written to me and you specifically, or that Jesus doesn't appear to us individually, or because we aren't alive in the times when the apostles were preaching, etc., doesn't inherently mean that these biblical passages don't apply to us.

Paul's letters were eventually circulated round the churches, but I am fairly sure that they would have glossed over any bits which were clearly not written to them. Like if Paul said "Barnabas will be coming to you shortly", Barnabas might already have been at the other church. Or if Paul said, bring my cloak and scrolls when you come to see me - they would not all have rushed off to do that.

We CAN learn from them all- exactly. We can learn that there is to be order in worship, that women are not to interrupt the speaker, ask questions or hold discussions among themselves and that people who speak in tongues and prophesy should do so only one at a time.

There is a HUGE different between Paul's cloak and "THE WOMEN ARE TO KEEP SILENT IN THE CHURCHES."
The apostle's teachings stem from the Gospel of Christ...and the Gospel is for ALL, for ALL TIME.

And part of that order is women being in submission to male authority of teaching.

Exactly.
That shows that you are not applying every word of Scripture literally but are looking for the truth/concept that is being taught and asking how we apply that. So why write as though the verses about women are a firm command for everyone today and that those who disobey are being mislead?

No, I'm saying that the principals remain, and the fact that we need to apply them today remains, but sometimes the specific application can vary because the principal is not forsaken.
So I can be modest by wearing loose jeans and a t-shirt, but a woman can't not usurp authority/can't not serve as an elder, etc. WITHOUT breaking the principal.

The specifics i'm talking about are irrelevant to the principal. A man can preach with the help of a projector or just with a bible...as long as he's preaching God's word. The project doesn't break the principal of preaching the Gospel--it's just an aid.
Likewise, you can partake of the vine portion of the communion with one single cup or multiple cups...as long a we don't betray the principal or the limitations of the communion. For instance, using Mountain Dew as "the fruit of the vine" would be wrong because it's not fruit of the vine! Some specifics of application can be changed without interrupting command. Other specifics, cannot be changed.

 

[samir]

I understand that there were different roles created, but the facts of Scripture seem to make it clear that men have a superior theological function to women. Would you care to comment on those facts, outlined in my OP?

I agree with your OP that men have a superior theological function to women but I don't agree with your conclusion "women are inferior to men" because women have a superior reproductive function and excel in other areas.

 

[Achilles6129]

I agree with your OP that men have a superior theological function to women but I don't agree with your conclusion "women are inferior to men" because women have a superior reproductive function and excel in other areas.

By "inferior to men" I'm obviously talking about theology. In other words, that's how God views it in Scripture.

 

[Neogaia777]

Men are "capable" at least, of not being "deceived", but if they get to this point, are held more responsible and not innocent... women, at least, according to the Bible, unless there is a change, are "thouroughly decieved, yet more innocent in God's eyes, unless (if it is in God's will) they also become capable of not being decieved, at which point they are; they will stand before God as an individual, apart from a head or covering from a man to take the guilt for them, at which point, if that happens, they will be just as responsible and just as guilty as men are, the ones among each sex individually who are not deceived, that is...

God Bless!

 

[Brokenhill]

This is one verse that states that God doesn't necessarily do anything even though His people are erring.

Psalm 50:20-21 NASB
"You sit and speak against your brother; You slander your own mother's son. "These things you have done and I kept silence; You thought that I was just like you; I will reprove you and state the case in order before your eyes."

 

[Strong in Him]

There is no female deacon in the NT.
All of the other examples you gave go to just how involved women can be in the work of God WITHOUT USURPING male authority.
Paul did not contract himself when he talked about women being silent/under male authority. We can infer that because of Paul's COMMAND, that all those other examples (in the NT) you gave were acceptable because they were different than the idea of deaconship/eldership/teaching with authority in the church. The office of deacon/elder/preacher in the church is different than being a a general servant ("diakonos") of God, or evangelizing to lost souls outside of the church. Paul said what he said because of important God's hierarchy of authority is. He wasn't opposing or disregarding things that he once found acceptable...the things that are acceptable for women to do have certain regulations/applications. That's where the distinction comes in--we shouldn't assume that Paul only commanded silence because of the immediate culture...because then he would have contradicted himself since he praised women for their service at other times. You have to look at things from the opposite end of the spectrum.

And it's interesting you bring up head coverings. I believe the bible teaches they are also still relevant and essential today. My wife wears one when she prays along with men.
So 1 Cor. 11 teaches that women could prophesy and pray in the church, but the REGULATION of that kind of service had to be done SHOWING SUBMISSION to men/Christ/God...hence the head-coverings!
It all makes sense.

Intro to head-coverings:

It has everything to do with every Christian/scriptural discussion ever.
Our flesh, both the mind's ego and the body's desire for comfort, constantly get in the way of our spiritual growth with God. Head coverings (for example since we just mentioned it) is one of the biggest testaments to how we don't dedicate enough time in exegesis or submission to God's word because of our flesh's weaknesses. Thanks be to Christ that we can overcome our imperfections.


You're right, it is up to God...hence why he spoke about it through Paul! Therefor, church's should not be deciding what women qualify for...only scripture.
We wouldn't have the church if we didn't have the bible.

I would agree that they are choosing the better thing to serve God with more focus rather than having a family. It goes back to WHAT their role/service is...not that they don't have a family. They can serve God without being in the pulpit or serving as a congregational overseer. Your first paragraph gave a lot of ways that God can be served, without breaching Paul's (God's) command.

Making a way to do what is right is not the same as stopping them. He gives all men/women who have bibles an equal opportunity to read it to a point of familiarity and understand it.
And maybe right now, God's scripture being transcribed through me is making an outlet for you to know the truth so that you can make other women (that you may know) to fix the error of their ways.

The flesh is weak. We are all tempted by different things.
God allows us to be "given over" to our degrading passions. (Romans 1:26): now I'm not saying that this is a degrading passion as in the context of Romans 1, but the principal of GOD LET'S PEOPLE HAVE FREE WILL remains for all time.

And I wouldn't be surprised if many female preachers, at least in their beginning, had troubles with their conscience regarding that service. Maybe I should talk to some and find out.

If I can't read about it in my bible, then I won't believe it.
That is my foundational source.

I see you ask a lot of specific application questions. Don't worry about all the specific applications (at least not unless you yourself are currently in a relevant one). Don't use other people's situations as evidence for why something should be binding or not.
I debate with atheists at work regarding God and they're always looking to point at some kind of problem going on in the world to denounce God's existence. Or they mention things "will people in obscure isolated tribes that has never heard of Jesus be sent to Hell?"...as evidence for why THEY shouldn't believe in God. It's IRRELEVANT. They have heard of Jesus, they have brains that can comprehend God's plan, therefor they need to believe in Jesus.

We could go through a lot of specific examples, but if we take passages like 1 Timothy 6:8 at face value, it's really easy to solve the answer every time.
We live in a physical world that ultimately means nothing. One day it will melt with intense heat according to 2 Peter 3. God never said we should get college educations, or that we deserve houses and cars. I'm NOT saying it's wrong to have these things...but it's all about priorities. A husband and wife can both work, while still fulfilling their roles under God.

I'll take your example and make it personal: My wife works, but it's part time and we don't have children...so she can be a keeper of the home and help generate income because we have a student loan too. But I would still make ends meet even if she didn't work. Right now we have 2 cars, I could get rid of one or both of them, or we could rent a cheaper place (no need to own a house and incur more debt), or we could not go out to eat once a week, or we could cut back on our grocery spending, etc., etc.
It can always be done...GOD WILL MAKE A WAY.
BUT IT INVOLVES US HUMANS BEING UNCOMFORTABLE. Most Europeans and Americans are near the top of the capitalistic/free market world. We like our EASY LIVES. We are super comfortable with how things are.
That doesn't make our lifestyles ESSENTIAL.

With food and covering, be content!

You're right. However, don't forget that many times people get into bad situations due to poor planning. And trying to take on things they aren't ready for.

But sometimes that's life, and therefor yea, they might not have a choice and have to give their baby over to daycare or a nanny. So maybe it is better for them to work instead of being homeless or accumulating more debt.
But that still doesn't prove that it's acceptable in God's eyes to forsake their duties as wives.
They're just in a sucky situation.

But if they're Christians, theoretically...whether it was poor planning that got them into their mess, or just the chance of life, they should be able to go to the church and say "we need financial help so that we can serve in God's desired roles for us". And maybe the church helps until their husbands can make more money, or pick up a 2nd job, etc. to make it work without that assistance.
The church is supposed to aid its members (which probably doesn't happen enough).

Maybe it's just my misunderstanding but this seems like speculations.

That example was besides the point. The point was: just because a text wasn't written to me and you specifically, or that Jesus doesn't appear to us individually, or because we aren't alive in the times when the apostles were preaching, etc., doesn't inherently mean that these biblical passages don't apply to us.

There is a HUGE different between Paul's cloak and "THE WOMEN ARE TO KEEP SILENT IN THE CHURCHES."
The apostle's teachings stem from the Gospel of Christ...and the Gospel is for ALL, for ALL TIME.

And part of that order is women being in submission to male authority of teaching.

No, I'm saying that the principals remain, and the fact that we need to apply them today remains, but sometimes the specific application can vary because the principal is not forsaken.
So I can be modest by wearing loose jeans and a t-shirt, but a woman can't not usurp authority/can't not serve as an elder, etc. WITHOUT breaking the principal.

The specifics i'm talking about are irrelevant to the principal. A man can preach with the help of a projector or just with a bible...as long as he's preaching God's word. The project doesn't break the principal of preaching the Gospel--it's just an aid.
Likewise, you can partake of the vine portion of the communion with one single cup or multiple cups...as long a we don't betray the principal or the limitations of the communion. For instance, using Mountain Dew as "the fruit of the vine" would be wrong because it's not fruit of the vine! Some specifics of application can be changed without interrupting command. Other specifics, cannot be changed.

Thank you for your reply; I'm glad your move went well.
I will try to address all your post at once rather than the various points.

As I see it this topic, and many others that we debate here in CF, is all about how we read Scripture. People read it in different ways.
Some people say that because the word of God is true it is all therefore literally true - no matter if the writing is poetry, allegory, or pastoral advice to a certain group of people.
Some people, maybe even the same group, say that because it is all true then it is all for us today. That all the books and letters that are in the Bible are there for a particular reason and that because we have access to all of them and can read the Bible as a whole, it must be that everything in there is for us; to be obeyed/followed a God's detailed plan for our lives.
Some people, again, maybe the same group, say that because everything in the Bible is for us, it follows that if something is not in the Bible, we can't do/have it. So if someone writes a statement in one of the forums here, their response will be "show me the verse which says ......" or "show me where Jesus ......", and if the other person can't, the response is "well if it's not in Scripture, I don't believe it and I'm not going to do it."
Some people, maybe the majority, say that the Bible is the word of God and is true but is not necessarily all meant for us. That the revelation about God, and the Gospel, are true and unchanging, but the writers were writing to different groups of people in different situations and different cultures and that something written to someone in one culture is not necessarily relevant to someone living in another. So that if someone says "God says ....." this may very well have been God's word for those people at that time, but is not necessarily his word for us today.

I'm not sure which of those groups you belong to - and there may be other views I haven't thought of.
My position is the last one. The Bible is true and God's word, but it's still important to read it in context, take note of the people the author is writing to, what they would have understood by it, and the situation he was addressing; rather than saying "this is in the Bible, ALL of it is FOR us and every word has to be literally applied." So regarding this argument my belief is that in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul was writing about the need for order in church - that is the context. It seems clear that there were women in that church who had a habit of talking, interrupting and asking their neighbours questions, actually while the service was going on. I say this because Paul uses the phrase "if a woman has questions she should ask her own husband at home", or something similar. I can't see a reason for him to use that phrase unless it was actually happening at the time - that women were talking and asking questions of the nearest available man. Paul then says "FOR it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church". In other words the bit about not speaking in church addresses the bit about asking questions only when you get home, and is not a statement that women should be totally silent in church to the point where they cannot worship, read the Scriptures, say "Amen" or whatever. I have read posts on CF from people who hold that view and believe Paul's statement to be literally true, and they, or their wives, practice it. They are entitled to think that, and good on them for being consistent. But I do not believe it is what Paul meant. In the same way, some people believe that 1 Timothy 2:12 means that women cannot teach and cannot have authority over a man - which they interpret as meaning that a woman cannot, therefore, be ordained. I don't believe it means that, for all the reasons that I have given, and from what I see of women's role in Scripture - that they ruled over the nation, instructed men, gave God's word to men and explained his will, took the Gospel to others and so on.
I also believe it doesn't mean that women can't be ordained because of what God is doing today. What is happening, here and now, to me and to others i.e being called to be preachers and Ministers - is important, is real and is from God.
Obviously people who believe that women's ordination is forbidden by Scripture aren't going to agree. For them it probably is a clear cut case of us disobeying God, and they have explanations, and answers, for why God allows it to happen.

My view, though, is that whatever position a person takes in their approach to Scripture, they should be consistent in that view throughout. So if someone believes that every word of Scripture is literally true and for us today, then that's how it is. So Paul's words about the length of men's hair are literally true, need to be applied by us and ARE just as relevant as his words about women being silent; similarly his words on head coverings. And if someone believes that we are to apply every word of Scripture to our lives today - because it's there and it's true - then they HAVE to somehow apply Paul's words about his cloak and scrolls, just as they also have to apply, and obey, all of the Jewish law. These are both in Scripture after all, and such an action would be consistent with their view that all of Scripture is for us today.

In the same way, if you believe that Scripture teaches that all men have to go out to work to provide for their families and women stay at home; that, irrespective of your own views, gifts and inclinations, that is what God commands you to do - then you must do it.
I don't believe Scripture teaches that, and I don't believe that, because that was the culture and practice in Bible times, it has to be the culture and practice today. I see women doing all sorts of things in Scripture - teaching, working, leading groups of people, taking God's word to those people and so on. I believe God made us in his image, has saved us, has a plan for our lives and wants us to serve, and tell others about, him. And that he can, and does, call women to do all sorts of things for him today.

Ultimately, this is a question of how we interpret Scripture. The way you interpret and apply it is different from the way I interpret and apply it, and someone else might interpret it differently again. I don't think either of us will change our views, unless we come to believe that we are interpreting Scripture wrongly. So I think there is probably no more to be said on the subject. I think you are wrong; you may well think that I am disobedient and unscriptural. But we both firmly believe that we are serving God in the way that he has called us to serve him - so I think we have to do what we believe to be right.

 

[Neogaia777]

Men are "capable" at least, of not being "deceived", but if they get to this point, are held more responsible and not innocent... women, at least, according to the Bible, unless there is a change, are "thouroughly decieved, yet more innocent in God's eyes, unless (if it is in God's will) they also become capable of not being decieved, at which point they are; they will stand before God as an individual, apart from a head or covering from a man to take the guilt for them, at which point, if that happens, they will be just as responsible and just as guilty as men are, the ones among each sex individually who are not deceived, that is...

God Bless!

Whomever is deceived about, by that meaning, does not fully know, or is not fully aware about an area of sin in their life, and is doing it, but not aware of it, is innocent of it, BUT, once they are made fully aware of that sin, that error, that crime, in their life, they become accountable and guilty, if they do not repent, that is put a stop to that particular thing... Men tend be more aware of their wickedness, and usually earlier on in life, for the most part, than women are, in general, therefore more guilty usually, than women are, usually... but, I believe some of that is changing in today's world...

We are approaching and in an age where we are being made increasingly more aware of our sins, as this happens, we become more and more guilty, that is for those who agree with God, (those who don't reject God) Near the end, or at the end of this age, those who don't reject God and his truth, are all going to become guilty, by the truth of the full knowledge of our sin and guilt becoming clearly apparent and fully known, the big question is "what do we do?" after this?" When all will become guilty before God (that is those not rejecting him and the truth) I believe that is where Christ (God) and all that he did about this, fully comes in... (for believers that is)...

God Bless!

 

[Hieronymus]

Actually we don't have any instructions of the direct details of Mary becoming 'pregnant'. But I would offer that women 'do not have 'seeds'. They have eggs.

The Bible however refers to just that as seed.
It's modern lingo that calls it an egg, but both mean the same.

Men have what the Bible calls 'seeds'.

And so do women.
We all get the mitochondria (the powerplant of every cell) from our moms.

 

[Hieronymus]

You are kind of 'missing the point'. Can you say that a viable embryo was "NOT" place inside Mary. In other words, do you have any 'proof' that it was an 'egg' of Mary's fertilized by the Holy Spirit? Or was an egg already fertilized placed within Mary?

Would it be the seed of the woman if her egg-cell was not used?
I wouldn't think so.
(Would Mary even be his mother?)
Luke 1:42-43
Mother of the Lord, the fruit of Mary's womb.

But indeed, who can tell the technical details?

 

[Johnnz]

Greeks valued reason. Hence the head was the superior part of a man. Reason was to prevail. Emotions, feelings, and the bodily senses were therefore inferior, or lower. The purpose of the neck was to separate the 'higher' head from the 'lower' body.

Women were seen as more emotional, less rational, more prone to wrong thinking, base desires, being led astray. It was those Greek (pagan) concepts that our Greek educated church fathers imposed onto the Scriptures. misreading much of Paul and the OT themes. Blindly following an erroneous pagan hierarchy takes away the scope of the salvation that Jesus provides for us.

The 'literalists', the 'this is what the Bible says' group don't recognise just how pagan their thinking is. I am intrigued how little, if ever, they have engaged in any real exegetical response to what I and some others have posted. Instead it's more quoting of texts about false teachers and ad hominem statements that characterise them.

C'est la vie.

John
NZ

 

[Johnnz]

Your approach to the Bible is utterly contrary 'to the Bible'. While you are certainly free to believe what you wish and post what you wish, it don't 'wash'.

To you it doesn't. That does not make you correct though.

If you are indicating that it is your 'opinion' that the Bible is based on 'pagan' thoughts and ideas, it is my opinion that your opinion couldn't be 'more' off track.

A failure to understand what I actually said.

God doesn't expect His children to 're-interpret' His Word according to each and every one's own lusts or desires. God doesn't expect His children to 'learn Greek' in order to have access to His Word.

Not everyone but some. Your KJV ( or any translation) relies totally to people who do understand the original languages. Jesus did not speak English, nor did Paul.

So you are certainly free to take your 'lexicon' and pick through the Bible to create your own, but the rest of us realize that it's not necessary. God is plenty capable of 'preserving His Word' in what ever language that exists. Without the 'need' for the 'exegesis' you insist. That's a 'pipe dream' dreamed up by those that simply do not accept the Bible as offered. Their intent is to 'create' a Bible of their own by eliminating those parts they don't agree with. Nothing more, nothing less.

Hmm. Are you aware that there are over 4000 documents used to produce our translations? Or that there are 400,000 variations between them?

Yes I to believe in the trustworthiness of the Scriptures and in that that my belief is probably far better grounded in its basis than is yours.

You aren't 'smarter' than anyone else simply by 'acting like it'. In fact, when I listen to those such as yourself touting themselves for being 'so much smarter than everyone else' when it comes to their approach to the Bible? I can't help but chuckle a little. It's like they missed this part or simply refuse to accept it:

Another ad hominem. An irrelevant comment. And aren't you claiming the same for yourself? I am deluded or whatever whereas you are totally correct in your views.
:

A good example of exactly what I was saying.

John
NZ

 

[Neogaia777]

If we were to accept what some here on this thread suggest, we may as well throw our Bibles out the window and just 'make up' what we 'want' to believe and follow 'ourselves' instead of Christ. And then 'claim' that our own 'wants and desires' are the 'calling of God'.

The bible is not offered 'subjectively'. If one person reads and understands one thing and another something completely different, that is not because God offered 'truth' subjectively. It is because one or 'both' simply don't understand what has been offered. If you believe that what the Bible offeres is subjective or up to the individual to interpret, then you don't really believe in what the Bible offers.

Blessings,

MEC

The main and single-minded "purpose" of the scripture, is to come to "know" who/what God "is", for us to "know" and "become" and "be" like that, and, by "knowing" this, knowing "his will", and truly making it our own, making it "our will" also...

When we do and have done this (the only way to know this is having "known" this, that is, by having read/studied a lot of scripture...) But once you "know" and have "become" the former, by the latter, the rest is "prayer", that is, seeking guidance by communicating with God, and "doing", that is, carrying it out, that is, God's will, that has now become your's as well...

Jesus knew a lot of scripture, and came to know this, by studying it in his life, but, after coming to know all he needed to know, that is after his baptism, he rarely "needed" scripture anymore, after that, having "fulfilled" and "become" it, we can also...

God Bless!

 

[Brokenhill]

Thank you for your reply; I'm glad your move went well.
I will try to address all your post at once rather than the various points.

As I see it this topic, and many others that we debate here in CF, is all about how we read Scripture. People read it in different ways.
Some people say that because the word of God is true it is all therefore literally true - no matter if the writing is poetry, allegory, or pastoral advice to a certain group of people.
Some people, maybe even the same group, say that because it is all true then it is all for us today. That all the books and letters that are in the Bible are there for a particular reason and that because we have access to all of them and can read the Bible as a whole, it must be that everything in there is for us; to be obeyed/followed a God's detailed plan for our lives.
Some people, again, maybe the same group, say that because everything in the Bible is for us, it follows that if something is not in the Bible, we can't do/have it. So if someone writes a statement in one of the forums here, their response will be "show me the verse which says ......" or "show me where Jesus ......", and if the other person can't, the response is "well if it's not in Scripture, I don't believe it and I'm not going to do it."
Some people, maybe the majority, say that the Bible is the word of God and is true but is not necessarily all meant for us. That the revelation about God, and the Gospel, are true and unchanging, but the writers were writing to different groups of people in different situations and different cultures and that something written to someone in one culture is not necessarily relevant to someone living in another. So that if someone says "God says ....." this may very well have been God's word for those people at that time, but is not necessarily his word for us today.

I'm not sure which of those groups you belong to - and there may be other views I haven't thought of.
My position is the last one. The Bible is true and God's word, but it's still important to read it in context, take note of the people the author is writing to, what they would have understood by it, and the situation he was addressing; rather than saying "this is in the Bible, ALL of it is FOR us and every word has to be literally applied." So regarding this argument my belief is that in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul was writing about the need for order in church - that is the context. It seems clear that there were women in that church who had a habit of talking, interrupting and asking their neighbours questions, actually while the service was going on. I say this because Paul uses the phrase "if a woman has questions she should ask her own husband at home", or something similar. I can't see a reason for him to use that phrase unless it was actually happening at the time - that women were talking and asking questions of the nearest available man. Paul then says "FOR it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church". In other words the bit about not speaking in church addresses the bit about asking questions only when you get home, and is not a statement that women should be totally silent in church to the point where they cannot worship, read the Scriptures, say "Amen" or whatever. I have read posts on CF from people who hold that view and believe Paul's statement to be literally true, and they, or their wives, practice it. They are entitled to think that, and good on them for being consistent. But I do not believe it is what Paul meant. In the same way, some people believe that 1 Timothy 2:12 means that women cannot teach and cannot have authority over a man - which they interpret as meaning that a woman cannot, therefore, be ordained. I don't believe it means that, for all the reasons that I have given, and from what I see of women's role in Scripture - that they ruled over the nation, instructed men, gave God's word to men and explained his will, took the Gospel to others and so on.
I also believe it doesn't mean that women can't be ordained because of what God is doing today. What is happening, here and now, to me and to others i.e being called to be preachers and Ministers - is important, is real and is from God.
Obviously people who believe that women's ordination is forbidden by Scripture aren't going to agree. For them it probably is a clear cut case of us disobeying God, and they have explanations, and answers, for why God allows it to happen.

My view, though, is that whatever position a person takes in their approach to Scripture, they should be consistent in that view throughout. So if someone believes that every word of Scripture is literally true and for us today, then that's how it is. So Paul's words about the length of men's hair are literally true, need to be applied by us and ARE just as relevant as his words about women being silent; similarly his words on head coverings. And if someone believes that we are to apply every word of Scripture to our lives today - because it's there and it's true - then they HAVE to somehow apply Paul's words about his cloak and scrolls, just as they also have to apply, and obey, all of the Jewish law. These are both in Scripture after all, and such an action would be consistent with their view that all of Scripture is for us today.

In the same way, if you believe that Scripture teaches that all men have to go out to work to provide for their families and women stay at home; that, irrespective of your own views, gifts and inclinations, that is what God commands you to do - then you must do it.
I don't believe Scripture teaches that, and I don't believe that, because that was the culture and practice in Bible times, it has to be the culture and practice today. I see women doing all sorts of things in Scripture - teaching, working, leading groups of people, taking God's word to those people and so on. I believe God made us in his image, has saved us, has a plan for our lives and wants us to serve, and tell others about, him. And that he can, and does, call women to do all sorts of things for him today.

Ultimately, this is a question of how we interpret Scripture. The way you interpret and apply it is different from the way I interpret and apply it, and someone else might interpret it differently again. I don't think either of us will change our views, unless we come to believe that we are interpreting Scripture wrongly. So I think there is probably no more to be said on the subject. I think you are wrong; you may well think that I am disobedient and unscriptural. But we both firmly believe that we are serving God in the way that he has called us to serve him - so I think we have to do what we believe to be right.

Well at least you have an answer to give to God on judgment day.

May God's grace cover both of our imperfections and misinterpretations.

But one thing is for certain...we can't all be right. Either you're right and I'm wrong; I'm right and your wrong; or we're both wrong...because we both can't be right.