Women Pastors?

[Paidiske]

No I am just telling women to obey SCripture as written and not rewritten.

The problem here (aside from the fact that you think you should tell women what to do, or not do) is that I am obeying Scripture to the best of my understanding.

 

[lismore]

"God's ways are mysterious" or "God's ways are higher than ours" is a cop-out excuse that I've often seen when the lens through which someone views scripture is questioned and denies the legitimate views of others.

That can be true. And the opposite can also be true. Sometimes people jump the gun because they don't understand what God is doing- Abraham and Hagar spring to mind. It depends on the context. God Bless

 

[bekkilyn]

That can be true. And the opposite can also be true. Sometimes people jump the gun because they don't understand what God is doing- Abraham and Hagar spring to mind. It depends on the context. God Bless

I think we can all agree that God works in ways that are beyond human understanding, but it applies to all humanity and not as a specific argument in defense of a particular view of scripture. God himself spoke to Sarah and Abraham about a specific promise he made to them, and they became impatient. God wasn't just some random guy on the internet claiming to have an infallible interpretation of the bible.

 

[lismore]

God himself spoke to Sarah and Abraham about a specific promise he made to them, and they became impatient.

Hello. Interesting. Some might say in this case God has made a specific instruction regarding leadership in the church and many in the last generation, due to pressure from secular liberalism, have grown unsatisfied with that instruction. God Bless

 

[bekkilyn]

Hello. Interesting. Some might say in this case God has made a specific instruction regarding leadership in the church and many in the last generation, due to pressure from secular liberalism, have grown unsatisfied with that instruction. God Bless

*Some* might say, but not all and *some* might agree that God made this instruction, but not all. It hasn't anything to do with "secular liberalism" whatever that is, but to examine the scriptures like the Bereans in Acts 17. Just because some may have frequently used a particular lens to look at scripture doesn't make it a good lens. It could in fact be a very low-quality lens and there are better ones that have been ignored.

Did our spiritual growth and understanding of God come to a halt centuries ago, or is God still revealing himself to us today as we continue to mature in our faith, both as individuals and as a community? Is it wise to take one or two verses of scripture and use them to censure others as "God's will" while ignoring the cultural context, the motivations of the writer, whether or not they conflict with God's character as presented elsewhere in scripture, whether they appear to contradict other scriptures, and even whether they contradict the message and spirit of the gospel and life in God's Kingdom?

When people use such verses as weapons against women and other minorities (such as when they were doing the exact same thing to defend God's will for black slavery), they aren't taking any of the above into consideration or comprehending that many others have very valid reasons for seeing scripture differently than they do, reasons that have little to nothing to do with 21st century American politics.

Our faith is a *living* faith and we follow a *living* God, but there are those who seem to wish to limit our spiritual growth and understanding of God to faith that is dead.

 

[Paidiske]

Some might say in this case God has made a specific instruction regarding leadership in the church and many in the last generation, due to pressure from secular liberalism, have grown unsatisfied with that instruction.

Except that this would not, in any way, account for so many women's experiences of being genuinely called by God to this work.

 

[nolidad]

When translating from one language to another, the primary goal is to translate the meaning, not the words. That's what those dynamic translations faithfully did. If you want to cite an expert that says those translations are in error, feel free.

No they did not. Meaning come from teh words. Once again if Paul used the no specific words "tis" or "anthropos" I would agree.

Stop trying to deny that your interpretation of the Scriptures "as written" would restrict women from being pastors, elders, or preachers. That's exactly what it does and you know that.

I don't deny it, I endorse it as from God!!! Paul placed the restriction when he said a bishop must be the husband of one wife!

I know in this modern age that is deemed sexist and anti women by some. I can't help that.

Do you believe that Jesus actually physically rose from the dead? or was that a metaphor to you as well. YOu can't defend calling this passage an idiom with linguistic historic evidence but accept it idiomatically anyway- because of a predispositional bias and seeking to honor God and His Word.

Once again you cannot defend a prohibition against gays marrying, being faithful and being bishops. Unless of course you drawe you r "idiomatic line" after allowing women when that is not what is written.

That's because you demanded scholarly support for my positions, and now that I've given you what you ask for, you take me to task for it. You can't have it both ways.

You did not give scholarly support for you rposition. All you did was quote like minded people. None of them provided evidence to show that Paul wrote an idiom. They did not cite same period writings showing it or anything else called "PROOF"! YOu are being disingenuous

No, it was one command. That "or" in 1 Timothy 2:12 isn't ἤ , the usual word for or such as used in verse 9. It's οὐδέ, which Paul often used to separate two things that were part of the same idea, as he did in Galatians 4:14. Paul said there, "you did not scorn OR despise me" which is one thing.

You are twisting Greek now as well!

Oude is a negative adverb and means nor. It separates two things in one sentence.

Paul in Galatians gave two things the galatians did not do. "You did not scorn me" and "YOU did not despise me!

Oude is uses to take two complete thoughts and join them in one sentence.

sorry but that is grammar 101

You say "Paul doesn't allow women to teach- period." But you should read Titus 2:3 where he tells women to teach. So you are wrong again.

Well if we are going to follow your logic. Then Paul is saying the woman bishop is not allowed to teach her husband. So I guess he had to fellowship in the next town over?

Or like most of the Bible believing wing of Christendom knows, Paul is busy given commands for church life!

Teh Construct of Titus 2 is personal commands not ecclesiastical commands.

 

[nolidad]

The problem here (aside from the fact that you think you should tell women what to do, or not do) is that I am obeying Scripture to the best of my understanding.

Understand better then. I am not trying to tell women what to do other than what Scripture says.

I am not against you though you think so. I just know from Gods Word as written and not reinterreted that your good works will be burned up. I feel bad if you take offense at that, but it is still true.

Take a nonbiased translation of Scripture, show it to 100 believers, and ask them to tell you what this passage means:

1 Timothy 3
King James Version

3 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Not a dynamic translation for that is just as weak as paraphrases like the LIVING bible or good news for modern man.

Without comment ask them if that means men are to be bishops.

I have asked if one can show that this is an idiom from history, linguistic and how it developed into a n idiom (ancient use) and not just a few "scholars" saying it is, I am more than willing to listen.

But you , bekkilyn, nor Gregoriokos have even come near doing that. You have given no sound reason to reject this as written. Just like the JW's have given no sound logical historic, linguistic, grammatic reason why we should accept them saying Jesus did not physically rise from the dead in the body He died in!

 

[Paidiske]

Understand better then. I am not trying to tell women what to do other than what Scripture says.

But... still trying to tell me what (not) to do. Noted.

Take a nonbiased translation of Scripture...

I don't need to look at any translation; I can read the Greek very well. As for the rest of your suggestion, it would end up depending entirely which 100 people I picked, since clearly many Christians have no problem with women in leadership, despite being very familiar with such passages.

But you , bekkilyn, nor Gregoriokos have even come near doing that. You have given no sound reason to reject this as written.

My most prominent reason for not reading such passages in Paul's writing as applying to all women everywhere in every situation is that we know it contradicts Paul's own practice. Unless you're suggesting that Paul was writing one thing but doing another, then the evidence that Paul worked with, supported, encouraged and praised women who were deacons, apostles, leaders of house churches, and so on, means we cannot read these passages as absolute.

 

[nolidad]

Go Figure!? There are so many variables in the way we use language, and often there are things that rely on context, culture, sentence structure, and other linguistic nuances, such as to make some sort of word for word interchangeability, impracticable, difficult and unhelpful. That is why translations are almost always done by teams and committees or people who have skills and expertise in these issues.

On all these I agree. But none of that changes the definitions of words and how they were written. Greek is written in a way that makes little sense when translated in word of word order. But rules that are inviolate in grammar and not subject to ephemeral whims dictate how we change the structure to have it make sense in our language.

I am big on context, but eschew viewing the SCriptures through the eyes of our culture and nuances we use. We must rely on and only on what the author wrote and not how something may or may not have varied over the course of time! This is the same argument going on with the Constitution, Should we enforce it as written as law of the land or should we reinterpret it to suit current whims.

Word for word interchangebility only becomes untenable when the original word is no longer a word used though it seems the KJV scholars did a good job. Words like denarii- they just borught over instead of dynamically changing.

altering any word in the originals (or the oldest we have to work with) should be done more carefully than a skilled surgeoun operating on ones brain! For Scripture less is always better. The only really really good New Testament, is the 10 Volume Greek New Testament as it gives cultural understanding to our benights minds as well as how th wprds were used by the authors and not necessarily our understanding.

 

[nolidad]

But... still trying to tell me what (not) to do. Noted.

Well I am only the messenger- so you seem to want to shoot teh messenger oveer the message he deliverd not wrote.

I don't need to look at any translation; I can read the Greek very well. As for the rest of your suggestion, it would end up depending entirely which 100 people I picked, since clearly many Christians have no problem with women in leadership, despite being very familiar with such passages.

Well if you can read Greek Well, you should know better than to try to defend aner and gyne to be non gender specific.

My most prominent reason for not reading such passages in Paul's writing as applying to all women everywhere in every situation is that we know it contradicts Paul's own practice. Unless you're suggesting that Paul was writing one thing but doing another, then the evidence that Paul worked with, supported, encouraged and praised women who were deacons, apostles, leaders of house churches, and so on, means we cannot read these passages as absolute.

And your opinion of what Paul did is based on your "egalitarian bias and not sound hermeneutics. Just like saying aner and gyne can simply mean generic people is unsound hereneutics.

 

[Paidiske]

Well I am only the messenger- so you seem to want to shoot teh messenger oveer the message he deliverd not wrote.

I don't want to shoot you, but I do wonder why you're so invested in what random women on the internet, who are neither members of your family nor your church, do.

Well if you can read Greek Well, you should know better than to try to defend aner and gyne to be non gender specific.

In this particular passage, I believe the thrust of the passage - of faithful monogamy - was not gender specific.

And your opinion of what Paul did is based on your "egalitarian bias and not sound hermeneutics.

My opinion of what Paul did is based on a very literal reading of Acts and his own letters. If you want to defend reading aner and gyne literally, it mystifies me that you don't then want to read diakonos and apostoloi literally.

 

[Gregorikos]

No they did not. Meaning come from teh words.

Anyone who knows a second langage knows that isn't true.

"Pablo compró flores a su meda naranja." How would you translate that? If you said Paul bought flowers for his half an orange, that would be wrong, even though that's what the words say. You can't translate the words- you have to translate the idiom as a unit.

Here is Bill Mounce, one of the world's foremost authorities on Greek: Literally There is No Such Thing as Literal

I don't deny it, I endorse it as from God!!!

You speak in circles. First you deny what you clearly did. Then you deny that you denied it. Then you denied that you denied that you denied it. I don't have time to keep wading through your posts to prove your incoherence to you, for you'd simply deny it again.

And now that I've used "incoherence" in a sentence, I know I can count on you accusing me of the same, because that's what you do.

Do you believe that Jesus actually physically rose from the dead? or was that a metaphor to you as well.

This is typical of your offensive manner and why you've been accused of being rude in this thread. Of course I believe in the resurrection. It's outrageous and offensive for you to suggest otherwise.

Once again you cannot defend a prohibition against gays marrying, being faithful and being bishops. Unless of course you drawe you r "idiomatic line" after allowing women when that is not what is written.

Nonsense. Idioms don't mean anything one wants them to mean. They mean something specific. If you are familiar with anyone attempting to use "the husband of one wife" in defense of gay marriage, then give us the evidence. Otherwise this is just another of your empty claims.

You did not give scholarly support for you rposition. All you did was quote like minded people. None of them provided evidence to show that Paul wrote an idiom. They did not cite same period writings showing it or anything else called "PROOF"! YOu are being disingenuous

I certainly did. I quoted:

Andreas J. Köstenberger, Research Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology and founding director of the Center for Biblical Studies at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Douglas Moo, theologian and Kenneth T. Wessner Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School. He was previously Blanchard Professor of New Testament from 2000–2011 and previously taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School for over 20 years.

Thomas Schreiner, the James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He previously taught at Bethel Theological Seminary and Azusa Pacific University.

All of those are eminent complementarian Bible scholars who support what I'm telling you about the idiom "husband of one wife." None of them are "like minded people."

I also cited A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition, Walter Bauer, revised & edited by F.W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000) which noted the idomatic useage of μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα and pointed to "numerous sepulchral inscriptions celebrate the virtue of a surviving spouse by noting that he or she was married only once, thereby suggesting the virtue of extraordinary fidelity," for support.

And I cited a number of Bible translations which translated μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα as an idiom for marital faithfulness. You yourself cited two Bible translations that did the same. (NIV and NLT)

You are twisting Greek now as well!

Oude is a negative adverb and means nor. It separates two things in one sentence.

Paul in Galatians gave two things the galatians did not do. "You did not scorn me" and "YOU did not despise me!

Oude is uses to take two complete thoughts and join them in one sentence.

Sure, but usually those two are expressing the same idea, especially in Paul's letters. Philip Payne did the research on that, which I don't have handy. In any case, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is about a marriage, not about preaching or teaching in a church, so that's irrelevant to this thread.

Well if we are going to follow your logic. Then Paul is saying the woman bishop is not allowed to teach her husband. So I guess he had to fellowship in the next town over?

Not at all. She could be single, as Nympha probably was. (Colossians 4:15) or they could be co-leaders of the congregation, like Prisca and Aquila (Romans 16:3-5) or Philemon and Apphia (Philem 1-2)

 

[Darren Brown]

I feel that 1 timothy 2:11-15 answers this question. I find it interesting that after Paul says that women are to be under the authority of a man he talks about Adam and Eve. He is talking about something that happened 4000 years ago. So often the argument for women pastors is that Paul was in a completely different time and place than we are in today, but wasn't it true that Paul was in a different time and place than Adam and Eve? It's almost like he is saying that this transcends time period and place. Think about the curse that the woman had for eating the fruit.
Your desire will be for your husband,
yet he will rule over you. (Genesis 3:16)
It almost seems like the curse for women was that their husbands would have authority over them. Just like eating the fruit could it be that there are things in life that we can do, but God doesn't want us to do. I'm sure that there are woman pastors that do a good job, but are they doing the job that God wants them to do.

 

[Love365]

I feel that 1 timothy 2:11-15 answers this question. I find it interesting that after Paul says that women are to be under the authority of a man he talks about Adam and Eve. He is talking about something that happened 4000 years ago. So often the argument for women pastors is that Paul was in a completely different time and place than we are in today, but wasn't it true that Paul was in a different time and place than Adam and Eve? It's almost like he is saying that this transcends time period and place. Think about the curse that the woman had for eating the fruit.
Your desire will be for your husband,
yet he will rule over you. (Genesis 3:16)
It almost seems like the curse for women was that their husbands would have authority over them. Just like eating the fruit could it be that there are things in life that we can do, but God doesn't want us to do. I'm sure that there are woman pastors that do a good job, but are they doing the job that God wants them to do.

A woman can be a priest, bishop, or a cardinal
and still be under the authority of a man.

As long as the Pope is a man.

 

[Gregorikos]

I feel that 1 timothy 2:11-15 answers this question.

1 Timothy 2:11-15 has nothing at all to do with this question if it's about a married couple, for in that case it isn't about church leadership at all.

I find it interesting that after Paul says that women are to be under the authority of a man he talks about Adam and Eve.

I do too. Question: How were Adam and Eve related to each other? (They were a married couple.)

Think about the curse that the woman had for eating the fruit.
Your desire will be for your husband,
yet he will rule over you. (Genesis 3:16)
It almost seems like the curse for women was that their husbands would have authority over them.

So we're back to married couples. Do you notice the trend here? M-A-R-R-I-E-D. 1 Timothy 2 is about married couples. And in verse 15 they have a baby as married couples do.

Also- you call male rule a result of the fall, and I agree. But is there any other aspect of the fall that you accept and embrace as a good thing? Anything at all?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

A woman can be a priest, bishop, or a cardinal
and still be under the authority of a man.

As long as the Pope is a man.

As long as that Man is Christ ;duh;

 

[nolidad]

I don't want to shoot you, but I do wonder why you're so invested in what random women on the internet, who are neither members of your family nor your church, do.



In this particular passage, I believe the thrust of the passage - of faithful monogamy - was not gender specific.



My opinion of what Paul did is based on a very literal reading of Acts and his own letters. If you want to defend reading aner and gyne literally, it mystifies me that you don't then want to read diakonos and apostoloi literally.

Well you are my sister in Christ and it was my intention to try to have as civil a discussion on an issue that has become thorny.

It is about monogamy- that the husband should have but one wife. you cannot escape that conclusion that it uses the gender specific words when Paul di dnot have to nor did God have to inspire HIm to write them.

I do not consider Paul to be ignorant, or loose when writing under teh INspiration of the Holy spirit. There are two perfectly good non gender specific words he could have used and then there would be no argument between us.

I do take diakonos and apostoloi literally. First and foremost they mean servant and sent one. then recognize they refer to an "official" in the church when the context demands it. Like with the seven appointed by the apostles.

Once again if Paul used the gender neutral words for bishops and deacons I have no problem, but He didn't and see no need for us to feel teh need to edit gods Word.

I am still waiting for Gregoriokos to show how aner and gyne in Timothy by the time Paul used it was an idiom! How did it develop, what was commonly used before the idiom? I can trace teh history of many American idioms and know why they are idioms. If we are going to say that husband of one wife- is idiomatic for simply faithfulness in marriage, especially with a language and culture that was not prone to idiomatic usages like we are- w eshould be able to pinpoint in the ancient writings the development of it. But he hasn't done so for whatever reasons.

 

[Paidiske]

Once again if Paul used the gender neutral words for bishops and deacons I have no problem, but He didn't and see no need for us to feel teh need to edit gods Word.

In the particular instances I'm thinking of - Phoebe, a deacon, and Junia, an apostle - the words were not gendered. Junia was included in an instance of the masculine plural (which is used for mixed groups), and Phoebe was described with exactly the same term as a male deacon. In the context they were used - an epistle sent by a church leader, to a church community, commending other church leaders - it seems beyond clear to me that their context demands that we read them with a church-specific meaning.

As for the claim that Greek was not prone to idiomatic usage; I find that strange and completely contradicted by the evidence.

 

[nolidad]

This is typical of your offensive manner and why you've been accused of being rude in this thread. Of course I believe in the resurrection. It's outrageous and offensive for you to suggest otherwise.

Well there are tens of thousands of peopekl and whole seminaries that say His resurrection was just a metaphor. I was simply asking you a question. You can take it any way you wish.

Here is Bill Mounce, one of the world's foremost authorities on Greek: Literally There is No Such Thing as Literal

Who anointed Him as one fo the foremost authorities on Greek? I agree He has quite an impressive biography, but I trust Spiros Zodhiates- not only a native greek speaker but holds a master in koine greek.

Also Arnold Fruchtenbaum. He also holds a masters in Biblical greek, but no longer read teh NT in English.

Well as your article speaks more of word for word transliteration instead of taking words that have a specific meaning and bringing it into the same word in another language that i s specific -

He eschews literalism which he quoted a dictionary.

"The basic meaning of “literal” has to do with meaning, not form. It denotes the actual, factual meaning of something, “free from exaggeration or embellishment” (Merriam-Webster). The American Heritage Dictionary defines “literal” as, “Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words. Word for word; verbatim. Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment.” Hence, a “literal” translation is one that is faithful to the meaning of the original author, using words with their basic meaning, not exaggerating or embellishing the original meaning."

"My friend Mark Strauss, also on the CBT, makes the point that even a word does not have a “literal” meaning but rather what we call a “semantic range.” I like to refer to words as having a bundle of sticks, with each stick representing a different (but perhaps related) meaning. Certainly, one of the sticks may be larger than the rest, representing the more frequently used meaning of the word or what we teach in first-year Greek as the “gloss,” but it is only one among many. So if you were producing a “literal” Bible, how would you find the literal meaning of a word? A first-year Greek gloss, perhaps, but not the meaning of the word."

Well I can only say this to this scholar- If words have no "literal" meaning, then they say nothing!

1 Corinthians 14:8
For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

Well if this is your teacher, that does explain much! But how do you understand what I am writing if words have no"literal" meaning? How can you be sure what I am really saying? I could be using a different stick from teh bundle than you are assigning non-meaning meaning to what I am saying.

Maybe you should invite Mr. Mounce on this thread and have him tell us what "semantic range" he thinks our vierse in disussion holds and we can pick and choose what is best.

Or I can do as I was taught:

The common sense Golden Rule of Interpretation
Posted on March 30, 2014


“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”–Dr. David L. Cooper (1886-1965),
founder of The Biblical Research Society


Maybe Jesus didn't literally rise from teh dead.

Maybe Paul literally wasn't THE apostle to teh gentiles. If we use Mr. Mounces philosophy we can never know unles we know teh whole semantic range he says every word has.