Women Pastors?

[nolidad]

I have studied quite a few languages (to different degrees) over the years. French, Japanese, Koine Greek; it is not at all true that English has an unusual level of colloquialism, euphemism and idiom. In my experience these are universal features of language. And in Koine Greek, which was not classical Greek but the later lingua franca Greek of the street, simplified and with many loanwords from other languages/cultures, it was certainly true.

Well I know French, some chinese and Hebrew and Koine and know that American English is teh #1 language for use of colloquialisms, idioms and metaphors. that doesn't mean others don't but America has tones of them. so much so that online we have dictionaries of idioms and urban languages.

I tell you what, why don't you go and ask that in the Orthodox forum? I have pointed out to you that the idea of Junia as an apostle is not a modern invention, but an ancient understanding of the early church. What you do with that is up to you.

 

[nolidad]

I tell you what, why don't you go and ask that in the Orthodox forum? I have pointed out to you that the idea of Junia as an apostle is not a modern invention, but an ancient understanding of the early church. What you do with that is up to you.

YOu made the claim, so I am asking you . If you can make the claim, I am sure you know where to find it. I am discussing here and not on the orthodox forum. I shall keep it as an unsubstantiated claim.

Just like gregoriokos claim that "husband of one wife" is an idiom that really means being faithful in marriage.

claims without evidence are like dark clouds without rain.

 

[nolidad]

I have 3 highly reputable, conservative Bible scholars that flat out say it's an idiom for marital faithfulness, plus the most highly respected strictly Biblical lexicon in the world which says the same.

You have two guys who don't say anything to the contrary.

Well saying that a bishop and deacon must be a husband of one wife as originally witten is proof enough.

YOu have nothing from your scholars! Just them saying so doesn't make it so.

How did it become an idiom? when did "husband of one wife" take the place of " a bishop must be faithful in their marriage." Where is the history of it.

I can trace the idiom "raining cats and dogs" and trace it back as an idiom for it is raining very heavily out today."

When you show the evidence that YOUR 3 "highly reputable Bible scholars" use to show how the phrase in Timothy became a substitute writing for the other, then we can talk about it. But it still is a claim without evidence.

This is an internet discussion forum. I'm not going to download your guy's $3 MP3 to help you prove your point. That woudn't help anybody but the guy that gets my 3 bucks.

The free PDF download is 47 pages. I didn't see anything that contradicted the idiomatic nature of μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα. I did see that your guy believes it's a command of the Lord that all married women should wear a hat or veil to church.

Assuming you're married, does your wife wear head coverings to church? Is that what you believe as well?

He also advocates for total silence for women in the church meetings. Is that what you advocate as well?

When you defend your claim that aner and gyne are non gender specific we can start a discussion of the other issues.

Of course they don't. Because He doesn't recognize it as an idiom that rejects the specific gender nouns to be not even mentioned in the phrase you say it is an idiom of!

They just call it like it is- a Bishop and a deacon must be one women men! Also a deacon must rule their house well. That sounds an awful lot like that a woman would be usurping authority over a man!

So please show us the evidence that shows how husband of one wife became an idiom of a bishop must be faithful in marriage.

 

[Paidiske]

YOu made the claim, so I am asking you . If you can make the claim, I am sure you know where to find it. I am discussing here and not on the orthodox forum. I shall keep it as an unsubstantiated claim.

Fine, let me google that for you. Why don't you start here: The Holy Apostles Andronicus and Junia - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

I can find sources citing that Chyrsostom (a fourth century bishop) acclaimed her as an apostle, so the tradition of her apostleship goes back to the very early church.

 

[nolidad]

Fine, let me google that for you. Why don't you start here: The Holy Apostles Andronicus and Junia - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

I can find sources citing that Chyrsostom (a fourth century bishop) acclaimed her as an apostle, so the tradition of her apostleship goes back to the very early church.

I am not looking for traditions, there is traditions that go back to the 2nd Century that Mary was conceived without sin, remained sinless all her life due to special grace, remained a virgin and then was bodily assumed into heaven at her death. But they also have no evidence backing up their "traditions".

Just because Chrysotom called her an apotle still just shows that this hypothesis goes back to teh fourth century. But it does nothing to verify she actually was an Apostle.

 

[Paidiske]

My point was that reading the text in Romans as meaning that Junia was an apostle is not a modern innovation. It has been the church's consistent understanding until revisionists have cast doubt on it in modern times.

 

[Gregorikos]

Well saying that a bishop and deacon must be a husband of one wife as originally witten is proof enough.

YOu have nothing from your scholars! Just them saying so doesn't make it so.

How did it become an idiom? when did "husband of one wife" take the place of " a bishop must be faithful in their marriage." Where is the history of it.

I can trace the idiom "raining cats and dogs" and trace it back as an idiom for it is raining very heavily out today."

When you show the evidence that YOUR 3 "highly reputable Bible scholars" use to show how the phrase in Timothy became a substitute writing for the other, then we can talk about it. But it still is a claim without evidence.



When you defend your claim that aner and gyne are non gender specific we can start a discussion of the other issues.

Of course they don't. Because He doesn't recognize it as an idiom that rejects the specific gender nouns to be not even mentioned in the phrase you say it is an idiom of!

They just call it like it is- a Bishop and a deacon must be one women men! Also a deacon must rule their house well. That sounds an awful lot like that a woman would be usurping authority over a man!

So please show us the evidence that shows how husband of one wife became an idiom of a bishop must be faithful in marriage.

Now that it's been revealed that your alleged scholar, "Dr. Fruchtenbaum" - advocates for enforced total silence and bonnet wearing by all women in the churches as a doctrinal matter, and you apparently do as well, I can see we have reached an impasse. No amount of legitimate scholarship would ever be enough for you. (As has been pretty well seen.)

We are done here. Be well.

 

[Philip_B]

remained sinless all her life due to special grace, remained a virgin

John Calvin accepted this

 

[nolidad]

Now that it's been revealed that your alleged scholar, "Dr. Fruchtenbaum" - advocates for enforced total silence and bonnet wearing by all women in the churches as a doctrinal matter, and you apparently do as well, I can see we have reached an impasse. No amount of legitimate scholarship would ever be enough for you. (As has been pretty well seen.)

We are done here. Be well.

I love how you end with your ad-hominems and implied slander that Dr. Fruchtenbaum is not a legitimate scholar.

It is best we finish. For it appears that if one dares disagree with you , they are illegimitate and unwilling to accpet just your "legitimate scholars". I love you as a brother but cannot wish you well with that kind of attitude you just showed all by your parting comment.

But for the record- Dr. Fruchtenbaum advocates just what the Inspired Word of god teaches, show the Inspired Word of God reason why the Apostle Paul commanded such things without cultural considerations or adjusting meanings and definitions to fit as new whim.

 

[nolidad]

John Calvin accepted this

And????? Is this supposed to make me go---"Well Calvin accepted this so it must be an infallible ex-cathedra tradition that I dare not question."

When Calvin matches the bible- I support Him 100% But Calvin did not write canonical SCripture.

Mary was born with a sin nature, and died with one and needed to accept Jesus as her Savior from her sins. Other wise the bible lied!

 

[Philip_B]

And????? Is this supposed to make me go---"Well Calvin accepted this so it must be an infallible ex-cathedra tradition that I dare not question."

No, not at all. None the less given that a degree of your position is in accord with those who would see Calvin as a significant marker in the journey of faith, I thought it was worth pointing out that this was a position where you were clearly at variance.

When Calvin matches the bible- I support Him 100% But Calvin did not write canonical SCripture. Mary was born with a sin nature, and died with one and needed to accept Jesus as her Savior from her sins. Other wise the bible lied!

This of course is the position that you have been arguing, as you seek to defend the Bible and indeed a particular view of scripture, even from those who are not attacking it. The proposition you put forward is a notional choice between allowing women to exercise pastoral ministry or decrying the sacred scripture as containing lies. Such a proposition is of course simplistic, unfair and honestly a bit insulting.

Earlier in the thread you completely glossed over the question I raised in relation to the nature of scripture and the books that form part of it. There was a rabbinic tradition that required two witnesses in relation to arguments from scripture, by which they referred to the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

The arguments you present here are from Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus. Arguments from others have canvassed a broad range of scripture, and yet here we are.

The bible did not save me, Jesus did.

 

[nolidad]

No, not at all. None the less given that a degree of your position is in accord with those who would see Calvin as a significant marker in the journey of faith, I thought it was worth pointing out that this was a position where you were clearly at variance.

I am at variance with teh teachings of many preachers past and present, but that has nothing to do with my respect for them or you, gregoriokos, paidske, proving that "a bishop must be the husband of one wife" actually means "a bishop must be faithful to their spouse" (or something synonymous to that)

This of course is the position that you have been arguing, as you seek to defend the Bible and indeed a particular view of scripture, even from those who are not attacking it. The proposition you put forward is a notional choice between allowing women to exercise pastoral ministry or decrying the sacred scripture as containing lies. Such a proposition is of course simplistic, unfair and honestly a bit insulting.

Well I can';t apologize for what you find insulting. but it does boil down to this. either Scripture is wrong and misled, or you are wrong and misled. There is no middle ground in this argument! One has lied, either intentionally or by carrying on a lie they have come to believe. I do not say that condescendingly, insultingly, or as a put down. Both cannot be true and both cannot be partially true.

Earlier in the thread you completely glossed over the question I raised in relation to the nature of scripture and the books that form part of it. There was a rabbinic tradition that required two witnesses in relation to arguments from scripture, by which they referred to the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

The arguments you present here are from Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus. Arguments from others have canvassed a broad range of scripture, and yet here we are.

The bible did not save me, Jesus did.

I agree Jesus saved me! but if I am to walk in obedience, I need to adhere to Scripture, and not just teh verses I agree with. We are not allowed to -reinterpret the scriptures to match a whim, no matter how much support that whim may have.

We are not living in Rabbinic Judaism but in teh church age.

If you believe the New Testament is inspired Sacred Scripture like the old, Then you have your two witnesses, The Holy Spirit and the writer, for it is the Holy Spirit that compelled the writer to write what they did. If you believe they are in error, I await you r very needed evidence to prove Paul was mistaken.

Chrysotom from the fourth century did not make the rules for bishops and deacons. Paul through the Holy Spirit did!

 

[Paidiske]

Well I can';t apologize for what you find insulting. but it does boil down to this. either Scripture is wrong and misled, or you are wrong and misled. There is no middle ground in this argument! One has lied, either intentionally or by carrying on a lie they have come to believe. I do not say that condescendingly, insultingly, or as a put down. Both cannot be true and both cannot be partially true.

There's at least one other logical possibility; that you are wrong and misled in your understanding of Scripture.

You see Scripture and our positions as utterly incompatible, but we find them to be quite compatible; is it possible that there is something there which you cannot (yet) see?

 

[Philip_B]

I am at variance with teh teachings of many preachers past and present, but that has nothing to do with my respect for them or you, gregoriokos, paidske, proving that "a bishop must be the husband of one wife" actually means "a bishop must be faithful to their spouse" (or something synonymous to that)

Interesting, however I will not unpack that.

Well I can';t apologize for what you find insulting. but it does boil down to this. either Scripture is wrong and misled, or you are wrong and misled. There is no middle ground in this argument! One has lied, either intentionally or by carrying on a lie they have come to believe. I do not say that condescendingly, insultingly, or as a put down. Both cannot be true and both cannot be partially true.

I am not surprised that you would find it difficult to apologise, and for that very reason I did not ask for an apology. However if someone tells me that they find something I have said is a little insulting, I would be looking for a way to rephrase that so that perhaps I might say it better. There is of course not a question of middle ground, but rather that the field of parameters set is just wrong.

You have provided a list of two options:

• The books are authored by the Holy Spirit and those who wrote them simply held the pen and were 'compelled' (your word) to transcribe the content verbatim.
• The books are in error.

If you construct the argument in that way, accepting that there are only two premises then you are likely to find your conclusion make sense. I am not challenging your logic, however I am prepared to hand a big question mark over the limited premises that you have provided.

One of the great problems I have with your view is that I think it robs scripture of it's humanity. Romans 6:2 where Paul exclaims 'μὴ γένοιτο' is difficult to translate in polite English so we normally get something like 'by no means', and is an insight into how excited Paul was on these issues.

We are not living in Rabbinic Judaism but in teh church age.

That does not negate the value of the tradition that was designed to ensure that folk did not go on a fragment for scripture and compelling a truth on that basis. Psalm 137:9 'Happy shall they be who take your little ones, and dash them against the rock!' does not compel me to act, nor to decry it as untrue, but rather in context makes is the cry of the desolate and oppressed far from home.

If you believe the New Testament is inspired Sacred Scripture like the old, Then you have your two witnesses, The Holy Spirit and the writer, for it is the Holy Spirit that compelled the writer to write what they did. If you believe they are in error, I await you r very needed evidence to prove Paul was mistaken.

If you believe the New Testament is inspired Sacred Scripture like the old

I do, however perhaps not with the accompanied baggage you associate with that statement.​

Then you have your two witnesses, The Holy Spirit and the writer,

That is not the meaning of the tradition, not is it the meaning I was ascribing. The tradition recognises that there are various parts of scripture and whilst all are important, they have different genres,​

for it is the Holy Spirit that compelled the writer to write what they did.

There is a big difference between inspiration and compulsion. The approach you are suggesting is a pretty close parallel to the Islamic understanding of the Koran. I don't accept it from Islam and I see no requirement for the Christian Scriptures to be treated in that way either.​

Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;

 

[nolidad]

There's at least one other logical possibility; that you are wrong and misled in your understanding of Scripture.

You see Scripture and our positions as utterly incompatible, but we find them to be quite compatible; is it possible that there is something there which you cannot (yet) see?

Well I am always open to change my mind if one brings a better argument from Scripture and not reason or philosophy or church history! Over 46 years I have had to change my position as I learned more from Scripture.

But so far neither you, bekkilyn, nor gregoriskipos have provided a stronger biblical argument for me to consider changing my mind.

No one has provided the evidence to show historically how or when "a bishop must be the husband of one wife" became an idiom for someone simply being faithful. Simply saying it is does not make it so.

I just don't see an idiom going from geneder neutral to such a gender specific statement.

 

[nolidad]

I am not surprised that you would find it difficult to apologise, and for that very reason I did not ask for an apology. However if someone tells me that they find something I have said is a little insulting, I would be looking for a way to rephrase that so that perhaps I might say it better. There is of course not a question of middle ground, but rather that the field of parameters set is just wrong.

You have provided a list of two options:

• The books are authored by the Holy Spirit and those who wrote them simply held the pen and were 'compelled' (your word) to transcribe the content verbatim.
• The books are in error.

If you construct the argument in that way, accepting that there are only two premises then you are likely to find your conclusion make sense. I am not challenging your logic, however I am prepared to hand a big question mark over the limited premises that you have provided.

One of the great problems I have with your view is that I think it robs scripture of it's humanity. Romans 6:2 where Paul exclaims 'μὴ γένοιτο' is difficult to translate in polite English so we normally get something like 'by no means', and is an insight into how excited Paul was on these issues.

Well it does not rob Scripture of its humanity, it just controls it so that ones humanity does not veerr from Gods intent.

'μὴ γένοιτο' is not difficult to translate in polite English.

'μὴ is a negative disjunctive participle. A strong negative to differentiate from two or more choices (6:1)
γένοιτο' is a verb in the second aorist,middle deponent, optative 3rd person singular.

God forbid is teh idiom for what is better translated as "may it never come to pass that we continue in sin so that grace may abound" that is what the passage means!

That does not negate the value of the tradition that was designed to ensure that folk did not go on a fragment for scripture and compelling a truth on that basis. Psalm 137:9 'Happy shall they be who take your little ones, and dash them against the rock!' does not compel me to act, nor to decry it as untrue, but rather in context makes is the cry of the desolate and oppressed far from home.

Agreed and it was also the call of the heart for a certain kind of vengeance! But once again we are under the constitution of the church. And a bishop must be teh husband of one wife is a different grammar type than the song of dirge. One is a command from an Apostle that became Sacred SCripture for the church to obey and the other is a psalter.

If you believe the New Testament is inspired Sacred Scripture like the old
I do, however perhaps not with the accompanied baggage you associate with that statement.
Then you have your two witnesses, The Holy Spirit and the writer,
That is not the meaning of the tradition, not is it the meaning I was ascribing. The tradition recognises that there are various parts of scripture and whilst all are important, they have different genres,
for it is the Holy Spirit that compelled the writer to write what they did.
There is a big difference between inspiration and compulsion. The approach you are suggesting is a pretty close parallel to the Islamic understanding of the Koran. I don't accept it from Islam and I see no requirement for the Christian Scriptures to be treated in that way either.

so are you suggesting that some of the commands in the new testament are in error then?

 

[Philip_B]

so are you suggesting that some of the commands in the new testament are in error then?

No.

We live under grace, not law.

One is a command from an Apostle that became Sacred SCripture for the church to obey and the other is a psalter.

So, I take it, you propose that the Pauline Corpus is the New Torah, and the Book of Psalms loses its canonical status.

The authorship - but not the canonicity - of the Pastoral Epistles is a question of some significant scholarly debate. Part of the reason for that, as has been pointed out in this thread earlier, that some parts of the Pauline Corpus (without the same disputes about authorship) provide a frame a reference that suggests a different approach to women in ministry, in keeping with what we understand of the ministry of Jesus in the Gospels, and a thread of egalitarian anthropology stretching right back the Genesis 1.

My real problem with accepting an a-contextual a-temporal and universal meaning for 1 Timothy 2:12, as you suggest we should, is the inconsistency it presents with other Parts of Paul and a significant strand in the whole of scripture. The real difficulty that we have is that we are without the context of the letter to Timothy, which seems to be dated between 62 and 100 AD.

Jesus was very critical of the Pharisees for enforcing a legalistic approach to everything, and failing to see in the Law and the Prophets the call for Justice and Mercy. I think we need to be very careful, in face of all that we have before us, that we not be guilty of applying the Old Covenant Methodology of the Pharisees to the Record of Revelation we have in the New Covenant.

We live under grace, not law.

 

[Love365]

,

 

[nolidad]

So, I take it, you propose that the Pauline Corpus is the New Torah, and the Book of Psalms loses its canonical status.

Nope.

No.

We live under grace, not law.

So obedience to commands is optional to you? Do you believe grace is a license for lasciviousness?

The authorship - but not the canonicity - of the Pastoral Epistles is a question of some significant scholarly debate. Part of the reason for that, as has been pointed out in this thread earlier, that some parts of the Pauline Corpus (without the same disputes about authorship) provide a frame a reference that suggests a different approach to women in ministry, in keeping with what we understand of the ministry of Jesus in the Gospels, and a thread of egalitarian anthropology stretching right back the Genesis 1.

Yes yes the modern maybe Paul didn't write all the letters we thought he did. Hogwash! And their approach is based on faulty exegesis and an unlicensed hermeneutic.

My real problem with accepting an a-contextual a-temporal and universal meaning for 1 Timothy 2:12, as you suggest we should, is the inconsistency it presents with other Parts of Paul and a significant strand in the whole of scripture. The real difficulty that we have is that we are without the context of the letter to Timothy, which seems to be dated between 62 and 100 AD.

So you believe God was incapable of making sure what went into the New Testament of Sacred SCripture was not universal for the church. And Timothy was written by 60-61 AD. They were of the last letters from Paul . See I give God more credit in making sure what was written was to be accepted by the church.

Do you accept homosexual pastors as long as they are faithful to their spouses? If not why not? Maybe that was just a temporal prohibition as well and should have been done away with as several denominations have done.

Paul seemed to make it clear that women were not to be held in positions of office in the church. that is the normal usual way of reading the passages.
and in Corinthians Paul even went so far as this in 1 Cor. 11: 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

And that was all about women.and it was all churches and not a local issue.

1 Timothy 2:9-14
King James Version

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Again not a local issue, but Paul points to Creation and the fall for his command!

Others have alleged that verse 12 is about home life with her husband. Then that means she is not to speak at home? C'mon!

Jesus was very critical of the Pharisees for enforcing a legalistic approach to everything, and failing to see in the Law and the Prophets the call for Justice and Mercy. I think we need to be very careful, in face of all that we have before us, that we not be guilty of applying the Old Covenant Methodology of the Pharisees to the Record of Revelation we have in the New Covenant.

We live under grace, not law.

So you believe in a free for all in the churches of God then? Murderers, Adulterers, homosexuals, pedophiles, rapists, thieves etc. all allowed to have good standing in the church for we live under grace and not the law? do away with all preaching against sin, for we are not to be legalistic?

 

[pescador]

<snip>

Paul seemed to make it clear that women were not to be held in positions of office in the church. that is the normal usual way of reading the passages.
and in Corinthians Paul even went so far as this in 1 Cor. 11: 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

And that was all about women.and it was all churches and not a local issue.

1 Timothy 2:9-14
King James Version

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Again not a local issue, but Paul points to Creation and the fall for his command!

Others have alleged that verse 12 is about home life with her husband. Then that means she is not to speak at home? C'mon!



So you believe in a free for all in the churches of God then? Murderers, Adulterers, homosexuals, pedophiles, rapists, thieves etc. all allowed to have good standing in the church for we live under grace and not the law? do away with all preaching against sin, for we are not to be legalistic?

Oh my!

1) Paul did not create a new Biblical law. In fact, He wrote that believers are under grace, not law. So why do you create an addition to the OT law from what he wrote? Simply because Paul wrote Timothy about a church that existed roughly 2,000 years ago in a time and place removed from our lives today that it has no bearing on the 21st Century church. Did you miss where he wrote that there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus?

2) Your last paragraph is such an extreme distortion of the New Covenant that it doesn't even deserve a reply.