Women Priests.

1213 · Jan 14, 2021

Saint Steven said:
That's not fair. God calls people into leadership in most cases. Most leaders are following a call on their lives. Many of them don't feel personally confident to carry it out and need to depend completely on God.

Ok, difficult to know all the cases. And I don’t need to say are they wrong. But, I want to say this:

…But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Mat. 23:4-12

If person truly wants to be a servant for others, I think it is great thing and that person deserves reward from God. And the question about is the person woman or man is not meaningful in that. For many the exalting himself seems to be the point of priesthood and I think that is a problem.

1213 · Jan 14, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Conservatism in a theological sense seeks to preserve what has come before us instead of dismantling it for a new and novel direction. If it is a tendency of Churches which accept female pastors to be more liberal (both politically and theologically), why should any conservative Church consider allowing women to become clergy when we know what eventually is going to happen?

If the main point in this is to preserve, which I think is good and should be the goal, I think it is simply enough to choose people who do that. Older people that people have known long time could be best choices for that.

And in this I think it would be good that those who are chosen promise to do so and other people take care that they really do that. I think the responsibility to be loyal to Jesus and God belongs to all disciples of Jesus (“Christian”), because:

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

Because of this, I think, if you see a priest who is not remaining in the words of Jesus, it would be good to speak about it.

nolidad · Jan 14, 2021

sparow said:
I do not know any of those men; it is likely they would not know the body of Christ if they fell over it. They maybe introducing heresies into something else.

You may not know them, but you may be filled with their philosophies that have so infiltrated so much of the evangelical church world.

nolidad · Jan 14, 2021

Gregorikos said:
You're being dishonest here. I say this because you and I have had many debates on this topic, and you know full well that I don't downplay doctrine and Scripture.

No, but when it contradicts this issue here, you have used mistranslation and outright rejecting clear unambiguouos teachings of the Scripture. Sorry but I gotta call it as you throw it!

Still waiting for the evidence that this verse:

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,

Does not mean what it says but became an idiom. If you are that convinced that it developed into an idiom instead of meaning what it says, you should have some of the historical development of such.

BTW a Bishop must be the aner of one gyne is doctrine and SCripture and you have downplayed it in both circumstances, otherwise we would not even be having this debate.

nolidad · Jan 14, 2021

Jay Sea said:
How do we know how God stands on any issue if not through what are works of man? How do we separate the wheat from the chaff since we rely on what has been transmitted by others as witnesses. Can we not judge by the content and spirit of what is said in good faith and correct or affirm as necessary.

In Love
Jay Sea

Simple it is called the Bible! Affirmed by it suse prior to it being canonized byu believers pre and post crucifixion for each testamernt.

If God changes His mind based on what man does, then we can not have any absolutes and everyone can do what is right in their own eyes.

Saint Steven · Jan 14, 2021

1213 said:
For many the exalting himself seems to be the point of priesthood and I think that is a problem.

So... have you left the church then?
Since you have concluded that it is full of self-exalting evil leaders.

Religiot · Jan 14, 2021

sparow said:
In my minimum experience women make good Priests; but does the Law allow for women priests; does the law forbid women priest? Does women Priests depend on the law being abrogated? Are women Priests a judgement on the inadequacy of men?

1. No they don't.
2. No it doesn't.
3. Yes it does.
4. Yes--abrogated by men.
5. Yes--inadequacy of morally weak men.

The contempt of our youth follows closely behind that judgement, and will overtake it, so that children will reign over us, soon, to the chagrin of the moral, and joy of the immoral. --this is inevitable.

May the Lord soon come: come soon Lord Yehoshua, come soon. Amen.

Saint Steven · Jan 14, 2021

Religiot said:
1. No they don't.
2. No it doesn't.
3. Yes it does.
4. Yes--abrogated by men.
5. Yes--inadequacy of morally weak men.

The contempt of our youth follows closely behind that judgement, and will overtake it, so that children will reign over us, soon, to the chagrin of the moral, and joy of the immoral. --this is inevitable.

May the Lord soon come: come soon Lord Yehoshua, come soon. Amen.

Biblical Examples of Women in Ministry
Old Testament history includes accounts of strong female leadership in many roles. The following are striking examples: Miriam was a prophet to Israel during the Exodus, alongside her brothers Moses and Aaron (Exodus 15:20). Deborah, both a prophet and a judge, directed Barak to lead the army of Israel into successful combat against Israel’s oppressors (Judges 4 to 5). Huldah, also a prophet, authenticated the scroll of the Law found in the temple and helped spark religious reform in the days of Josiah (2 Kings 22:14–20; 2 Chronicles 34:22–28).

The New Testament also shows that women filled important ministry roles in the Early Church. Tabitha (Dorcas) initiated an effective benevolence ministry (Acts 9:36). Philip’s four unmarried daughters were recognized prophets (Acts 21:8,9). Paul singled out two women, Euodia and Syntyche, as “women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers” (Philippians 4:2,3). Priscilla was another of Paul’s exemplary “fellow workers in Christ Jesus” (Romans 16:3,4). In Romans 16, Paul greets numerous ministry colleagues, a large number of them women. In these greetings, the word Paul uses to speak of the work (kopiao), or labor, of Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis (Romans 16:6,12) is one he uses extensively for the labor of ministry (1 Corinthians 16:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; 1 Timothy 5:17).

Phoebe, a leader in the church at Cenchrea, was highly commended to the church at Rome by Paul (Romans 16:1,2). Unfortunately, translation biases have often obscured Phoebe’s position of leadership, calling her a “servant” (NIV, NASB, ESV). Yet Phoebe was diakonos of the church at Cenchrea. Paul regularly used this term for a minister or leader of a congregation and applied it specifically to Jesus Christ, Tychicus, Epaphras, Timothy, and to his own ministry. Depending on the context, diakonos is usually translated “deacon” or “minister.” Though some translators have chosen the word deaconess (e.g., RSV, because Phoebe was female), the Greek diakonos is a masculine noun. Therefore, it seems likely that diakonos was the designation for an official leadership position in the Early Church and the proper translation for Phoebe’s role is “deacon” (TNIV, NLT, NRSV) or “minister.”

Moreover, a number of translations reflect similar biases by referring to Phoebe as having been a “great help” (NIV) or “helper” (NASB) of many, including Paul himself (Romans 16:2). The Greek term here is prostatis, better translated by the NRSV as “benefactor” with its overtones of equality and leadership.

Junia was identified by Paul as an apostle (Romans 16:7). Beginning in the thirteenth century, a number of scholars and translators masculinized her name to Junias, apparently unwilling to admit that there was a female apostle. However, the name Junia is found more than 250 times in Rome alone, while the masculine form Junias is unknown in any Greco-Roman source. Paul clearly was a strong advocate of women in ministry.

These instances of women filling leadership roles in the Bible should be taken as a divinely approved pattern, not as exceptions to divine decrees. Even a limited number of women with scripturally commended leadership roles affirm that God does indeed call women to spiritual leadership.

Assemblies of God (USA) Official Web Site | The Role of Women in Ministry

Religiot · Jan 14, 2021

Saint Steven said:
Biblical Examples of Women in Ministry
Old Testament history includes accounts of strong female leadership in many roles. The following are striking examples: Miriam was a prophet to Israel during the Exodus, alongside her brothers Moses and Aaron (Exodus 15:20). Deborah, both a prophet and a judge, directed Barak to lead the army of Israel into successful combat against Israel’s oppressors (Judges 4 to 5). Huldah, also a prophet, authenticated the scroll of the Law found in the temple and helped spark religious reform in the days of Josiah (2 Kings 22:14–20; 2 Chronicles 34:22–28).

The New Testament also shows that women filled important ministry roles in the Early Church. Tabitha (Dorcas) initiated an effective benevolence ministry (Acts 9:36). Philip’s four unmarried daughters were recognized prophets (Acts 21:8,9). Paul singled out two women, Euodia and Syntyche, as “women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers” (Philippians 4:2,3). Priscilla was another of Paul’s exemplary “fellow workers in Christ Jesus” (Romans 16:3,4). In Romans 16, Paul greets numerous ministry colleagues, a large number of them women. In these greetings, the word Paul uses to speak of the work (kopiao), or labor, of Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis (Romans 16:6,12) is one he uses extensively for the labor of ministry (1 Corinthians 16:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; 1 Timothy 5:17).

Phoebe, a leader in the church at Cenchrea, was highly commended to the church at Rome by Paul (Romans 16:1,2). Unfortunately, translation biases have often obscured Phoebe’s position of leadership, calling her a “servant” (NIV, NASB, ESV). Yet Phoebe was diakonos of the church at Cenchrea. Paul regularly used this term for a minister or leader of a congregation and applied it specifically to Jesus Christ, Tychicus, Epaphras, Timothy, and to his own ministry. Depending on the context, diakonos is usually translated “deacon” or “minister.” Though some translators have chosen the word deaconess (e.g., RSV, because Phoebe was female), the Greek diakonos is a masculine noun. Therefore, it seems likely that diakonos was the designation for an official leadership position in the Early Church and the proper translation for Phoebe’s role is “deacon” (TNIV, NLT, NRSV) or “minister.”

Moreover, a number of translations reflect similar biases by referring to Phoebe as having been a “great help” (NIV) or “helper” (NASB) of many, including Paul himself (Romans 16:2). The Greek term here is prostatis, better translated by the NRSV as “benefactor” with its overtones of equality and leadership.

Junia was identified by Paul as an apostle (Romans 16:7). Beginning in the thirteenth century, a number of scholars and translators masculinized her name to Junias, apparently unwilling to admit that there was a female apostle. However, the name Junia is found more than 250 times in Rome alone, while the masculine form Junias is unknown in any Greco-Roman source. Paul clearly was a strong advocate of women in ministry.

These instances of women filling leadership roles in the Bible should be taken as a divinely approved pattern, not as exceptions to divine decrees. Even a limited number of women with scripturally commended leadership roles affirm that God does indeed call women to spiritual leadership.

Assemblies of God (USA) Official Web Site | The Role of Women in Ministry

I was just answering the OP very succinctly.

Women have a tremendous responsibility in ministry: they must teach other women (that task alone makes me shiver), they must also teach the children, and they are permitted to have authority over anyone under the age of 20 years.

So I thank God for faithful women!

Saint Steven · Jan 14, 2021

Religiot said:
I was just answering the OP very succinctly.

Women have a tremendous responsibility in ministry: they must teach other women (that task alone makes me shiver), they must also teach the children, and they are permitted to have authority over anyone under the age of 20 years.

So I thank God for faithful women!

I showed you that your response is unbiblical in a complete sense. You are limiting women in ministry more than the Apostles of the early church did. How "succinct" is that?

Gregorikos · Jan 14, 2021

nolidad said:
No, but when it contradicts this issue here, you have used mistranslation and outright rejecting clear unambiguouos teachings of the Scripture. Sorry but I gotta call it as you throw it!

Your dishonesty knows no bounds, I see. And you have the benefit of being in a new thread where the readers here don't have the benefit of seeing all the information I gave you, which you now pretend never happened.

But now you are saying the NRSV, NIV, CEB, CJB, ERV, and NLT all mistranslate 1 Timothy 3:2. Let the reader understand.

nolidad said:
Still waiting for the evidence that this verse:

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,

As you well know, I gave you that evidence multiple times over. μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα is an idiom for marital faithfulness. The first evidence I point to is the list of legit translations I mentioned above which all translate it that way.

Then there is Andreas J. Köstenberger, complementarian SBC Bible scholar and the editor of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, in his Commentary on 1-2 Timothy and Titus

The requirement of being. literally, a ‘‘one-wife-type-of-husband" resembles that of the Roman univira (a “one-husband-type-of-wife”). This term conveying marital fidelity initially applied to wives during their lifetime and later became an epithet husbands gave to their wives after they died, as is attested by numerous extant tombstone inscriptions. The understanding that this requirement was aimed at excluding polygamists is implausible because polygamy wasn’t a widespread practice in the Greco-Roman world of the time. More likely Paul here excludes men with one or several concubines. This common practice conflicted with biblical morals since sexual union with a concubine constituted adultery and amounted to polygamy. Most likely, therefore, “husband of one wife” represents an idiom for marital faithfulness (e.g.. NIV: “faithful to his wife”).

This is further suggested by the parallel wording in 5:9, where a widow must have been “the wife of one husband” in order to be eligible for church support and where the equivalent phrase ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή is used (cf. | Cor 7:2-5). In that case the issue is not polyandry (simultaneous marriage to multiple husbands) because Paul addresses women bereft of their husbands.

It's one thing to have your opinion about women in ministry. You're entitled to it. But it's another thing to deceitfully malign those with an opposing viewpoint, which you have clearly done here.

Religiot · Jan 14, 2021

Saint Steven said:
I showed you that your response is unbiblical in a complete sense. You are limiting women in ministry more than the Apostles of the early church did. How "succinct" is that?

What do you think of the following text:

"Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." --1 Corinthians 11:1-16

Is that more "limiting" to women than I just was?

Saint Steven · Jan 15, 2021

Religiot said:
What do you think of the following text:

"Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." --1 Corinthians 11:1-16

Is that more "limiting" to women than I just was?

Are you claiming this scripture nullifies the ones I shared? Will you maintain your position even though you know better now?

1213 · Jan 15, 2021

Saint Steven said:
So... have you left the church then?
Since you have concluded that it is full of self-exalting evil leaders.

It is no necessary so in all cases. And even if it would be so in some case, it may be possible that the person causes enough good things.

nolidad · Jan 15, 2021

Gregorikos said:
Your dishonesty knows no bounds, I see. And you have the benefit of being in a new thread where the readers here don't have the benefit of seeing all the information I gave you, which you now pretend never happened.

But now you are saying the NRSV, NIV, CEB, CJB, ERV, and NLT all mistranslate 1 Timothy 3:2. Let the reader understand.

New International Version
Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

New Living Translation
So a church leader must be a man whose life is above reproach. He must be faithful to his wife. He must exercise self-control, live wisely, and have a good reputation. He must enjoy having guests in his home, and he must be able to teach.

Complete Jewish bible; (CJB)

2 A congregation leader must be above reproach, he must be faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, orderly, hospitable and able to teach.

1 Timothy 3:2
Easy-to-Read Version

2 An elder must be such a good man that no one can rightly criticize him. He must be faithful to his wife. He must have self-control and be wise. He must be respected by others. He must be ready to help people by welcoming them into his home. He must be a good teacher.

These are known as dynamic equivalence translations or paraphrases and they are correctly conveying the thought of 1 Tim. 3:2!

Contemporary English Version
That's why officials must have a good reputation and be faithful in marriage. They must be self-controlled, sensible, well-behaved, friendly to strangers, and able to teach.

1 Timothy 3:2
New Revised Standard Version

2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher,

The NRSV has a footnote showing that married only once actually is a husband of one wife!

While the CEV is one of the new egalitarian paraphrases that incorrectly translate 1 Tim 3:2 in a dynamic equivalence form.

So four of your 6 carry the correct thought if not a formal equivalent.
One doesn't but footnotes it showing what the real equivalent is.

If teh rest of teh CEV is written like the way they wrote this- I place it on par with teh New Word Translation.

It is not I that deceive!

But 40 english bibles prove you wrong. ONe footntoe that you are wrong and one that sides with you abandoned any semblance of real translating either formally or dynamcially.

Gregorikos said:
As you well know, I gave you that evidence multiple times over. μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα is an idiom for marital faithfulness. The first evidence I point to is the list of legit translations I mentioned above which all translate it that way.

Then there is Andreas J. Köstenberger, complementarian SBC Bible scholar and the editor of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, in his Commentary on 1-2 Timothy and Titus

The requirement of being. literally, a ‘‘one-wife-type-of-husband" resembles that of the Roman univira (a “one-husband-type-of-wife”). This term conveying marital fidelity initially applied to wives during their lifetime and later became an epithet husbands gave to their wives after they died, as is attested by numerous extant tombstone inscriptions. The understanding that this requirement was aimed at excluding polygamists is implausible because polygamy wasn’t a widespread practice in the Greco-Roman world of the time. More likely Paul here excludes men with one or several concubines. This common practice conflicted with biblical morals since sexual union with a concubine constituted adultery and amounted to polygamy. Most likely, therefore, “husband of one wife” represents an idiom for marital faithfulness (e.g.. NIV: “faithful to his wife”).

This is further suggested by the parallel wording in 5:9, where a widow must have been “the wife of one husband” in order to be eligible for church support and where the equivalent phrase ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή is used (cf. | Cor 7:2-5). In that case the issue is not polyandry (simultaneous marriage to multiple husbands) because Paul addresses women bereft of their husbands.

It's one thing to have your opinion about women in ministry. You're entitled to it. But it's another thing to deceitfully malign those with an opposing viewpoint, which you have clearly done here.

This is not evidence but commentary! He does not show the development of how aner/gyne grew to be an idiom. But eventhe idiom he speaks of is correct! He says it speaks to the male being faithful to his wife! Not some egalitarian misapplication that it means a spuse must be faithful to the other spouse in a gender neutral way.

Yuo really are having a bad day! Heres a hugh to brighten your day :groupray:

Gregorikos · Jan 15, 2021

nolidad said:
The NRSV has a footnote showing that married only once actually is a husband of one wife!

So four of your 6 carry the correct thought if not a formal equivalent.
One doesn't but footnotes it showing what the real equivalent is.

You're not telling anybody anything they don't know with your incessant posting of verses and annoying giant blue font. Everybody and their mother freely admits that the Greek expression in 1 Timothy 3:2 and 12 is literally the man/husband of one woman/wife.

But each of the 6 respected translations I gave you didn't translate it that way. They unanimously understood it as an idiom and translated it accordingly.

It makes no difference whatsoever how many versions translate it as "husband of one wife." That's the literal translation. But that isn't what it means, because it's an idiom.

The problem you have is that if you insist on a literal interpretation, all elders must be married, which disqualifies both Jesus and Paul from serving as elders of the church. I've pointed this out to you on numerous occasions, and it isn't going away.

nolidad said:
This is not evidence but commentary! He does not show the development of how aner/gyne grew to be an idiom. But eventhe idiom he speaks of is correct! He says it speaks to the male being faithful to his wife! Not some egalitarian misapplication that it means a spuse must be faithful to the other spouse in a gender neutral way.

Yuo really are having a bad day! Heres a hugh to brighten your day

If you admit he is correct that it's an idiom, my work is done here. If you don't, you've disqualified Jesus. I'm not having a bad day at all.

Religiot · Jan 15, 2021

Saint Steven said:
Are you claiming this scripture nullifies the ones I shared? Will you maintain your position even though you know better now?

Brother, I think you've misunderstood my position, and I feel responsible for that, because I only used a single reference to respond to your comment; but I've now included several references that explain my position with great clarity and concision.

MAN SHALL RULE OVER WOMAN

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." --Genesis 3:16

"And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded. If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. If a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father's house in her youth; and her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her. And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; and her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the Lord shall forgive her. But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her. And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; and her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the Lord shall forgive her. Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them. But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity. These are the statutes, which the Lord commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, being yet in her youth in her father's house." --Numbers 30:1-16

"Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." --1 Corinthians 11:1-16

CONDUCT IN CHURCH

"But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine: that the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience. The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; that they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed." --Titus 2:1-5

"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; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing (care of children), if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." --1 Timothy 2:9-15

"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order." --1 Corinthians 14:33-40

CONDUCT AT HOME

"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered." --1 Peter 3:1-7

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them." --Colossians 3:18-19

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband." --Ephesians 5:22-33

Let me know what you think, thanks.

nolidad · Jan 16, 2021

Gregorikos said:
You're not telling anybody anything they don't know with your incessant posting of verses and annoying giant blue font. Everybody and their mother freely admits that the Greek expression in 1 Timothy 3:2 and 12 is literally the man/husband of one woman/wife.

That "irritating blue font" is from the web site. Take itup with them.

Whether those 6 out of over 40 English translations recognize it as an idiom or just simpy used dynamic equivalence in theier writing I don't know or care, but it does carry the correct thougt- A Bishop is a man and not a woman! that is the issue at hand

Gregorikos said:
But each of the 6 respected translations I gave you didn't translate it that way. They unanimously understood it as an idiom and translated it accordingly.

and 34 other translations agree with the thought of these versions except the CEV. This thread is not to discuss literal and formal versus a colloquial dynamic equivalent translation. It is about whether teh Bible allows woman to hold the two offices in teh church of bishop/pastor and deaqcon. And the biblical answer is no!

Gregorikos said:
It makes no difference whatsoever how many versions translate it as "husband of one wife." That's the literal translation. But that isn't what it means, because it's an idiom.

And you have yet to establish that as reality! You cite one author who said words like "probably" and "suggest". But he failed misreably to show the historical development of that phrase being morphed into an idiom for a man being faithful to His wife! Without linguistic history to show how, all you are left with is opinion!

In Actuality, though I cannot prove it either, it is more logical and probable that "being faithful to his wife" is the idiom for husband of one wife" and not vice versa as you say.

Do you have more ancient writings of Paul that show faithful to his wife or similar instread of the way Paul, under the Inspiration of Almighty God wrote it?

Gregorikos said:
The problem you have is that if you insist on a literal interpretation, all elders must be married, which disqualifies both Jesus and Paul from serving as elders of the church. I've pointed this out to you on numerous occasions, and it isn't going away.

Once again you use this tired false straw man. I told why why this faulty defense you throw up is wrong, but you insist on keeping to use it with automated regularity.

Gregorikos said:
If you admit he is correct that it's an idiom, my work is done here. If you don't, you've disqualified Jesus. I'm not having a bad day at all.

Well I don't recognize what Paul wrote as teh idiom, you haven't provoded real evidence to show it developing as an idiom. I can accept "husband being faithful to his wife" as the idiom for , Now a bishop must be the "aner" of one "gyne".

But you have at least admitted the bible declares that a Bishop must be male! I have done my job!!!

You don't even recognize when you are having a bad day! have another hug: :groupray:

Gregorikos · Jan 16, 2021

nolidad said:
That "irritating blue font" is from the web site. Take itup with them.

What website are you talking about? Regardless, there are free Bible sites and apps all over the internet. You aren't bound to do what you're doing. You could use Blue Letter Bible for instance and make it look nice.

But why don't you get Olivetree? It's free. KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV are free. Several commentaries and other helps are free. It would make your posts less annoying. Slightly.

nolidad said:
Whether those 6 out of over 40 English translations recognize it as an idiom or just simpy used dynamic equivalence in theier writing I don't know or care, but it does carry the correct thougt....

That's how you translate an idiom. You use dynamic equivalence to arrive at the meaning.

id·i·om
/ˈidēəm/
noun

1.
a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words (e.g., rain cats and dogs, see the light ).

And I'm not merely citing one author. (As if Andreas Köstenberger lacks credibility on his own.)

But I'm not just citing him. I'm citing dozens of PhD holding Bible translators who see μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα and don't translate it literally. That shows that in their opinion, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα is an idiom, and that Paul wasn't trying to say that a Bishop must be a man, nor necessarily have a wife, and not a divorcee or widower. Their understanding of that expression is that it is an idiom for marital faithfulness.

So to use that expression in the way you are using it is an abuse of the text in the view of all the dozens of Greek experts who have given their opinion of the text. (And doubtless hundreds of others would agree, who nonetheless translate the verse literally and leave it to the reader to determine what Paul meant.)

nolidad said:
In Actuality, though I cannot prove it either, it is more logical and probable that "being faithful to his wife" is the idiom for husband of one wife" and not vice versa as you say.

You are correct- the husband of one wife is an idiom meaning faithful to his wife.

And here's the thing- When the masculine gender is the default in a language (such as Greek), this means that the masculine gender is used to describe any person or group of people containing at least one man. The feminine gender would only be used when referring to a female person or a group of people who are all female. (As the identical but flipped expression occurs in 5:9, referring to a group of women.)

nolidad said:
Once again you use this tired false straw man. I told why why this faulty defense you throw up is wrong, but you insist on keeping to use it with automated regularity.

No, you've never answered my contention at all, and it isn't a straw man. It literally says a Bishop must be the husband of one wife. Not zero wife. One wife. If you insist on taking it literally, there you go.

nolidad · Jan 17, 2021

So to use that expression in the way you are using it is an abuse of the text in the view of all the dozens of Greek experts who have given their opinion of the text. (And doubtless hundreds of others

Gregorikos said:
What website are you talking about? Regardless, there are free Bible sites and apps all over the internet. You aren't bound to do what you're doing. You could use Blue Letter Bible for instance and make it look nice.

But why don't you get Olivetree? It's free. KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV are free. Several commentaries and other helps are free. It would make your posts less annoying. Slightly.

I used them! I like Blue letter and bible Hub, but will check out Olive Tree. I love Blue letter for the parsing tools.

Well There are hundreds of sights and I am not going to use a different site for every one who finds a particular site annoying.

Gregorikos said:
That's how you translate an idiom. You use dynamic equivalence to arrive at the meaning.

id·i·om
/ˈidēəm/
noun

1.
a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words (e.g., rain cats and dogs, see the light ).

And I'm not merely citing one author. (As if Andreas Köstenberger lacks credibility on his own.)

But I'm not just citing him. I'm citing dozens of PhD holding Bible translators who see μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα and don't translate it literally. That shows that in their opinion, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα is an idiom, and that Paul wasn't trying to say that a Bishop must be a man, nor necessarily have a wife, and not a divorcee or widower. Their understanding of that expression is that it is an idiom for marital faithfulness.

! would agree, who nonetheless translate the verse literally and leave it to the reader to determine what Paul meant.)

Well they are entitled to their opinion, but not to their own set of facts. Opinions are like smelly armpits--everyone has them after a hard days work without using deodorant.

So you are content to listen to opinions of men nearly 2,000 years removed from the God Inspired writing of the Apostle ! So you don't accept teh Word of God, but teh opinions of men who were not the writer.

You still have yet to establish the historical development of husband of one wife became an idiom for someone being faithful in marriage.

I see it the other way around- that being faithful to his wife is an idiom for husband of one wife!

Maybe many of your words are idioms and don't mean what you wrote! Let us give them to experts in English and get their opinion!

Gregorikos said:
So to use that expression in the way you are using it is an abuse of the text in the view of all the dozens of Greek experts who have given their opinion of the text. (And doubtless hundreds of others would agree, who nonetheless translate the verse literally and leave it to the reader to determine what Paul meant.)

and there are thousands of Greek PHD's and experts who disagree with you , which is why they don 't retranslate the passage! Men use dynamic equivalent translation which can be correct and faithful to the passage, but you have just spouted opinions! And I don't care if in their lofty opinions I am abusing teh text. All the greek scholars before them don't think so!

Gregorikos said:
You are correct- the husband of one wife is an idiom meaning faithful to his wife.

And here's the thing- When the masculine gender is the default in a language (such as Greek), this means that the masculine gender is used to describe any person or group of people containing at least one man. The feminine gender would only be used when referring to a female person or a group of people who are all female. (As the identical but flipped expression occurs in 5:9, referring to a group of women.)

I take it reading is not one of your strong skills. For I said the opposite of what you called correct.

And sorry but aner is a man and gyne is a woman all the time!

And greek when a noun is used that can be masculine or feminine, the Greek uses a different ending to distinguish the male and female. and Greek also has masculine, feminine and neuter gender!

Gregorikos said:
No, you've never answered my contention at all, and it isn't a straw man. It literally says a Bishop must be the husband of one wife. Not zero wife. One wife. If you insist on taking it literally, there you go.

Learn conent, culture and how phrases were used inculture and you won't sound so uninformed!

Women Priests.

Disciple of Jesus

Disciple of Jesus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

Ordinary Mystic

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

Disciple of Jesus

Well-Known Member

Ordinary Mystic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ordinary Mystic

Well-Known Member

Similar threads