Collapsing Angels and Echoes from Eden

[Ohorseman]

Additionally, I reject the idea that female clergy in denominations that have them are engaging in transvestitism. While my church does not ordain women, but instead makes them presbyteras and schemanuns, which are frankly better jobs, since someone tonsured in the great schema is more spiritually important in the Orthodox Church than bishops, I am friends with a number of female clergy who are entirely moral and upright.

I think that I reject that as well. Having female clergy is certainly Biblical - but not if she has authority over and teaches men, especially as priest or bishop.

Maybe you can more easily see what I am writing about if I explain it more. If you have a woman priest, it is cross-dressing, gender bending, and even transgender, and this is especially obvious in our liturgical type services, as I explain above. But you are connecting this with transvestitism or transsexualism. Not me. I wrote no such things. But I only connect it with transgenderism, which is more about behavior and appearances .

And this does not involve homosexuality directly. But homosexuality does have a connection in that it finds a more accepted place among us because of all the compromises of scripture that we make for egalitarianism, and this established the precedent for compromising the scriptures for ALL of gay pride, to include the extremes of transSEXUALISM. That is what I mean when I write that gay pride comes into the church riding on the back of feminist pride. You cannot separate the two without living a lie.

 

[RamiC]

You and I having a conversation is not you being in authority over or teaching me, even if I learn something from you. The scriptures are referring to position, not conversation.

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." 1 Timothy 2-12 NIV

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2-12 KJV

Please explain how or why there is some difference in your opinion, applicable to the verse above, between position and conversation?

 

[RamiC]

That is what I mean when I write that gay pride comes into the church riding on the back of feminist pride. You cannot separate the two without living a lie.

Egalitarianism is not "feminist pride", you keep using this expression I have never seen anywhere else. It reads like you are totally trying to present feminism, gay, egalitarian Christianity, transgender, transexual, and the ordination of women like these entirely different thing are all the same.

It might well be that merely on account of you personally not approving of any of them, and you personally being convinced that the Bible compells you to do so, to you personally they all the same. They are in fact all entirely different to each other, since your dissaproval is not actually part of their definitions.

 

[Ohorseman]

Well, the Church didn't. A multitude of Protestant denominations certainly have.

You are correct. That said, I visited an EO Church near me. The Deacon's wife was the only one that talked to us. Incidentally, she was the ONLY woman that covered in the entire church. This was surprising, because I thought the EO kept the Traditions and were unchanging. Guess not.

You are not Orthodox because...?

Some of my answer is above. Also, in my Western context, a conservative ACNA Anglican Church is more accessible to me and my wife at this time. The people there are from different backgrounds and seem to be looking for a church that is more historical, liturgical, and creedal. Plus, they value holy tradition, reverence and beauty. It's understandable considering that the world has become so deconstructed and ugly, demonic even.

 

[Ohorseman]

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." 1 Timothy 2-12 NIV

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2-12 KJV

Please explain how or why there is some difference in your opinion, applicable to the verse above, between position and conversation?

My opinion matters little. Let's see what the scriptures teach.

Position, or embodiment, is something Paul writes about in 1 Timothy, here as well as in other passages. To “have authority or teach” is a position, an embodiment of that identity. And Paul is referring to matters of the church and doctrine, not pottery or math class. It’s not just in Ephesus, as your article with an “alternative view” claims, because Paul wrote in verse 8, “I desire then that in every place….” We should read the scriptures holistically, and not in little bits and pieces, because that allows for distortions and alternative views.

All the passages I refer to are here - they all relate & are about position, or embodiment:

-1 Timothy 2:8-15 (teach & authority over a man)
-1 Timothy 3:1-7 (overseer)
-1 Timothy 3:8-12 (deacon)
-Titus 1:5-9 (overseers)
-1 Corinthians 14:32-35 (judging prophecy)

Paul explains that the positions of overseers and deacons are to be men, matching with 1 Tim. 2 , and it also lines up with 1 Cor. 14, where she is to be silent when it comes to the position of judging prophecy. This position of judging prophecy has more authority than teaching, much more, because the prophets prophesy over people, kings, nations, & even the church. Her not remaining silent when it comes to judging prophecy is a shame, a shame to men, because it exposes that every man is “doing what is right in his own eyes”(idolatry) and stands lacking before the call of the Lord (like Israel back in the time of Deborah). Men are called to headship, to be the keepers and teachers of the church (and family), and all 5 of these passages show us this. Only a man can be husband. Only a woman can be wife. Only a man can be father. Only a woman can be a mother.

Boys being taught theology by a woman is okay. But once he is a man only another man should ”have authority over or teach” him. Otherwise, he will be malformed in his manhood, like most men are today in the West.

 

[RamiC]

My opinion matters little. Let's see what the scriptures teach.

I am asking for your explanation of your statement that:

You and I having a conversation is not you being in authority over or teaching me, even if I learn something from you. The scriptures are referring to position, not conversation.

In the light of the following verses:

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." 1 Timothy 2-12 NIV

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2-12 KJV

Why there is some difference in your opinion, applicable to the verse above, between position and conversation?

If you can respond, instead of announcing that your opinion is irrelevant, when what is required is that you explain why these verses exclude you learning from a woman "in conversation". I am asking because your own phrase, which I have highlighted in bold, looks like a very obvious contradiction in terms.

 

[jas3]

You are correct. That said, I visited an EO Church near me. The Deacon's wife was the only one that talked to us. Incidentally, she was the ONLY woman that covered in the entire church. This was surprising, because I thought the EO kept the Traditions and were unchanging. Guess not.

Head covering varies parish to parish, unfortunately (although I'm grateful that at mine, head covering for women and modest dress for both sexes is the norm), but these days that's the case with every church. The only arguable exception, as far as I know, is in traditional Catholicism where Catholic women are expected to veil if they attend a Latin Mass, but these Catholics would also consider themselves to be part of the same church that includes parishes like St. Sabina's in Chicago where the women are definitely not veiling during the Christmas laser light show or "pride mass."

And further on the note of traditional conduct in church, it's extremely rare in our time to find a church that still has men and women separated. This used to be common and was historically the way churches were organized; as late as the 18th century it was still the common practice in Methodism, although it apparently was being challenged around that time because John Wesley wrote that it was somewhat controversial, but something he insisted on nevertheless. The only place I myself have seen this practice maintained is at a Coptic Orthodox church.

Not as a jab at you, but just a general observation, I think variation in these practices is a problem orders of magnitude less significant than the problems present in many Protestant denominations, including the ACNA, such as ordaining women (whom I suspect you would agree don't have valid holy orders and don't confect or administer valid sacraments). The idea that within a denomination you can agree to disagree and sort of exist as different sub-denominations with a mutual connection is what the UMC tried, and it ultimately led to them changing their definition of marriage and requirements for ordination to remove pesky things like monogamy.

 

[Ohorseman]

I am asking for your explanation of your statement that:

You and I having a conversation is not you being in authority over or teaching me, even if I learn something from you. The scriptures are referring to position, not conversation.

In the light of the following verses:

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." 1 Timothy 2-12 NIV

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2-12 KJV

Why there is some difference in your opinion, applicable to the verse above, between position and conversation?

If you can respond, instead of announcing that your opinion is irrelevant, when what is required is that you explain why these verses exclude you learning from a woman "in conversation". I am asking because your own phrase, which I have highlighted in bold, looks like a very obvious contradiction in terms.

The disciples learned from conversation with Mary Magdalene and the other women that Jesus had risen. This did not mean that they had become the teachers and had authority over the disciples.

Likewise, if I learn something from you in a conversation it does not mean you are now in a position of authority over me. Nor am I in a position of authority over you, as you rightly pointed out in an earlier post. We are peers, brothers and sisters in Christ, having an online conversation.

In 1 Tim. 3:12, Paul was giving inspired instructions about proper positioning, just like he did in all 5 of the passages I shared above. This has to do with how we embody God’s will for our lives, and the scriptures that we should obey show us how.

I wrote and made art about this, and we can use the word “position”to better see what I am pointing to. The Anointed Cherub and his corrupt angels moved out of their holy positions. The serpent called our parents in Eden to move outside of their God-given positions. In the church, when women are in a position of spiritual authority over men, both the women and the men are out of their positions, according to scriptures. Also, in the family, if a man is too lazy or effeminate and his wife has to do everything for the family to include fatherly things, he is out of position and it forces her out of position, according to the scriptures. Also LGBT involves people getting out of their positions, according to the scriptures, and they can do so more comfortably now because the Western church has set the pattern for compromising on scripture.

And, to answer your question, I call it “feminist pride” to better show how it stands in solidarity with “gay pride”. Also, naming it “feminist pride” defines it as taking women’s rights too far.

Adam and Woman moved us out of our position in Eden and into the position of following the serpent and the fallen gods. But Christ came and crushed the serpent’s head, and when we are in Christ we are in the new position where Satan and the fallen gods have no claim on us, because of what Christ accomplished on the cross.

Progressive and alternative views of the scriptures try to bend God’s will to conform to people’s selfish desires, to worldly or culturally formed preferences. In many ways the church follows more the pattern of the world than the pattern of the scriptures, and is in need of reformation. The Bride needs to submit to and obey her Bridegroom, out of her love for Him, rather than let her lamp run out of oil - what happens in such darkness is shameful, and even dangerous.

 

[Ohorseman]

Egalitarianism is not "feminist pride", you keep using this expression I have never seen anywhere else. It reads like you are totally trying to present feminism, gay, egalitarian Christianity, transgender, transexual, and the ordination of women like these entirely different thing are all the same.

It might well be that merely on account of you personally not approving of any of them, and you personally being convinced that the Bible compells you to do so, to you personally they all the same. They are in fact all entirely different to each other, since your dissaproval is not actually part of their definitions.

It is this way, with all of them:
They are all different expressions of rejecting God-given identities. Those identities are clearly defined in the Bible, for those that want to obey God.

It is this way, with the Anointed Cherub:
He did not want to stay in his position, remain in his God-given identity. He rejected what God created him to be (Ez. 28:11-19, Is. 14:11-15, Rev. 12:3-9, Luke 10:18 ). He was anointed, consecrated and set apart for a holy purpose. Anointing lost.

It is this way, with a third of the stars:
The dragon’s tail swept down a third of the stars (Rev. 12:4). Rather than follow God, they followed the dragon, rejecting the order and hierarchy of the heavens and their identities of heavenly light, and they were cast down to the earth with the dragon. Satan ls called the god of this world (1 Cor. 4:4). And Paul taught us that demons are involved in the idols to the gods (1 Cor. 10:20). We see this expressed & embodied in the pagan religions across the earth and time. But Christ came and crushed the head of the serpent. Without a head the tail has no power, and so the fallen gods fall again, by the power of our Christ.

It is this way, with Adam:
In Eden he was called to work and keep the garden, to include not eating from the forbidden tree. He failed to keep the garden when he did not contend with the serpent, and instead he ate the forbidden fruit. It’s not like Woman made jelly with it and tricked him into eating it. He was not deceived. He disobeyed. The fault is on him.

It is this way, with Woman (Eve):
In Eden she was called to be helper. She followed the serpent. She was deceived. And this means she did not knowingly disobey and unwittingly mediated between serpent and earth. Maybe she thought she was helping.

It is this way, with egalitarianism:
By ignoring & twisting scriptures, it blends and re-defines the roles of men and women, our God-given distinctions and identities. For the love of women’s rights, and unwittingly gay rights as well. Some virtue signal and cry woe as they all bow before their surging sea of abortion’s blood that sets women free from motherhood, a necessity for equality of the sexes when the poisons do not work. This is not holy and comes from the mouth of the dragon, as he tries to draw them into his tail like he did the fallen gods.

It is this way, with feminist pride:
Its grandest expression is in the church and is women’s ordination. It goes against 10 headship passages in the NT, at least (previously provided). And the OT. The scriptures define how we embody our love for God and one another. Yet modern morphing of the verses satisfies itchy ears that listen to echoes of the fallen rather than truth.

It is this way, with men effeminate men:
And gay pride paints the globe. When men ignore God’s commands, reject the natural use of their body parts, and fulfill fleshly desires outside of God’s order, things become perverse, to the delight of the dragon and angels dark. Ditto for the “L” & the “B” of LGBT - and the “T” requires more detail.

It is this way, with trans:
Gender bending, cross-dressing, transgender are male and female behaviors blended and mixed, as they reject the image of God, male and female, & His commands for His people. We scoff at the young man pretending to be a girl on the girl’s swim team. Yet when a woman wears the collar of authority, robes & position of a priest, idly we sit, ignoring Paul, Peter, & Christ.

It is this way, with transitioning:
Bodily mutilation seems like the extreme manifestation of someone rejecting their identity and making it what they want. But they might say they are changing the outside to match what is inside. And with their chemicals and surgeries, at least they are not killing countless babies like the cowardly men that follow feminist pride. Yet when a girl gets her breasts cut off or a boy gets his penis cut off, you can’t keep it a secret like an abortion. And if their transitioning does not make them happy, why not go on to abort themselves, like the adults do with unwanted babies.

Anything but repentance on the dragon’s way.

NEVERTHELESS, even before angels fell and Eden was lost, different roles or identities were made for us, according to the Divine Order, an order and hierarchy that shines forth from the heavens and lays itself out in all the earth. Remaining in our male and female distinctions as we live, move, and have our being in God is true obedience and high worship, and to do otherwise is to deface God's image.

 

[The Liturgist]

The only place I myself have seen this practice maintained is at a Coptic Orthodox church.

I’ve seen it informally in some ROCOR parishes, but not to the formal extent in the Coptic church. That said, I have attended Coptic churches sitting next to my mother, and I have also attended Coptic churches with her not sitting next to her; what I love about the Coptic Orthodox practice is the sense of loving intimacy, of brotherhood and sisterhood, as the congregation really nurtures each other during the long liturgy.

 

[Ohorseman]

Head covering varies parish to parish, unfortunately (although I'm grateful that at mine, head covering for women and modest dress for both sexes is the norm), but these days that's the case with every church. The only arguable exception, as far as I know, is in traditional Catholicism where Catholic women are expected to veil if they attend a Latin Mass, but these Catholics would also consider themselves to be part of the same church that includes parishes like St. Sabina's in Chicago where the women are definitely not veiling during the Christmas laser light show or "pride mass."

I want to know the Eastern Ortho perspective, please. If a man and woman do not follow the covering instruction, are they taking the bread and wine in an unworthy way?

Let me explain why I ask. When I read the entirety of 1 Cor. 11, I reach the following conclusions about part 1 and part 2 of the passage:

Part 1 (verses 1-16)- In the assembly, we are to make distinctions between man and woman. Paul explains how, exactly. Men are NOT to cover when they pray or prophesy. Women are to cover when they pray or prophesy. This is liturgy, and Paul explains the meanings and reasons for doing this (which feminist pride hates). Therefore, this is how we present ourselves as male and female, according to the image of God. Those that are in Christ worship in this way.

Part 2 (verses 17-34) - In the assembly, we are not to make distinctions between rich and poor. They were making these distinctions, and Paul was correcting them. It seems that this is why the church made receiving the bread and wine more ceremonial in form - all receiving the same and in the same manner, like we do even now. Also, we should confess our sins prior to the Eucharist. If we have an issue with someone, we are to resolve it prior to receiving the bread and win.

Both 1 & 2 are about proper worship and coming before God in a worthy way. They are in the letter together. Why do one and not the other? Maybe that’s why TLM have their practice, & I think they are right. It seems that a priest should not give the bread & wine to a man whose head is covered or a woman whose head is uncovered… just like he would not give the Eucharist to someone that he knows has unrepentant sin or has wronged someone in the community. It looks like it all goes together.

What do you think, or anyone?

Notice that many of the early church fathers taught the covering liturgy, and you can see their quotes here:
Head covering for Christian women - Wikipedia

Because women have historically covered, until after the 1960’s, this is not something that theologians have had to consider. TLM and EO seem to do the best at following the scriptures on this issue, but there is not much teaching about it. Instead, modern scholars have corrupted the teaching of Paul’s words, by claiming things like: he is only talking about hair, or it’s only for Corinth, or it was only a Middle-eastern cultural thing, or they thought a woman’s hair was part of her sexual organs back then and that’s the only reason for covering, etc., etc. None of which stands up to scrutiny.

One of the features of my topic is that men and women should embody their respective male and female identities, according to the scripture, as a way to obey the Lord and show our love for Him. 1 Cor. 11, these are keystone scriptures, as evidenced by the fact that Paul ties this to creation, the angels, and even the nature of God (trinity related).

 

[The Liturgist]

I want to know the Eastern Ortho perspective, please. If a man and woman do not follow the covering instruction, are they taking the bread and wine in an unworthy way?

No, but in a great many parishes most or all women will wear a veil or scarf over their hair, especially when approaching the Chalice, not to the extent of Muslims however, but rather similar to how Anglican ladies traditionally wore beautiful hats to church.

 

[RamiC]

In 1 Tim. 3:12, Paul was giving inspired instructions about proper positioning, just like he did in all 5 of the passages I shared above. This has to do with how we embody God’s will for our lives, and the scriptures that we should obey show us how.

"Paul gives requirements for women in 1 Timothy 3:11 but then says “let deacons be the husbands of one wife” in verse 12. Since women are included, the statement is masculine yet gender-inclusive, not gender-exclusive or male-exclusive. Paul wouldn’t leave requirements for women deacons in 1 Timothy 3:11 but then dismiss them with the masculine language of 1 Timothy 3:12. So, women reading “husbands of one wife” have no need to feel as if they’re abandoned in verse 12."

“Husband of One Wife”: Paul’s gender inclusiveness in 1 Timothy 3

And you are an ACNA member so I quote the 39 Articles of Faith: "The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation."

And, to answer your question, I call it “feminist pride” to better show how it stands in solidarity with “gay pride”. Also, naming it “feminist pride” defines it as taking women’s rights too far.

Thank you for admitting that you are deliberately misrepresenting the positions.

My post #63 does not ask a question, here it is: "Egalitarianism is not "feminist pride", you keep using this expression I have never seen anywhere else. It reads like you are totally trying to present feminism, gay, egalitarian Christianity, transgender, transexual, and the ordination of women like these entirely different thing are all the same."

 

[Ohorseman]

No, but in a great many parishes most or all women will wear a veil or scarf over their hair, especially when approaching the Chalice, not to the extent of Muslims however, but rather similar to how Anglican ladies traditionally wore beautiful hats to church.

Well, I was hoping for a little more information than a “no”, as I am struggling to separate the two parts - though Paul does go from subject to subject here and the surrounding areas of his letter . And I don’t think it is exactly about pretty hats and scarves. Just like it is not exactly about going under the water. Nor is it about plain bread and wine. Even confession, foot washing, etc. etc. It is about the meaning of these things, what they embody and proclaim.

Feminists were not objecting to disagreeable fashions when they stopped head covering.

 

[Ohorseman]

"Paul gives requirements for women in 1 Timothy 3:11 but then says “let deacons be the husbands of one wife” in verse 12. Since women are included, the statement is masculine yet gender-inclusive, not gender-exclusive or male-exclusive. Paul wouldn’t leave requirements for women deacons in 1 Timothy 3:11 but then dismiss them with the masculine language of 1 Timothy 3:12. So, women reading “husbands of one wife” have no need to feel as if they’re abandoned in verse 12."

“Husband of One Wife”: Paul’s gender inclusiveness in 1 Timothy 3

You previously shared a feminist pride promoting article on 1 Timothy 2:12-15 , and now you are sharing another on 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and 1 Timothy 3:8-12.

Of course, we have Titus 1:5-9, Philippians 1:1-12, and 1 Corinthians 14:31-38 that still need to bow before feminist pride. And spare not 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, Titus 2:2-5, Ephesians 5:22-33, Colossians 3:18-21, 1 Peter 3: 1-6, nor Matthew 19:4-6.

Gay pride loves how feminist pride makes alternative interpretations. Both are strange fire (Leviticus 10:1-2).

As I wrote in my original post, I am interested in feedback from those that hold to the more traditional interpretations of the scriptures, but not the alternative progressive views. What I write about emanates from the orthodox or traditional position and is antithetical to progressive views. Paul’s spiritual meat is made into a sour milkshake by both articles and all the ones like them, as they split apart what should be comprehended holistically. I do not follow these modern alternative interpretations that have been forged in fires that burn like Sodom and Gomorrah.

And you are an ACNA member so I quote the 39 Articles of Faith: "The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation."

Yes, that is what the alternative gay and feminist pride views do. Unfortunately, all denominations, certainly mine, have been touched by this vile scourge but I have great hope that it will not be a thorn of the flesh that remains in His Bride much longer.

Thank you for admitting that you are deliberately misrepresenting the positions.

My post #63 does not ask a question, here it is: "Egalitarianism is not "feminist pride", you keep using this expression I have never seen anywhere else. It reads like you are totally trying to present feminism, gay, egalitarian Christianity, transgender, transexual, and the ordination of women like these entirely different thing are all the same."

It’s a fact. All those positions are different expressions of pride. Read #69 again.