Responding to post by Redeemed1
So, you are saying that only the 4 Gospels can actually be believed as scripture? ". I say no such thing. Much of what is written is repeated by different authors, in individual verses or passages. Anything of significance certainly, and particularly when it is a matter that impacts upon doctrine (in support) will have more than one witness. Nor do I make a fetish of demanding two witnesses. If a claim is made, in the absence of conflicting claims, I will accept it - if only on proviso.
And I think the fact that Paul clarifies in Corinthians that a statement he is making is from him and not God, should show that the rest of his letters ARE of God's inspiration, otherwise why would he have to clarify it to them? I could as easily use this same claim, given that one paragraph, between the two that I mentioned, states specifically "I say, yet not I, but God", to show that the rest of his letters are NOT from God. One claim is as valid as the other - and either claim is wholly invalid.
And you are telling me that the instructions for the church then are not instruction for the church today. How do you come up with that? Where does it say that? What year was the cutoff date for those instructions? Well now, the claim that everything that Paul wrote is scripture is the same as a claim for Papal infallibility - assuming that the Pope is in fact a man of God. I do not subscribe to the concept of Papal infallibility. But even the concept of Papal infallibility only extends to matters directly involving faith and morals - and maintaining good order in a church does not fall under that umbrella. You will note that Paul ascribes as one of the reasons for his instructions regarding women - the man was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, fell into transgression . Doesn't it strike you as strange that in support of his edicts, Paul resorts to the Hellenistic (Greek) account of the fall, not the Biblical account - which latter ascribes fault for the fall to both the man and the woman? My claim is based simply on the fact that even Paul acknowledged the existence of a woman who was an apostle (highest human authority in the church), Acts recognises four women who were prophetesses (second highest human rank) and Acts makes mention of a woman who actively engaged in teaching a man who himself was already active as an evangelist. Prophetesses were known in the Old Testament times, and a woman (Deborah) was appointed by God as a judge in Israel (equivalent in rank to an apostle), this same woman, being stated in the Bible to have given orders to a man, himself a prophet.
I apologize for seeming contentious, I am not offended but you most likely feel absolutely no contrition for what you have posted. You do not SEEM contentious about this matter, you ARE contentious. Nor are these statements a criticism of your attitude - being contentious and challenging my statements is entirely noteworthy as being right and proper. given the circumstances.
what I am hearing from you is that you will pick and choose which scriptures you will believe to be from God, in order to justify your position. My dear sir, you seem to be wholly unaware that in saying "everything in the Bible is scripture" - or - "everything in the Bible is scripture except when the Bible says outright that it is not scripture" you are yourself deciding what you will believe to be from God. Deciding for one's self what one will accept as being from God is inescapable. To wit, your claim that what one witness says is from God ignores the reiterated Biblical declaration that every fact is established on the testimony of two or more reliable witnesses How can you say that you believe everything in the Bible is scripture (with the codicil of course) and then ignore the Biblical declaration of how a matter is shown to be factual?
I think this subject has been debated enough. My position is clear, as is yours. I will not move from "should women be pastors" into "the Word of God isn't REALLY the Word of God". Can you support your belief with anything concrete from the Bible, that "everything in the Bible is scripture, except when the Bible itself declares that a thing is not from God."?
So, you are saying that only the 4 Gospels can actually be believed as scripture? ". I say no such thing. Much of what is written is repeated by different authors, in individual verses or passages. Anything of significance certainly, and particularly when it is a matter that impacts upon doctrine (in support) will have more than one witness. Nor do I make a fetish of demanding two witnesses. If a claim is made, in the absence of conflicting claims, I will accept it - if only on proviso.
And I think the fact that Paul clarifies in Corinthians that a statement he is making is from him and not God, should show that the rest of his letters ARE of God's inspiration, otherwise why would he have to clarify it to them? I could as easily use this same claim, given that one paragraph, between the two that I mentioned, states specifically "I say, yet not I, but God", to show that the rest of his letters are NOT from God. One claim is as valid as the other - and either claim is wholly invalid.
And you are telling me that the instructions for the church then are not instruction for the church today. How do you come up with that? Where does it say that? What year was the cutoff date for those instructions? Well now, the claim that everything that Paul wrote is scripture is the same as a claim for Papal infallibility - assuming that the Pope is in fact a man of God. I do not subscribe to the concept of Papal infallibility. But even the concept of Papal infallibility only extends to matters directly involving faith and morals - and maintaining good order in a church does not fall under that umbrella. You will note that Paul ascribes as one of the reasons for his instructions regarding women - the man was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, fell into transgression . Doesn't it strike you as strange that in support of his edicts, Paul resorts to the Hellenistic (Greek) account of the fall, not the Biblical account - which latter ascribes fault for the fall to both the man and the woman? My claim is based simply on the fact that even Paul acknowledged the existence of a woman who was an apostle (highest human authority in the church), Acts recognises four women who were prophetesses (second highest human rank) and Acts makes mention of a woman who actively engaged in teaching a man who himself was already active as an evangelist. Prophetesses were known in the Old Testament times, and a woman (Deborah) was appointed by God as a judge in Israel (equivalent in rank to an apostle), this same woman, being stated in the Bible to have given orders to a man, himself a prophet.
I apologize for seeming contentious, I am not offended but you most likely feel absolutely no contrition for what you have posted. You do not SEEM contentious about this matter, you ARE contentious. Nor are these statements a criticism of your attitude - being contentious and challenging my statements is entirely noteworthy as being right and proper. given the circumstances.
what I am hearing from you is that you will pick and choose which scriptures you will believe to be from God, in order to justify your position. My dear sir, you seem to be wholly unaware that in saying "everything in the Bible is scripture" - or - "everything in the Bible is scripture except when the Bible says outright that it is not scripture" you are yourself deciding what you will believe to be from God. Deciding for one's self what one will accept as being from God is inescapable. To wit, your claim that what one witness says is from God ignores the reiterated Biblical declaration that every fact is established on the testimony of two or more reliable witnesses How can you say that you believe everything in the Bible is scripture (with the codicil of course) and then ignore the Biblical declaration of how a matter is shown to be factual?
I think this subject has been debated enough. My position is clear, as is yours. I will not move from "should women be pastors" into "the Word of God isn't REALLY the Word of God". Can you support your belief with anything concrete from the Bible, that "everything in the Bible is scripture, except when the Bible itself declares that a thing is not from God."?
