Back to the OP topic.
What is truly astounding, is that no one even attempts to address the Scriptural and SoP, neither Roman Hierarchical doctrine, nor photographic evidence as already given here -
Deal with this evidence, no more distractions:
awhn.webs.com/woeuntous.htm
http://www.christianforums.com/t7664260-3/#post67010391
Deal with the evidence as cited by another brother in regards a certain theologian, and his methodology at arriving at the conclusion he did- http://www.christianforums.com/t7664260-3/#post67036718
Will you now demand, and yet again not deal directly with any of the materials already given?First, you tell me two things.
Sister, I will ask, did you read the entire article in the link and the material therein? Will you please answer "yes" or "no"?One: Show me Jesus and His love ...
Therefore, it was "love" [1 Cor 13] that motivated the article, in which it is warning you with all, that you might be spared falling into the snare of the devil, and of the harlot [the pit, deep ditch]. In the love of Christ, the trumpet and warning was sounded, and if you or any continue to disregard and so fall in, I and others are released from your blood. However, that blood and the blood of any others taken into the same snare, pit and death will be upon you, and those which do the same.One: Show me Jesus and His love in anything argued by those sources.
So did others, including children. And? Will you now ordain children to sacred office? Sister, by every word that is now spoken, and not in the manner of addressing what was already provided, the hole is being dug deeper and deeper. Soon, a line will be crossed with God, in which you cannot go back. If only you understood Ezekiel 5-9.Mary of Bethany sat at Jesus' feet along with His other disciples.
And? No one is saying a woman cannot be a messenger of God [indeed they can be and have been], except as such as they erroneously foist it upon us, even though it be not our position from Scripture. Again, what does this have to do with countering any of the evidence provided, and how does it possibly make any valid connection to the subject at hand? Sister, it does no such thing. Mary Magdalena is not in the office of Apostle/Bishop/Elder, etc.... Of course, this was already demonstrated in the materials provided you, even in the first link, she instead goes unto those who are the Apostles, the men chose by Jesus Christ and so designated by Him as such:She was with the apostles at Pentecost, and she was first to carry the message that the Savior had risen from the dead.
And? Male and female are all called to be disciples, and to "follow" Jesus. Each are to bear a message to the world for Christ Jesus. What does any of that have to do in answering the materials presented in the links, or in any way making a connection to the subject at hand?Jesus respected and trusted her with such discipleship and such a message.
I have. You refused Him. You did not like the character set forth as Christ Jesus being the submissive to the Father. That relationship is in the model God gave from Creation, even before [as demonstrated in the links], in Adam and Eve.Show me Jesus.
Simple, and if you had read the articles and material at all in any detail, slowly and prayerfully, you would recognize that sister Ellen G White was called of God to be a Messenger of the LORD, a Prophetess. However, I do hope you notice that God called two men first to that place?Two: Show me how you reconcile a young woman from midwestern America in the 1800s, who did not go beyond the third grade in formal academic knowledge... a young woman who was less than the picture of health her entire life (in other words, "the least of these")... was trusted by God to carry the most influential messages of her entire faith community and how those messages have continued to influence in dramatic and powerful ways the Seventh-day Adventist World Church long past her lifetime... show me how you reconcile THAT with the arguments put forth against women ministering in some of the exact same ways she did during her lifetime and still consider the faith community God built through her to be valuable or valid.
Paul is very clear as already shown, and he quoting the unbreakable Scripture [John 10:35] under the guidance of the Holy Spirit Himself. Do not seek to misplace the blame upon us, but take it up with God sister, for it is currently Him and His doctrine you presently are despising so easily. Please reconsider.Paul, the one whose letters are often used to argue against women being in church leadership positions yet who openly states in several letters in the Bible that he worked with and supported specific women by name who were leaders in the early church,
All of those texts are correct and there is no argument against any of them sister.said in 1 Corinthians 12 - "Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good... All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines... Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ... The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor... God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it." Shouldn't we all have equal concern for anyone who is called by God to minister? Shouldn't we, as a faith community, align our hearts in harmony with Christ's as He gives honor to the parts of His body whom have lacked it for so long? Show me where the arguments put forward uplift the least of these, as Christ does. Show me where the arguments put forward show equal concern for all parts of Christ's church body - male or female. Show me how we may be united in Christ when we divide ourselves and the roles WE allow GOD to ordain along lines of gender in our community.
Already done. Just as God gave to the Jews the oracles of God to share with the other nations and to teach them.Show me Christ's love for all humankind.
I prefer the King James Bible myself, however, it is only yourself that is claiming that we dishonour women. Not so. It is fantasy. If you understood what place God has for you, as a woman, you would recognize the real honour, real dignity, real mission, and ministry in that role, that estate, that position and not covet that which was given to men, which is exactly what you are doing, whether you recognize it or not. Eve, do not eat from that Tree which is not yours...1 Corinthians 13:4-8, 13 says, "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails... And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."
All that are Christ's may speak as He directs. No argument there sister. Neither is there any question that God loves all His children. It is again straw men.Show me God's love for men, women, children, young, old, and even every creature or object He chooses to speak on His behalf.
You do not understand who the rocks are... and again you are conflating a messenger, and an office of Elder/Bishop etc...For Christ said that even the rocks would cry out if those who proclaim Christ are silenced.
Will you also push for "trans-gender" and "hermaphrodites", etc to such places in offices of the Church? If not why not?First...
Brother,...In your posts you do present some viewpoints opposing female ordination that would be interesting to discuss further with you, but to be completely honest your confrontational and inflammatory style of writing makes it difficult to engage in any meaningful discussion with you.
@The Fundamentalist:
Brother, a couple of thoughts...
the question of female ordination isn't a question of salvation. It's possible to have different viewpoints about this issue without condemning those who view things differently. You might tell yourself that you're merely sharing the straight testimony, but what you're really doing is to alienate yourself. Language that reeks of fire and brimstone doesn't do anything to strengthen your case, and it doesn't edify those you wish to influence.
Will you also push for "trans-gender" and "hermaphrodites", etc to such places in offices of the Church? If not why not?
Sister it is the issue at hand, and it is more amazing that the question is not answered.That is not the issue at hand. Thus, as you have encouraged let's stick to the actual issue at hand. It is illogical to jump from the ordination of women in ministry positions to that of various LGBT issues.
Here is another quotation from brother U's linked article to brother A's material, and see if it lines up with Scripture:Thank you for bringing balance back. I appreciate it very much.
Are you suggesting that women may be 'ordained' and yet you are refusing the "transgender" group and the "hermaphrodite" group? Upon what grounds?
Here is another quotation from brother U's linked article to brother A's material, and see if it lines up with Scripture:
"No one was limited to a particular role within the Kingdom of God."Really? Then Lucifer was right to attempt to claim for himself the particular role that the Son of God was in by the Father's will?
Are you sure you want to take that same position as brother A?
Sister, then in charity, and an attempt to again to try having atonement between all involved based upon Scripture and SoP, let us begin from the beginning, asking questions as we go.I have actually read the materials presented, point by point, ... - found them exhausting to read and pointless to reply to, as they are of a combative nature which tears down the opposing views in negative ways and I do not desire to do that.
Sister, then in charity, and an attempt to again to try having atonement between all involved based upon Scripture and SoP, let us begin from the beginning, asking questions as we go.
According to Scripture, even to the Law and to the Testimony [Isaiah 8:20]:
Q. Are the Father and Son two persons?
Q. Have the Father and Son always been two persons in eternity?
Q. Are Adam and Eve two persons?
Q. Were Adam and Eve to always be two persons from their creation?
Q. Are Father and Son to be "one" [Scripturally Def.] according to John 10:30, Deuteronomy 6:4, and Mark 12:29?
Q. Are Adam [Husband; Genesis 3:6,16] and Eve [Wife; Genesis 3:8,17] to be "one" [Scripturally Def.] according to Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5 and Ephesians 5:31?
...If you can, than I will also. Sometimes we all need a fresh start.
I suggest also to read Isaiah 9:1-2...
Okay,...
Sister, if I may make a comment about this response as a whole?[Q. Are the Father and Son two persons?] A: As far as we understand in our finite knowledge ("as in a mirror" to quote Paul the Apostle 1 Cor. 13:12), God the Father and God the Son are two individual persons.
Sister, I will not belabour my previous comment about the answers to the questions too much, but simply ask that you may please refer back to the simplicity of the questions intent and the original comment.[Q. Have the Father and Son always been two persons in eternity?] A: If we are to understand both as equally infinite and eternal God, than both must have existed in partnership from the beginning and beyond eternity. (John 1:1-2)
Sister, if I may ask a subquestion? Q. Who is "we" that you referred to? The questions are being asked directly to yourself and no other, based upon Isaiah 8:20. If you please would clarify this for me, thank you.[Q. Are Adam and Eve two persons?] A: We understand man and woman (in this instance speaking of Adam and Eve - the first of both) as two individual created beings.
Sister, if you do not mind too readily, I will shorten this reply to the first pertinent section, and not go into non-sequitur, as I think from there, a question should have been asked for clarification and the remainder that followed would have been unnecessary.[Q. Were Adam and Eve to always be two persons from their creation?] A: Were Adam and Eve always to be two persons from creation? Well, that depends on which Genesis story you are referencing and how you interpret them. ..."
As far as I understand your answer to the intended question, you have affirmed that, 'Yes, based upon Scripture and the SoP', "... the Father ... and ... the Son are united as one. ...", correct?[Q. Are Father and Son to be "one" [Scripturally Def.] according to John 10:30, Deuteronomy 6:4, and Mark 12:29?] A: From those texts, it is reasonable to believe God the Father and God the Son are united as one. I would also add John 14:9 as evidence for such an understanding.
Sister, if I may make another comment here, Genesis 3:7 was not referenced in the original question.[Q. Are Adam [Husband; Genesis 3:6,16] and Eve [Wife; Genesis 3:8,17] to be "one" [Scripturally Def.] according to Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5 and Ephesians 5:31?] A: Genesis 2:24 I have already referenced and would answer the same. Matthew 19:5 and Ephesians 5:31 affirm by quoting the exact same phrase from Genesis to be applied for their own purposes. I do not follow what you are getting at from Genesis 3:6-7, 16-17. That reference requires a separate question for logical progression.
Let me see if I properly understood your answers and make a comment or two before asking further questions [I have taken the liberty to place the Questions before your answers in the re-quotation of your response, as it makes for easier reading, and following at least for myself]: ...
My original questions are in Blue for easier following, response.Sister, if I may make a comment about this response as a whole?
The question was not asking about men's 'finite knowledge', but what God, infinite in knowledge, has revealed to men in His word. Therefore, again if I may, the question as intended is not asking whether it is a matter of "as far as we understand", but instead, being based upon Scripture, as far as what God has revealed to us therein. The question is not trying to be overly complicated, but simply asking as it is written, even as all of the questions are asked in this manner.
For instance, if it were asked, Are you a woman? A simple answer is expected. This is all that was being asked for in regards the original questions.
However, as far as I understand your answer to the intended question, you have affirmed that, 'Yes, based upon Scripture and the SoP', "... the Father and ... the Son are two ... persons.", correct?
In other words, a simple "yes" or "no", based upon said text, would have sufficed for each question. If there was a question as to the intent about the simplicity of the questions, a question in return would have been all that was necessary and I would have [and will do] attempted to clarify any question in future.[/SIZE][/FONT]
However, as far as I understand your answer to the intended question, you have affirmed that, 'Yes, based upon Scripture and the SoP', "... both [Father and Son] must have existed ... from the beginning and ... eternity. (John 1:1-2)", correct?
Also, as a further comment and clarification for myself, I am not quite sure what you meant "from ... beyond eternity".
Q. Did you mean "from eternity"? If yes, I will accept it in the included affirmative. If no, I cannot understand the answer of something which is "from ... beyond eternity" and will have to ask you another question. This is why I am asking about simplicity of answers to the simplicity of the questions, and this one asked about "in eternity", not "beyond" it. I hope my question and comment is clear.
Secondarily, the original question, in its simplicity asked nothing about "partnership", but simply asked about 'existence'.
If you could therefore, readdress the Question one more time for me and leave out the additional unasked for material on "partnership", and I do ask for patience in this, as I am not looking for extra materialto be included in any answers, but only that which the questions are intended as asking in their specifics. Therefore, if you would not mind doing so in favor?
As far as there is evidence in Scripture, yes.Q. Have the Father and Son always been two persons in eternity?
Sister, if I may ask a subquestion? Q. Who is "we" that you referred to? The questions are being asked directly to yourself and no other, based upon Isaiah 8:20. If you please would clarify this for me, thank you.
If I may make another comment about the original intent of the question again, and not to make this longer than necessary, but the question was not asking about "man" and "woman" in those terms, but rather specifically in the terms of "Adam" and "Eve". The question was at that point unconcerned with which was either "man" or "woman". I hope you see what I am saying, asking.
Therefore, would you mind re-addressing the question once more please in simplicity? I dislike having to re-ask you at each point, as I do not want you to be weary of me, but I do need clarification in this.
Q. Are Adam and Eve two persons?
In comment, I do not refer to Genesis as "story", but history, yet this is still unnecessary to the original question, and interpretation according to Isaiah 8:20, would include Isaiah 28:10,13; Proverbs 1:6; 2 Peter 1:20, etc and so there is no question as to interpretation, meaning there is only one, and it is Gods'.
Q. After Adam and Eve were created were they to always be two persons?
I have been formally taught how to read and write Hebrew and Greek, and where to research and use the languages responsibly.A subquestion may be later asked in regards your knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, in regards the non-sequitur portion of the exempted reply, but this is not relevant at this time.
As far as I understand your answer to the intended question, you have affirmed that, 'Yes, based upon Scripture and the SoP', "... the Father ... and ... the Son are united as one. ...", correct?
Sister, if I may make another comment here, Genesis 3:7 was not referenced in the original question.
However, for your clarification, Genesis 3:6,16 is for the reference to the word "Husband" in respect to "Adam", and Genesis 3:8,17 is for the reference to the word "Wife" in respect to "Eve", which is the reason for placing those textual references inside of the brackets with the words "Husband", besides "Adam" and "Wife", beside "Eve". This is simply utilizing the Scripture to define Scripture for us, without assuming Adam was the husband of Eve, nor assuming Eve the Wife of Adam.
New questions:
Q. Is "man" [Genesis 1:26] made in the "image" [Genesis 1:26] of "God" [Genesis 1:26]?
Q. Is "man" [Genesis 1:26] made in the "likeness" [Genesis 1:26] of "God" [Genesis 1:26]?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?