Was Jesus Himself an Actual "Feminist" in a way? Yes or no?

[mkgal1]

No, that was a direct quote practically from Scripture.

Show me where.

That idea goes against the theology of the Holy Trinity.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

To me.....(but not ONLY me).....it's clear Paul meant this:

"Man didn’t have his origin from woman, but woman from man;" (v 8) = woman came from Adam's side.

" man wasn’t created for the sake of the woman, but the woman for the sake of the man" (v 9) = Woman was created so man would not be alone.

Main point, the way I read it---->"However, woman isn’t independent from man, and man isn’t independent from woman in the Lord. 12 As woman came from man so also man comes from woman. But everything comes from God."

That's all a presumption being read into the text.

As with all my other responses, there is 0% presumption and 100% reading apprehension and ability to read bare texts. What you erroneously call presumption is also (like all the other texts you diminish) clearly stated in Scripture, multiple times.

Jesus is subordinate to the Father and will be in eternal subjection to Him.

"For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:27-28)

Jesus, who will be eternally in subjection to the Father, will also rule over all people who will be in subjection to Him (Philippians 2:9-11). Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30), and Jesus said we must obey His commands (which would include all moral law), and the one who goes on in disobedience in not born of God (1 John 3:4-10). Thus, our subordination is clear, and God bless us for subjecting us under Him.

So as is made clear, in the same way as Christ is under God, and man under Christ, woman is under man.

 

[mkgal1]

Except Peter never tells husbands to be submissive to their wives. I like the bracketed addition of that into the text though. Just shows what lengths we must reach to to twist the Scripture into saying otherwise. Men are told to dwell with their wives in understanding, recognizing she is the weaker vessel and will also inherit the salvation of Christ despite her subordination (just as men inherit salvation from Christ despite their subordination to Him).

Those brackets are grammar....referring to the phrase "in the same way" . Subordination isn't mentioned. Dwelling with in understanding....honoring...and loving her like he loves his own body is what a lot of people consider as "submitting to".

 

[mkgal1]

As with all my other responses, there is 0% presumption and 100% reading apprehension

On that I can agree.


"Apprehension influences a reader's decision-making process such as decisions about the meaning and strategy used that can be misleading."-- A Rajab

 

[mkgal1]

Jesus, who will be eternally in subjection to the Father

"I have spent my entire adult lifetime concerned with the danger of heresy. As a young theologian, I worked through the early centuries of church history and understood that knowing the difference between orthodox Christianity and heresy is really a matter of life and death for the church. A failure to recognize and refute heresy means disaster for the church and its witness to Christ.

At the same time, I saw that two dangers quickly emerged. The first, and most dangerous, is the unwillingness of many modern theologians to acknowledge the reality and danger of heresy. Liberal theology denied the possibility of heresy and then openly embraced it. The second danger is like the fable of the boy who cried wolf. Some genuine doctrinal disagreements have nothing at all to do with the line between orthodoxy and heresy. Furthermore, not every false doctrine or theological error is a heresy.

Heresy is a denial or deviation from a doctrine central and essential to Christianity. Thus, the Christian church has learned through sad experience that heresy is a necessary category and a constant concern. In the early centuries of Christianity, church leaders had to define the true faith against false gospels and to defend biblical teachings concerning the most essential doctrines of all — the triune nature of God and the full deity and humanity of Christ.

At the councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451) the most fundamental biblical doctrines concerning Christ and the Trinity were defined, defended, and declared. The true faith, theologically identified as orthodoxy, was contrasted with heresies, rightly condemned as misrepresentations of Christianity. The stakes could not be higher. Heresies are not merely false doctrines; they are false doctrines that, left uncorrected, Christianity cannot survive.

The first heresy to call for a universal condemnation by the church was known as Arianism. Arius, a presbyter and priest in the church at Alexandria in Egypt, taught that the Son was a created being — even declaring “there once was a time when the Son was not.” Arius argued for an absolute ontological subordination of the Son to the Father and his teachings caused such division in the church that the Roman Emperor, Constantine, called for a council to resolve the theological crisis.

The Arians made a crucial mistake as the council began in Nicaea (modern Turkey) in the year 325. They presented their own proposed creed. Their creed was so openly contrary to Scripture and so contradictory to the church’s faith in Christ that it was easily rejected. Eventually, the Council of Nicaea adopted a creed that established orthodoxy, rejected heresy, and confessed essential teachings about the Son of God, Jesus Christ."--https://albertmohler.com/2016/06/28/heresy/

 

[mkgal1]

"And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other;
none is greater, or less than another; But the whole three Persons
are co-eternal together and co-equal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid,
the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped."-- From the Athanasian Creed

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

"I have spent my entire adult lifetime concerned with the danger of heresy. As a young theologian, I worked through the early centuries of church history and understood that knowing the difference between orthodox Christianity and heresy is really a matter of life and death for the church. A failure to recognize and refute heresy means disaster for the church and its witness to Christ.

At the same time, I saw that two dangers quickly emerged. The first, and most dangerous, is the unwillingness of many modern theologians to acknowledge the reality and danger of heresy. Liberal theology denied the possibility of heresy and then openly embraced it. The second danger is like the fable of the boy who cried wolf. Some genuine doctrinal disagreements have nothing at all to do with the line between orthodoxy and heresy. Furthermore, not every false doctrine or theological error is a heresy.

Heresy is a denial or deviation from a doctrine central and essential to Christianity. Thus, the Christian church has learned through sad experience that heresy is a necessary category and a constant concern. In the early centuries of Christianity, church leaders had to define the true faith against false gospels and to defend biblical teachings concerning the most essential doctrines of all — the triune nature of God and the full deity and humanity of Christ.

At the councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451) the most fundamental biblical doctrines concerning Christ and the Trinity were defined, defended, and declared. The true faith, theologically identified as orthodoxy, was contrasted with heresies, rightly condemned as misrepresentations of Christianity. The stakes could not be higher. Heresies are not merely false doctrines; they are false doctrines that, left uncorrected, Christianity cannot survive.

The first heresy to call for a universal condemnation by the church was known as Arianism. Arius, a presbyter and priest in the church at Alexandria in Egypt, taught that the Son was a created being — even declaring “there once was a time when the Son was not.” Arius argued for an absolute ontological subordination of the Son to the Father and his teachings caused such division in the church that the Roman Emperor, Constantine, called for a council to resolve the theological crisis.

The Arians made a crucial mistake as the council began in Nicaea (modern Turkey) in the year 325. They presented their own proposed creed. Their creed was so openly contrary to Scripture and so contradictory to the church’s faith in Christ that it was easily rejected. Eventually, the Council of Nicaea adopted a creed that established orthodoxy, rejected heresy, and confessed essential teachings about the Son of God, Jesus Christ."--https://albertmohler.com/2016/06/28/heresy/

"And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other;
none is greater, or less than another; But the whole three Persons
are co-eternal together and co-equal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid,
the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped."-- From the Athanasian Creed

You are more interested in quoting the works of men and women on their opinions of the Scriptures than you are in quoting the Scriptures and allowing God's Word to speak for itself. It is interesting in debates like this that I find myself constantly quoting Scriptures against extraneous authors that support the opposition to those Scriptures.

Scriptures speaking for itself:

"You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

And in case something thinks it was simply at His incarnation:

"For “God has put all things in subjection under His feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that He is excepted who put all things in subjection under Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to Him who put all things in subjection under Him, that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:27-28)

So there is indisputably hierarchy even in the Trinity, because equality is not identical to authority. This is the model for the headship of man over woman, who the woman is to respond to in silence to learn and submission in the church (1 Timothy 2:12) and submission in everything in the home (Ephesians 5:23-24).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Show me where.

That idea goes against the theology of the Holy Trinity.

Which idea ?

 

[mkgal1]

Which idea ?

The idea I quoted--that Jesus will be eternally subjected to the Father. It's a doctrine called "Eternal Subjection of the Son" or ESS. That was settled in 325, when orthodoxy was established with the creeds.

 

[mkgal1]

You are more interested in quoting the works of men and women on their opinions of the Scriptures than you are in quoting the Scriptures and allowing God's Word to speak for itself.

It's not "the works of men and women" I'm quoting. These are works that the Church accepted (as a whole) as being revealed to the Church from God (through inspired men and women). How is the Bible any different to you?

In the early church, only a small percentage of people were literate....so most of our faith was passed on verbally. Orthodox beliefs have been preserved through the Church (even through the Dark Age when Bibles weren't available to most people). You are also relying on "the works of men" that have interpreted the Bible for you. How did you choose which modern English translation you read? You've quoted the ESV....is that your version of choice?

Since you weren't born thousands of years ago in the ancient Greco/Roman culture...and Koine Greek or Ancient Hebrew or Aramaic aren't your native tongue.....when you are expecting "the Bible to speak for itself" what you're actually doing is allowing your own bias to inform your interpretations.

This is a quote from GoArch about how God reveals Himself to His Church:

"The Orthodox Faith does not begin with mankind's religious speculations, nor with the so-called "proofs" for the existence of God, nor with a human quest for the Divine. The origin of the Orthodox Christian Faith is the Self-disclosure of God. Each day, the Church's Morning Prayer affirms and reminds us of this by declaring, "God is the Lord and He has revealed Himself to us.” While the inner Being of God always remains unknown and unapproachable, God has manifested Himself to us; and the Church has experienced Him as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which is central to the Orthodox Faith, is not a result of pious speculation, but of the overwhelming experience of God. The doctrine affirms that there is only One God, in whom there are three distinct Persons. In other words, when we encounter the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, we are truly experiencing contact with God. While the Holy Trinity is a mystery which can never be fully comprehended, Orthodoxy believes that we can truly participate in the Trinity through the life of the Church."~Teachings of the Orthodox Church - Introduction to Orthodoxy Articles - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

And in case something thinks it was simply at His incarnation:

"For “God has put all things in subjection under His feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that He is excepted who put all things in subjection under Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to Him who put all things in subjection under Him, that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:27-28)

So there is indisputably hierarchy even in the Trinity, because equality is not identical to authority. This is the model for the headship of man over woman, who the woman is to respond to in silence to learn and submission in the church (1 Timothy 2:12) and submission in everything in the home (Ephesians 5:23-24).

Jesus of Nazareth (which the Church believes is God incarnate) was only human for a limited time (but Christ is eternal). That passage is referring to a point when God "emptied Himself and became human" (for OUR sake). In our faith tradition...we see that as "humility" and the greatest act of love. It's a shame when that is polluted with characteristics the world values (power and control).

God's love wins in the end, though (the Church believes).

 

[mkgal1]

Our Bibles are not immune from human agency:

After Tweaking 29 Verses, Bible Translation Becomes Unchanging Word of God

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The idea I quoted--that Jesus will be eternally subjected to the Father. It's a doctrine called "Eternal Subjection of the Son" or ESS. That was settled in 325, when orthodoxy was established with the creeds.

That's not a doctrine I ever knew of,
and so as far as I know it might involve things besides (going along wth)
what Scripture says.

To know when the Son is subject to the Father, simply see what He says Himself in Scripture.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Our Bibles are not immune from human agency:

Interesting this is brought up,
....
yes, yes indeed......

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

what you're actually doing is allowing your own bias to inform your interpretations.

OR that's what you are doing yourself, as you posted....

When Yahweh grants understanding of Scripture, as seen IN SCRIPTURE,
HE does not grant false understanding.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"I have spent my entire adult lifetime concerned with the danger of heresy. As a young theologian, I worked through the early centuries of church history and understood that knowing the difference between orthodox Christianity and heresy is really a matter of life and death for the church. A failure to recognize and refute heresy means disaster for the church and its witness to Christ.

Yes, that is one of many things that happened early on.

THis paragraph contradicts itself, yet explains a lot also.

We choose if we want to be 'concerned'/focused/ paying devotional attention to the Father in heaven or something else (like heresy hunters?) or tradition (much of which was proven heresy) by the early church (after the 3rd century).
Many people lost their faith in the church, while they were in the church studying it, including of course in/from religious schooling.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Subordination isn't mentioned. Dwelling with in understanding....honoring...and loving her like he loves his own body is what a lot of people consider as "submitting".

Thus a lot of the confusion, perhaps?
The words , if seeming to be in conflict with someone's group,
often find their definitions changed.

 

[mkgal1]

That's not a doctrine I ever knew of

I'm going to look for some information about when it made a come back (I believe it coincided with Grudem's book....as most of this debate did ).

To know when the Son is subject to the Father, simply see what He says Himself in Scripture.

Correct.

 

[mkgal1]

OR that's what you are doing yourself, as you posted....

I don't let "Scripture speak for itself " as he stated is his methodology. I rely on the foundations that were formed in the early Christian church as to what's considered to be true (and accepted) about the nature of God and what we can glean from His incarnation about the mystery of Christ revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I rely on the foundations that were formed in the early Christian church

This may be where the mistakes come from.

 

[mkgal1]

Thus a lot of the confusion, perhaps?
The words , if seeming to be in conflict with someone's group,
often find their definitions changed.

You seem to be accusing me of changing definitions here. The passage says, "wives submit to your husbands"...."husbands *in the same way* be considerate as you live with your wives". To understand what "in the same way" is referring to, we have to go back in the text. Wives and husbands are instructed in mutuality ("in the same way" as the text in verse 7 states).