Moderators Kevin H Posted January 3, 2015 Moderators Share Posted January 3, 2015 Principle of bible interpretation #3 Scripture must be it’s own expositor (explainer), since it is a rule of itself. If I depend on a minister or teacher to explain it to me, and they should guess at it’s meaning, or desire to have it so on account of their creed, or thought to be wise… then their guessing, desire, creed, or wisdom is my rule and not the Bible! Psalms 19:7-11; 119:97-105; Matthew 23:8-10; 1 Corinthians 2:12-16; Ezekiel 34:18-19; Luke 11:52; Malachi 2:7-8. “The Bible with its precious gems of truth was not written for the scholar alone. On the contrary, it was designed for the people; and the interpretation given by the common people, when aided by the Holy Spirit, accords best with the truth as it is in Jesus.”5T 330-1 Notice you wrote "If I depend on a minister or teacher to explain it to me, and they should guess at it’s meaning, or desire to have it so on account of their creed, or thought to be wise… then their guessing, desire, creed, or wisdom is my rule and not the Bible!" we are not talking about depending on guessing, desire or creed or wisdom. We are talking about common people looking at the weight of the evidence. You seem to be supporting the "guessing and desire or wisdom" of the common person. We are not talking about reading the Bible with the imagination, whether the imagination is that of a lay person or a scholar. But a freedom to learn what we can about the Bible. We do not need to become scholars ourselves to look at the evidence. Scholars can point out information in history we may not know about. Scholars can point out information in the language that we may not know about. Scholars can point out that there is a poetic structure and compare the text with similar poetic structures. We are free to evaluate their argument and find points that make sense and convince us, or points that do not make sense and does not convince us. Through much of the dark ages the priests were making lessons that was not based on a study of the history and words, but say take something like the parable of the good Samaritan and make very complicated messages taking every item in the story and making it mean something else than it says. Then in Mrs. White's day there was growing a lot of speculation either going to preterism making the text only something historical and fictional and no more than a nice morality tale, or fundamentalism and dispensationalism and developing the ideas of John Darby. However our imagination can be just a wild as those people's, but because we are lay members our imagination is more holy then theirs. Miller would look at the worlds. Use concordances to try to study the word in other contexts (today we have both the Biblical text as well as more contemporary writings than Miller had to read from to see how the word is used). And he turned to history to understand their historical context. And part of the investigative judgment is that we know more about the languages and the historical conference than ever before. We can look at this information and use this to understand the words of the Bible better and have them point us closer to the meaning of these words and the Bible. But your arguments here is saying "Because I'm not a scholar what I want to read into the words from my wild imagination is the truth and you must submit to what I tell you the Bible means." and setting your self up as a pope and a final authority. rudywoofs (Pam) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted January 3, 2015 Administrators Share Posted January 3, 2015 Tom Wetmore: "Nobody is banning anyone opposed to WO, male or female, from speaking up." "There are 5 Divisions that support WO" I thought you're to be honest at least to yourself Tom.... especially about "5 Divisions"! Leadership? Yes. Church's members within those 5 divisions? NO! There is no evidence that the all 5 Divisions which support WO are backed up by their own members' voice. That's the voice of their leaders only...ignoring the democracy process in each Church Business meetings. Every church meetings recently are specifically DESIGNED to minimized the involvement of lay members, "information upon request only" plattform, and controlled merely by big bosses as if the stockholders or business owners only. No follow up, no open discussion, no equal time given, no posting about disaggrement allowed by any tithe givers. No evidence about EQUAL TIME AND OPPORTUNITY either.. Happy "equality"! Like I said, you need to get out more and pay closer attention to what is actually happening... Just as there are obviously those within each of those Divisions that disagree with their leaders, so also are many members in favor of WO in the Divisions where leadership opposes WO. Consider within the Division where you live, compared to one where the opposite view is predominant. NAD where a majority are in favor as evidenced by multiple surveys, votes, etc. also has the most vocal and prolific voices of opposition. Consider Steven Bohr's weekend long marathon symposium featuring all things opposed to WO, including female speakers. How many of the Divisions that you know of where the leadership opposes WO that have any information, written or spoken, about WO, either for or against? How much is being broadcast or published in those territories? Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carey Posted January 4, 2015 Author Share Posted January 4, 2015 Excuse me, sir.... Is it too hard to stop bubbling up and stay on the topic and the main concern please? At this pre-GC countdown timeline, we are seriously concerned about our liberal pro-WO leaders that manipulating their members with the nonsense blanket statements that: 1. Every women in SDA are automatically pro-WO (not even one lady is opposing WO), 2. "Equality"-- Liberals, including yourself (sorry), excessively manipulating the real facts that no protest against time-restriction to speak up. i.e.: We have the "Blue Law" in N. America Division that in every official meetings no time duration allowed as equal as those of the Pro-WO, and this is 100% mandatory. Serious consequences applied if certain union leaders "cross the line" by allowing the equal time for the WO opponent. This trick has been applied due to the multi million dollar bribery from Jesuits and Evangelicals to SDA liberals including to Columbia and Pacific union conferences leadership. (Easy money at the expense of our church's principal and unity) So that's why any protest won't be honored. 3. The manipulating by signaling such a 'false-peace', Those dirty tricks of the liberal big bosses has been raising serious anger amongst SDA outside N. America. But the statement of "happy", "Peace" "uniting" or "friendship" excessively misused in lieu of the real facts of the serious wrath. Be careful at this point (if you want) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted January 4, 2015 Members Share Posted January 4, 2015 the multi million dollar bribery from Jesuits and Evangelicals to SDA liberals including to Columbia and Pacific union conferences leadership. (Easy money at the expense of our church's principal and unity) please cite your sources Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoAspen Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I reckon when we see foaming at the mouth, the proper procedure is to call 911. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carey Posted January 4, 2015 Author Share Posted January 4, 2015 Thank you for not believing this "Liberals SDA big bosses' channel" grammy award! Amen and amen. This reminds me about Jonathan Henderson's PUC sermon: ADAM AND STEVE. It doesn't matter how beautiful Henderson would delivering the sermon, yet the mafia behind the screen must perfectly prepare him for the worst scenario after the sermon. The total of 10-year salary worth amount of bribery had been perfectly prepared for each: Jonathan Henderson, PUC president and Pacific Union conference president... that's not considered a lot of money for the major mafia with the mission of destroying the official SDA church (the mafia's spokesperson usually are some beautiful young ladies--for negotiation process). Yes, Henderson and PUC leaders knew in advance that the ingredients of the sermon is blasphemous and flawed. So in case Henderson get fired, those organized crime mafia just ready to simply crown him with his 10-year worth of salary for bribery, and 6-years worth if Henderson won't get fired. Though this is the bad true story, however the worst tragedy is that too may SDA, alumni and students happily disagree and mocking the facts that "Adam and Steve" sermon is a serious business that already prepared in advance with the huge downpayment long before the PUC calender schedule for the meeting was settled. Easy money!!! Are you keep playing with your denial and disagreement....that none of the PUC leader knew in advance about the pre-planned project of "Adam and Steve" sermon? Shouldn't we be surprise if you won't believe that the same mafia would easily play the same scenario of bribery regarding the promoting of Woman Ordination? Especially with the fact that 87.22% of liberal Adventists most likely seeking help from the former adventists all the time (Jun 2012) in case they're facing some challenges. Instead of making a prayer circle within SDA existing members, apparently the liberals SDA always fall in love with ex-SDAs since they're usually having the same voices and then making coalition with ecumenical and evangelical to gain influence for infiltrating SDA worldwide fundamental beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted January 4, 2015 Members Share Posted January 4, 2015 Thank you for not believing this "Liberals SDA big bosses' channel" grammy award! Amen and amen. This reminds me about Jonathan Henderson's PUC sermon: ADAM AND STEVE. It doesn't matter how beautiful Henderson would delivering the sermon, yet the mafia behind the screen must perfectly prepare him for the worst scenario after the sermon. The total of 10-year salary worth amount of bribery had been perfectly prepared for each: Jonathan Henderson, PUC president and Pacific Union conference president... that's not considered a lot of money for the major mafia with the mission of destroying the official SDA church (the mafia's spokesperson usually are some beautiful young ladies--for negotiation process). Yes, Henderson and PUC leaders knew in advance that the ingredients of the sermon is blasphemous and flawed. So in case Henderson get fired, those organized crime mafia just ready to simply crown him with his 10-year worth of salary for bribery, and 6-years worth if Henderson won't get fired. Though this is the bad true story, however the worst tragedy is that too may SDA, alumni and students happily disagree and mocking the facts that "Adam and Steve" sermon is a serious business that already prepared in advance with the huge downpayment long before the PUC calender schedule for the meeting was settled. Easy money!!! Are you keep playing with your denial and disagreement....that none of the PUC leader knew in advance about the pre-planned project of "Adam and Steve" sermon? Shouldn't we be surprise if you won't believe that the same mafia would easily play the same scenario of bribery regarding the promoting of Woman Ordination? Especially with the fact that 87.22% of liberal Adventists most likely seeking help from the former adventists all the time (Jun 2012) in case they're facing some challenges. Instead of making a prayer circle within SDA existing members, apparently the liberals SDA always fall in love with ex-SDAs since they're usually having the same voices and then making coalition with ecumenical and evangelical to gain influence for infiltrating SDA worldwide fundamental beliefs. the above is one of the most bizarre pieces of undocumented, rambling conjecture I've read in quite some time... LynnDel 1 Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carey Posted January 4, 2015 Author Share Posted January 4, 2015 Amen. Thank you sis. More to come....(hopefully you won't believe it) Make your own judgment! But at least you'd aware that "you shall know by its fruits". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kevin H Posted January 4, 2015 Moderators Share Posted January 4, 2015 Carey: Study the Bible. I mean really study it. Don't be a spiritualist who placed your interpretation of the words as superior to serious Bible study, but go into serious Bible study. Look for studies on the words, the literary structures, the history and geography. Living in the age of the Investigative Judgment places us where we can study these as never before. Mrs. White talks about those who go in with Christ to the Most Holy place, and how those who remain out find their prayers answered by Satan. Get back to the Bible. Make the Bible your safeguard, not traditions and what you think the Bible should say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kevin H Posted January 8, 2015 Moderators Share Posted January 8, 2015 Did you know that the Jews had women Rabbis (and I have heard from scholars I respect that they had women priests, but I have not heard enough of the arguments for this so that I can share with you). However in the second century BC there was a Rabbi, Jesus Ben Sirach, whose writings were very popular. They almost included his work into the Bible. Although he was a popular rabbi, he had a bad marriage. He began teaching that the blue thread that Moses commanded the Hebrews to wear in their clothing, should only be in men’s clothing. (To the ancient world that blue thread meant that they were an ordained priest. Moses commanded both men and women to wear this thread showing that Israel was a nation of priests.) This Rabbi taught that Jews should STOP having women Rabbis and STOP having women priests (Now how do people stop doing something that they were not doing in the first place?). He started a new role for women in Judaism which was not there previously. In the time of Jesus Christ the issue of women’s ordination was a hot topic in Judaism, in the world that Jesus lived. Eventually the views of Jesus Ben Sirach won out. Too many (and it appears that you are one of them) see the group that won out and think that their ideas were the only view and impose that view on their reading of the Old and New Testament. However, once again those views did not start until 200 years before Jesus and was still being debated in Jesus’ day with some schools such as the school of Hillel siding with Jesus Ben Sirach and other schools, such as the school of Shammai who would still teach women and occasionally have women rabbis. As to how the debate was at the time of Jesus Christ, when a Rabbi taught there was a set protocol. If the Rabbi was sitting and teaching you would notice people filling these roles: At the Rabbi’s feet would be his ordained disciples who were studying to be Rabbis. There would be about 12 who were of the same sex as the Rabbi (since they had 24 hour access to the Rabbi). They wanted to have 12 to represent the 12 tribes, but tended to have a couple of open spots in case they met someone who they really wanted in the 12. Then there would be others who were part time or even full time except for sleeping hours, students. These were called the 70, although again the number was not always absolute, but they represented the 70 elders that Moses had to help him. These 70 were also ordained studying to become rabbis. Then you would see the lay-members would stand and listen. So the Rabbi sat and taught, the ordained would sit at the rabbi’s feet and the laity would stand. Until 200 years before Christ there would be both men and women in these groups, except of course the “12” all had to be the same sex as the rabbi. However starting 200 years before Christ, Jesus Ben Sirach said that only men can be Rabbis and therefore only men can be the disciples sitting at the Rabbi’s feet. And that only male layman can stand and listen to the Rabbi. Women were no longer to sit as an ordained rabbinical student, nor even stand with the laymen but women need to be on the fringes doing some listening while performing hospitality tasks. By the time of Jesus, this issue of women’s ordination became a hot topic. Some Pharisees, such as the school of Hillel were strong supporters of that second century Jesus Ben Sirach, and they influenced for Herod’s temple to have what neither the Sanctuary nor Solomon’s temple had: a court of women separate from the court of men. However there were other schools, such as the school of Shammai, who were not that influenced by that Rabbi and continued to ordain women as Rabbis, although their women were still limited to the court of women due to the influence Jesus Ben Sirach had. Thus we come to the story of Mary and Martha. You and I miss what is going on here because we live in a different culture. However, reading it in its historical setting it is an amazing story. Martha was doing what Jesus Ben Sirach and the school of Hillel said women should do when a Rabbi sits and teaches. Mary on the other hand not only stopped doing these tasks, but she was not a good layman standing and listening, but she sat at Jesus’ feet which said that she wanted to be ordained and to study to be a Rabbi and spread this teacher’s teaching. Martha’s response is actually repeating the views of the time by those who were protesting women’s ordination. Martha is saying that only men can be Rabbis and was horrified that Jesus would allow Mary to be where only the ordained can be. Jesus did not say “True Martha, this is strange fire, Mary at the most you have to stand as a layman, but better yet join Martha in performing the role that Jesus Ben Sirach said God appointed for women.” But Jesus responded to this protest for women’s ordination by saying that Mary had chosen the better and it would not be taken away from her. I’m sorry, but while we might have lost the history of what the Rabbis were arguing over in Jesus’ day, and thus keep these facts out of our thinking, I do not believe that Jesus was ignorant of the argument and the cultural events that was going on around him. But as we discover what was happening during the first century we are faced with the issue that either Jesus supported the ordination of women or he was a completely clueless and ignorant of what was going on. You can’t have both. The rabbis were debating women’s ordination, Jesus’ actions were firm and clear as to what side he took on the issue. Like it or not Jesus did indeed ordain women. We cannot replace his practice with the teachings of men. Our choice is to either follow the example of Jesus Christ or to follow the traditions of Jesus Ben Sirach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kevin H Posted January 8, 2015 Moderators Share Posted January 8, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?index=186&list=WL&v=aL9pok2a41o&app=desktop Once again, the school of Hillel opposed women's ordination. That is where we get the opposition from. NOT from the Bible. The school of Shammai supported the ordination of women. Johann 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinsonmarri Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 What is this? Is it right of course it is. Woman have been equal form the beginning. Most of you start with Gen Chapter Two and not with One. And ELOHIM said, let US make man in OUR IMAGE, according to OUR LIKENESS; and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth. And ELOHIM created the man in THEIR OWN IMAGE; in IN THE IMAGE OF ELOHIM He created them. THEY created them male and female. Gen 1:26, 27 Enough of this nonsense, and read the Bible and stop philosophizing the issue. Men and women have always been equal and sin is the problem. Only the husband and not all men because of her actions cause this change as a curse. However, the curse was a punishment to Eve. YAHWEH said to the woman, I will greatly increase your sorrow and your conception; you shall bear sons in sorrow, and your desire shall be toward your husband; and he shall rule over you. Gen 3:16 If you would read the Text before the punishments were mete out, you will understand they had a way out. Yes, they both were curse for their sins, but YAHSHUA would be their way out. YAHWEH was showing they could get back on the right path if they would start again and obey for now on. This included all of their offspring before and after YAHSHUA would come and die! And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her SEED; HE will bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.Gen 3:15 Women have every right to be forgiven and equal with men. The ground has given many men good products, including Cain. He just did not like obeying the rules. These curses would continue to come if man and women refuses to obey. Many women in the Bible were prophets, EGW was not thou, she said it very clear that she was not one. But, again she play a leading role and she was anointed and call by YAHSHUA to be HIS messenger! Paul also call a woman an a apostle. YAHSHUA also had women as disciples. THE HOLY SPIRIT landed on all of them in that upper room. These all were continuing steadfastly in prayer and in supplication with one mind, with the women, and with Mariam the mother of YAHSHUA and with HIS brothers. Act 1:14 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen who were prisoners with me, who are well known among the apostles, and who also were in Messiah before me. Rom 16:7 This is what we should all work toward obedience and strive to be anointed to finish the work. That will include both men, women and children. Blessings! Kevin H, debbym, phkrause and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.