Man and woman created as equals

[Robert]

6 minutes ago, APL said:

Galatians 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you be Christ's, then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

This verse tells us in Christ we are ALL one.  Men are not more ONE than women. God can ordain women for leaderships roles, and has! 

No, that's not the context.  You are making it up.  "In Christ" we are a "new creature".  That corporate life is in the heavenly places "in Christ".  You and I receive this life at the 2nd coming.  

[Robert]

Gal 3:24 Before the faith (Christ) we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith (Christ)  that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith (Christ) has come, we are no longer under  the law.

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The context is that Christ saved humanity from under law.  Hence we stand "in Christ" just before the law. "In Him" we are a new creature.  There's no hierarchy "in Christ" for all of us, through faith, share in the same glorified humanity.   That's the context. 

The context can't be used for ordination.  It's out of context.  The subject here is justification by faith.

[Kevin H]

2 hours ago, Rossw said:

8 Just as it is written:

“God has given them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes that they should not see
And ears that they should not hear,
To this very day.”

Is it any different today?

I have often thought of this verse when reading yours and Green's posts. You limit the evidence you will accept. You offer proof texts and when we encourage you to read studies that show that there are historical, cultural and literary problems with your interpretation you blow it off and refuse to look at the evidence. We have scholars on both sides of the issue but who recognizes different problems, but you and green think they are in apostasy to think that the Bible teaches anything except your thoughts.

I want to be careful with this, but I believe that a big part of the investigative judgment is that starting in the mid 1800s the Bible has started to come alive and we can study the Bible deeper than anytime before. But you ignore all this, or when offered to look at the evidence for yourselves you refuse and say that our brief paraphrases is good enough, thus avoiding actually seeing the evidence.

And I don't think that Green actually read Tom's post because he was discussing the use of the word in both the  verses that Green posted as well as others and Green only made a comment over the numbers of texts quoted.

[Rossw]

7 hours ago, Kevin H said:

You limit the evidence you will accept. 

Not sure what you mean? If the evidence in inconclusive, incomplete, or refutable then it's not that the evidence isn't accepted but it is just refuted.

7 hours ago, Kevin H said:

 You offer proof texts and when we encourage you to read studies that show that there are historical, cultural and literary problems with your interpretation you blow it off and refuse to look at the evidence. 

I don't think so. If your summary is false then that which you summarize must be false too. No need to read every single pro-WO article.

7 hours ago, Kevin H said:

 We have scholars on both sides of the issue but who recognizes different problems, but you and green think they are in apostasy to think that the Bible teaches anything except your thoughts.

I personally don't necessarily believe them to be apostate yet. I put more stock in Scripture than into Scholarship. The scholarship can be wrong and not apostatize but if their agenda is to push WO hell or high water than yes they are apostate. I do read books by scholars but never take them as gospel. If they disagree with Scripture then that are wrong...simple. 

I have my own beliefs and am not accountable for the beliefs of "scholars". I believe in "thy word is a lamp unto my feet". Very few see that anymore.

8 hours ago, Kevin H said:

I want to be careful with this, but I believe that a big part of the investigative judgment is that starting in the mid 1800s the Bible has started to come alive and we can study the Bible deeper than anytime before. But you ignore all this, or when offered to look at the evidence for yourselves you refuse and say that our brief paraphrases is good enough, thus avoiding actually seeing the evidence.

 

Yes I do believe in the IJ, etc. But, Hiram Edson studied the IJ for himself with inspiration from the Holy Spirit. We are no less capable of coming to conclusions through diligent study. Through my study I do not see a denial of headship nor an allowance of WO. What I do see is those who are pro-WO use extra Biblical sourcess citing extra-biblical traditions to promote WO. Isaiah 1 comes to mind.

The push for a reliance on scholarship brings to mind the control the church had during the dark ages. The ability for men to read Scripture for themselves brought light into the darkness.

[Kevin H]

1. The Priesthood of all believers means that we all have the freedom to study the Bible for ourselves. We are free to use the tools. Granted among the tools are the history and geography and culture. We may not have the skills to study them (I'm horrible when it comes to language studies) but we have the right to read what the linguists and historians have to say and evaluate to see if it makes sense or not and to make a final decision based on the evidence we are aware of and having an attitude of "I may be wrong and there may be evidence that I do not yet know about, but here is where the Lord has lead me and here I stand until I see clearer. No you don't have to read everything, but when there is the possibility of honest Bible study that indicates that you are wrong you have the right to evaluate the information. The priest hood of all believers means that I have to be responsible for my actions before God, and that I need to allow room for listening love for my brothers and sisters who may have a different understanding than I have and at least understand where they are coming from even if we end up agreeing to disagree. The priesthood of believers is I have the freedom to express my views. If you find them useful then fantastic. If not you are free to discard them. The Priesthood of all believers would cause me to oppose women pastors of churches out in the middle of nowhere where I'd have to force the ordained women on to people who have not become convinced of it, but allow it in more populated areas where those who believe that it is Biblical can attend and those with a problem can go to another church with an ordained man pastor.

The Catholic church had the attitude of they are the correct interpreters of the Bible, any other interpretation is heresy and we have to stamp out heresy.  The Catholic church is them imposing their views on the rest of us and demanding us to fall in line even if it goes against our beliefs. The Catholic church is a spirit of "I don't need to question my beliefs and I will avoid the studies that may indicate that I could be wrong because I am not wrong. It is my duty to force on everyone my views of scripture and threat those who question it as heretics. I'm right and they are wrong.  (even though we may feel just as right if not more so than you do.)

In your posts have you been advocating more the priesthood of believers or have you been pushing a more beastly agenda?

2. Now I have to admit you are not as closed to additional information as Green is. Green has made his views clear and it is my job to be fair to them and respect them. He does not allow history or culture or studies of the textual poetry forms etc. He has some favorite texts and the only thing that he is willing to change is if you have another text that appears to add more information. Like he rejects historical context like the fact that the ordination of women to be Rabbis was a major debate among the Rabbis in Jesus' day. That among Rabbinic Judaism someone sitting at a Rabbi's feet had the same meaning that later was applied to the laying on of hands. He says that unless there is a scriptural text that says that this is what happened that he will reject the history and not see the story of Mary and Martha having anything to teach us about the ordination of women. When there are poetic and literary structures that indicate that his favorite proof texts might be saying something else than he wants them to say, he rejects them unless you can show him another text that says that it is important to know the literary and poetic structures to interpret the text.

That is his right. I know that this ties up my hands because I include in evidence the text and the historical and cultural and linguistic background to the text. I do not have the right to push what I allow for Biblical evidence on to Green. I have to realize this is where he is coming from. I have to realize that if I want to convince him that I have to work within his guidelines.  I have no problem with this and realizing my weakness in meeting his understanding. What bothers me is how he refuses to see what I see as evidence. He does not need to accept these historical, cultural and linguistic facts as evidence, and I am aware that I am not allowed to appeal to this in trying to talk to him. That is his right which I will respect. But I'm bothered by the attitude that unless I am only limiting myself in my study to his method and his method only, and  that I have no right to consider these facts in forming my opinion and that he needs to force his understanding on me and the rest of the church and call us who disagree with him heretics, we are here talking about what concerns us.

We have offered to encourage you to look at serious studies. Dr. Jim Fleming has some very powerful biblical, linguistic and historical and archaeological studies in "Attitudes towards women in the Bible" http://www.biblicalresources.net/product.cfm?product=58 I have not see you or Green getting this book and looking at the evidence and the foot notes and showing where Fleming and the sources he refers to are wrong. (for more information on Fleming see: http://www.biblicalresources.net/about-biblical-resources.cfm)

Our scholars have done studies, some end up supporting women's ordination, some opposing it. But people on both sides point out that there are still problems in our understanding of the Bible and that it is not as cut and dry as they would have liked and we encourage you to look at these studies. But we are cut off with an attitude of "The Bible is clear so we don't even need to listen to those who support our view if they say that it's not as clear cut as I say it is, we must assume those scholars are heretics and I must save the church by forcing my clear understanding on the Bible on to you."  Dr. Richard Davidson has given several deep Bible studies on how the Bible teaches women's ordination and does not teach headship theology. I'm sad that he died too soon to publish but Gerhard Hassel started out pro- women's ordination, was then won over to headship theology and became anti-women's ordination, then came to understand that headship theology was wrong and that those proof texts that you and Green use are not saying what the headship people say they are saying and again became pro-women's ordination.

We keep pointing out when the General conference in the 1800s voted to ordain women and gave it to committee to implement and the only one they ordained was Mrs. White. And how in the first decade of the 20th century the conferences and unions wanted to start to ordain women. General Conference President A. G. Daniels agreed with them that they should ordain women but asked them to wait because there were members who thought that ordaining women was unbiblical and he did not want to confuse and hurt them but wanted them to be educated into seeing that it is indeed Biblical to ordain women. During these years Mrs. White wrote much about women in ministry. To me this is evidence that Mrs. White supported the ordination of women and was trying to educate those who opposed women's ordination. I have not heard you or Green give a good answer to this historical situation, except that Green wants a proof text that says clearly that this is what Mrs. White was doing. Others have argued that we don't know for sure that Mrs. White knew what the church wanted to do and that she could have written those articles out of ignorance and that it was just bad timing on her part and that we have to defend her ignorance of the situation and read those articles from the viewpoint that Mrs. White had no idea what the church was wanting to do, and for some reason the critics of women's ordination believe that they must correct Mrs. White's mistake and write what she would have written had she not been ignorant of what was going on in the church, and that is writings opposing women's ordination instead of those articles about women in ministry which must have been just talking about ministry in general. (and of course someone, I believe it was Green but not positive states his belief that Daniels, Mrs. White's friend and hand picked and trained General Conference President was a heretic.)

In conclusion, we are not demanding that you and Green accept women's ordination. I would fight tooth and nail if either of you were stuck in the middle of nowhere where you have no choice but to attend. I would like a little bit of a concession that if the historic information that Dr. Fleming has pointed out about the tassels might be correct, and that yes if women's ordination was a hot topic in Jesus' day and if only ordained rabbis were allowed to sit at the rabbi's feet when he is teaching and that most rabbis opposing women's ordination wanted women to only do hospitality tasks when the Rabbi sat and taught that it does look like Jesus ordained Mary and was inviting Martha to be ordained as well. And if the Greek is correct and the leader is named first then the fact that the Bible's use of Aquila and Pricilla has Aquila the husband and head of the family in the marriage, but that when talked about as a ministerial team it is Pricilla and Aquila indicating that Pricilla was the head elder and Aquila was her assistant pastor. And if the historical and poetic and literary structures in the proof texts used against women in ministry is to be accepted, and if someone was to accept this as evidence then they could consciously believe that they are following the Bible. And if they believe that Mrs. White was aware of the desire for the church to ordain women and write those articles about women in ministry and that someone looking at that history and those articles could come to the conclusion that she was trying to work with what A. G. Daniels said the wanting to teach the members that the ordination of women is Biblical. Ok, so they are not just liberals who are trying to go against the Bible. They have reason for what they believe even though I disagree with their reasons. This and the request of allowing me to follow the Bible and Mrs. White according to the dictates of my conscience and not have to yield to your demands is all that I am asking for.  

[Kevin H]

This may be of interest:

Cindy Tutsch: "Tomorrow [7-21-16] I'm preaching at Soquel camp meeting on EGW's empowerment of women for leadership, including pastoral ministry. This is an educational opportunity. I will begin with youth in leadership and segue into women.

You are welcome to listen at 9 am Pacific time at CCC.adventist.org. Click on camp meeting 2016 and then on live stream. If you miss the live stream you can still hear it because it will be almost immediately archived, including the power point.

If you are a praying person, I welcome prayers."

Green and Rossw, I'd be interested in your commentary. (No, I am not in your excuse to not listen to this, I'd rather have you pass on this offer. [of course I'd like even more so your reading, studying and critiquing Flemings "Attitudes towards women in the Bible".])

[Gregory Matthews]

Kevin, you have written a powerful post, with which I generally agree.

I am reminded of the time when the religious leaders asked if Christ paid the Temple Tax.   They had if figured out.  As they thought about it, there was no response that Christ could give that they could not use to their advantage.  Christ demonstrated that the answer to their question was not the yes or no response that they thought Christ would have to give.

 This is exactly the type of question that Green asked when he asked me if I would call Jesus arrogant.  Well, as I suggested, Green is not God in flesh and therefore not to be compared to Christ.

 

[Green Cochoa]

6 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Green and Rossw, I'd be interested in your commentary. (No, I am not in your excuse to not listen to this, I'd rather have you pass on this offer. [of course I'd like even more so your reading, studying and critiquing Flemings "Attitudes towards women in the Bible".])

I'd take a little time to read it if you have it via PDF or something online.  I am in a place where I cannot obtain books like that most any other way. 

[Robert]

Why did Christ chose 12 men as His disciples?

Disclaimer:  I don't have a position for or against ordination.

[Kevin H]

24 minutes ago, jackson said:

This discussion on WO is very similar to the one on homosexuality.  Both topics, at their core, revolve around the  "authority of scripture" in the formulation of Bible doctrine.

Those who push for WO  believe that the Bible can not be taken just as written, for the culture, language  and customs of the time , , as well as the author's personal beliefs, may have influenced his writing. They believe extra-Biblical sources are indispensable for a proper interpretation of certain Biblical texts.

Those who believe the Bible should be taken as written with one text shedding light on other texts , maintain that  the Bible expressly prohibits WO. They believe that by using uninspired texts to help interpret inspired texts makes the Bible bend to the prejudices of men .

 

Jackson, I do not feel comfortable with your post.

There are two schools of arguments for women's ordination. The one is the argument that we have been seeing in the liberal churches where they think that the anti-women's ordination people are correct about what the Bible teaches but that the Bible is out of date. That might have been fine for Paul's culture but not ours. And they are very open to the embracing of homosexuality.  This is the argument used by say "the Tip of the Iceberg" by Elder Holmes. I am in agreement with that book and it's reasons for opposing women's ordination.

But there are other arguments that looking at the Bible and poetic and other linguistic studies of the text, and the historical context questions whether the Bible really teaches "headship theology" and seeing the Old Testament, Jesus and yes even Paul as supportive of women in leadership positions. We would be much less open to the issue of homosexuality because we would need to have proven to us that we are doing with those texts the same thing Sunday keepers are doing with "One man esteems one day above another" and "Being absent from the Body and being present with the Lord."  At best we can wonder about the texts for dealing with people dealing with homosexuality. But we find texts that indicate that Jesus and Paul were open to the issues from which developed into the issue of women's ordination.

In summery the liberals who are naturally opened to homosexuals say "Paul was against women's leadership, that was ok for his culture but not ours." Our view is that there is evidence from the text and history that Paul was NOT against women in leadership positions. That learning more about the culture and the debate between the Rabbis over women Rabbis we are finding this argument in the story of Mary and Martha. Thus we are not saying "While Paul would have been against it, that was good for his culture but not ours" but "If Paul was here today he would say that we are misreading him when we use him against Sabbath keeping and women's ordination" and that if he was to wake up today he would not have to be convinced to keep the Sabbath and support women's ordination.  

[Rossw]

Did those Rabbis believe in Jesus?

[Green Cochoa]

1 minute ago, Robert said:

Disclaimer:  I don't have a firm position on ordination.

Why did Christ chose 12 men as His disciples?

How about a "Top Ten" list of possible answers.

10. Women lacked the loyalty or desire to be His disciples.
9.  No suitable women were found to qualify for such noble work.
8.  Jesus did not desire to see the women subjected to the kind of fate His disciples were destined to have.
7.  The women needed to stay at home with their children.
6.  Women rely more on emotions and tend to represent things to others in a less rational manner.
5.  Jesus did not desire to be so closely associated with women, knowing the circumstances His little group would pass through together.
4.  Women in positions of headship incline toward making autocratic judgments.
3.  God desires to maintain symbolic lessons in church functions that help people see Him as the bridegroom and the Church as His bride.
2.  God has maintained some consistency between the Old and New Dispensations.
1.  God chooses men because He has tasked them with leadership since the Fall.

 

 

[Rossw]

29 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

Jackson, I do not feel comfortable with your post.

1 hour ago, jackson said:

As the condition of the people began to open to [Jesus’] mind, He saw that the requirements of society and the requirements of God were in constant collision  DA 84.2 .............................................And well they should be.

  

 

[Kevin H]

15 minutes ago, Robert said:

Why did Christ chose 12 men as His disciples?

Disclaimer:  I don't have a position for or against ordination.

We discussed this earlier, but good for a refreshing: Rabbis in Jesus day tended to have 2 groups of disciples, the 12 and the 70. These were people studying with the Rabbi for themselves to become rabbis in the future. The 12 represented the 12 tribes and the 70 represented the 70 elders who helped Moses.

Now these 2 groups did not always consist of exactly that number, but they would try to have it approximate. Frequently the "12" consisted of 10 or 11 so if the Rabbi was to meet someone who really impressed him he could add him to the 12. And other Rabbis may not be popular enough to have 70 people among the 70.  The main difference between the two groups is how close to the rabbi they could sit when the Rabbi sat and taught. But the big issue was the sleeping arrangements when say traveling. If the head Rabbi was not spending the night with his family, (and it was fairly common in Jesus' day for men to wait until age 40 to marry and start a family. NOT very common but fairly common.) it would be the 12 who had first choice to share the same sleeping quarters and thus be privy to the late night discussions. Because of this the 12 had to be the same gender as their teacher. So when traveling, or even at home since Jesus was single, the 12 would have the first choice to sleep around Jesus and participate in the late night discussions. But if there was room for 14 or 15 people to sleep in the area, or if Peter decided to spend the night with his wife, someone from the 70, say Matthias or Justus could be there. But those from the 70 who could be there needed to be the same sex as the Rabbi.

We find among the Rabbis some very strong comments about the role of women which put them into a second class category. We use to assume that this was the common view that EVERY Rabbi believed. And we use to believe that EVERY Rabbi was a man. But over the past few decades Archaeology has been making some interesting discoveries. They have found rabbinical lists that includes women's names. (a traditional Jew said "They must have forgotten the Rabbi's name so they put in his wife's name"). We now know that around 200 years before Jesus it was fairly common to have women rabbis. That there were women priests serving in the temple. About 200 years before Jesus there started a movement among rabbis to have an all male priesthood and all male rabbis. The more liberal schools, such as the school of Hillel wanted an all male priesthood and only male rabbis. Thus their rabbis not only would have about 12 men for the 12, but all of his 70 would also be all men. The more conservative schools, such as the school of Shammai (spelling?) were open to women priests and Rabbis. (the anti-women group was strong enough so that Herod's temple had a court of women where women were not allowed any farther, thus putting an end to women among the priests.) but in Jesus' day the conservative schools would still have women Rabbis. So among the conservative rabbis the 12 would be the same gender as their teacher, but the 70 would have both men and women rabbinical students.

When a Rabbi sat down to teach the 12 and the 70 would sit at the Rabbi's feet. the lay members would stand. If the Rabbi was against women rabbis only the men were allowed to stand and listen. The women needed to be kept busy by doing hospitality tasks. If the  Rabbi did not oppose women rabbis the 12 would be the same gender as the rabbi, the 70 could have both men and women and the lay members standing and listening would have both men and women standing and listening. Some women would protest women rabbis and they would protest by doing hospitality tasks even if they could have stood and listened to the rabbi.

There is evidence that Jesus had women among the 70, thus showing where he stood on the issue. And knowing the history a first century reader of the gospels would have seen the story of Mary and Martha as a story about where Jesus stood on the issue of women rabbis.

 

 

[Kevin H]

7 minutes ago, Rossw said:

 

Be careful not to apply my discomfort to a different part of his post then where I told my discomfort lays, and thus twist my words into something I am not saying nor implying....

[Kevin H]

12 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

How about a "Top Ten" list of possible answers.

10. Women lacked the loyalty or desire to be His disciples.
9.  No suitable women were found to qualify for such noble work.
8.  Jesus did not desire to see the women subjected to the kind of fate His disciples were destined to have.
7.  The women needed to stay at home with their children.
6.  Women rely more on emotions and tend to represent things to others in a less rational manner.
5.  Jesus did not desire to be so closely associated with women, knowing the circumstances His little group would pass through together.
4.  Women in positions of headship incline toward making autocratic judgments.
3.  God desires to maintain symbolic lessons in church functions that help people see Him as the bridegroom and the Church as His bride.
2.  God has maintained some consistency between the Old and New Dispensations.
1.  God chooses men because He has tasked them with leadership since the Fall.

 

 

Mind if I add one more? Women were not among the 12 because it was improper for women to sleep with single men and thus the Rabbis, whether they supported women's ordination or not would only have students of the same gender be among the 12, and that the Rabbis who supported women among the 70 and that the Rabbis who were against women rabbis would have only men not only in the 12 but also only men in the70. That the 12 were all men is not an issue. The argument would be whether there were women among the 70. If there were then we should ordain women. If there were not then that would be evidence that maybe we should not ordain women.

To use the disciples as proof we need to look beyond the 12 to the 70, and that you can show that all 82 of Jesus' disciples were all male, or at least indicates that all 82 were probably all men, you have to show that Jesus never once allowed a woman to sit at his feet when he sat and taught.  A hard task to do.
 

[CoAspen]

My answers to the 'Top Ten list......

10. Suggests women are not loyal and we know nothing of the 2nd part, over all offensive to women.

9. Again, just plain offensive.

8. Unknown, but still rather disparaging....ie..all are called.

7. Uh, not all women have families.

6. Erroneous, and offensive.

5. Unknown, same as #8

4. Erroneous, and offensive.

3. Unknown and an assumption.

2. True,  but in which way.

1. A matter of opinion

I am troubled by some of the questions as they seem to indicate a rather poor view of women.

[Rossw]

Kevin, what makes me feel uncomfortable is if the church scholars are not all in agreement and not in consensus why is WO being pushed on the people in a camp meeting? Seems the Pro-WO movement is undermining the decision process and putting their agenda first in front of reason.

Cano I does seem to have an agenda. The first words out of his mouth in our pastoral search is if we'd like a female.

[APL]

On 7/20/2016 at 8:54 AM, Robert said:

No, that's not the context.  You are making it up.  "In Christ" we are a "new creature".  That corporate life is in the heavenly places "in Christ".  You and I receive this life at the 2nd coming.  

That verse is not just about the second coming.  It is speaking about now.

[Robert]

1 hour ago, APL said:

That verse is not just about the second coming.  It is speaking about now.

 "In Christ" there's no male or female.  Why?  Because Christ is promoting ordination?  No!  Because "in Christ"
 now our glorified humanity is neither male nor female, rather it is like the angels in heaven. 

 

[APL]

3 minutes ago, Robert said:

 "In Christ" there's no male or female.  Why?  Because Christ is promoting ordination?  No!  Because "in Christ"
 now our glorified humanity is neither male nor female, rather it is like the angels in heaven. 

 

Galatians 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you be Christ's, then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

We are heirs only at the second coming? No. We are heirs now, all who are in Christ are one. The idea of heirachy made null and void. As to ordination, God calls both men and woman, free and slave to be His representatives. As for ordination by the rite of ordination by the laying on of hands, is now greatly abused; unwarrantable importance was attached to the act

[Green Cochoa]

On July 20, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

Green:  Again, the denomination has extensively studied the issue.  The official reports of those multiple study groups have been posted on the Internet.   They do not agree.

 

18 hours ago, Kevin H said:

1. The Priesthood of all believers means that we all have the freedom to study the Bible for ourselves. We are free to use the tools. Granted among the tools are the history and geography and culture. We may not have the skills to study them (I'm horrible when it comes to language studies) but we have the right to read what the linguists and historians have to say and evaluate to see if it makes sense or not and to make a final decision based on the evidence we are aware of and having an attitude of "I may be wrong and there may be evidence that I do not yet know about, but here is where the Lord has lead me and here I stand until I see clearer. . . .

2. Now I have to admit you are not as closed to additional information as Green is. Green has made his views clear and it is my job to be fair to them and respect them. He does not allow history or culture or studies of the textual poetry forms etc. He has some favorite texts and the only thing that he is willing to change is if you have another text that appears to add more information. Like he rejects historical context like the fact that the ordination of women to be Rabbis was a major debate among the Rabbis in Jesus' day. That among Rabbinic Judaism someone sitting at a Rabbi's feet had the same meaning that later was applied to the laying on of hands. He says that unless there is a scriptural text that says that this is what happened that he will reject the history and not see the story of Mary and Martha having anything to teach us about the ordination of women. When there are poetic and literary structures that indicate that his favorite proof texts might be saying something else than he wants them to say, he rejects them unless you can show him another text that says that it is important to know the literary and poetic structures to interpret the text.

That is his right. I know that this ties up my hands because I include in evidence the text and the historical and cultural and linguistic background to the text. I do not have the right to push what I allow for Biblical evidence on to Green. I have to realize this is where he is coming from. I have to realize that if I want to convince him that I have to work within his guidelines.  I have no problem with this and realizing my weakness in meeting his understanding. What bothers me is how he refuses to see what I see as evidence. He does not need to accept these historical, cultural and linguistic facts as evidence, and I am aware that I am not allowed to appeal to this in trying to talk to him. That is his right which I will respect. But I'm bothered by the attitude that unless I am only limiting myself in my study to his method and his method only, and  that I have no right to consider these facts in forming my opinion and that he needs to force his understanding on me and the rest of the church and call us who disagree with him heretics, we are here talking about what concerns us.

We have offered to encourage you to look at serious studies. Dr. Jim Fleming has some very powerful biblical, linguistic and historical and archaeological studies in "Attitudes towards women in the Bible" http://www.biblicalresources.net/product.cfm?product=58 I have not see you or Green getting this book and looking at the evidence and the foot notes and showing where Fleming and the sources he refers to are wrong. (for more information on Fleming see: http://www.biblicalresources.net/about-biblical-resources.cfm)

Our scholars have done studies, some end up supporting women's ordination, some opposing it. But people on both sides point out that there are still problems in our understanding of the Bible and that it is not as cut and dry as they would have liked and we encourage you to look at these studies. But we are cut off with an attitude of "The Bible is clear so we don't even need to listen to those who support our view if they say that it's not as clear cut as I say it is, we must assume those scholars are heretics and I must save the church by forcing my clear understanding on the Bible on to you."  Dr. Richard Davidson has given several deep Bible studies on how the Bible teaches women's ordination and does not teach headship theology. I'm sad that he died too soon to publish but Gerhard Hassel started out pro- women's ordination, was then won over to headship theology and became anti-women's ordination, then came to understand that headship theology was wrong and that those proof texts that you and Green use are not saying what the headship people say they are saying and again became pro-women's ordination.

We keep pointing out when the General conference in the 1800s voted to ordain women and gave it to committee to implement and the only one they ordained was Mrs. White. And how in the first decade of the 20th century the conferences and unions wanted to start to ordain women. General Conference President A. G. Daniels agreed with them that they should ordain women but asked them to wait because there were members who thought that ordaining women was unbiblical and he did not want to confuse and hurt them but wanted them to be educated into seeing that it is indeed Biblical to ordain women. During these years Mrs. White wrote much about women in ministry. To me this is evidence that Mrs. White supported the ordination of women and was trying to educate those who opposed women's ordination. I have not heard you or Green give a good answer to this historical situation, except that Green wants a proof text that says clearly that this is what Mrs. White was doing. Others have argued that we don't know for sure that Mrs. White knew what the church wanted to do and that she could have written those articles out of ignorance and that it was just bad timing on her part and that we have to defend her ignorance of the situation and read those articles from the viewpoint that Mrs. White had no idea what the church was wanting to do, and for some reason the critics of women's ordination believe that they must correct Mrs. White's mistake and write what she would have written had she not been ignorant of what was going on in the church, and that is writings opposing women's ordination instead of those articles about women in ministry which must have been just talking about ministry in general. (and of course someone, I believe it was Green but not positive states his belief that Daniels, Mrs. White's friend and hand picked and trained General Conference President was a heretic.)

. . . I would like a little bit of a concession that if the historic information that Dr. Fleming has pointed out about the tassels might be correct, and that yes if women's ordination was a hot topic in Jesus' day and if only ordained rabbis were allowed to sit at the rabbi's feet when he is teaching and that most rabbis opposing women's ordination wanted women to only do hospitality tasks when the Rabbi sat and taught that it does look like Jesus ordained Mary and was inviting Martha to be ordained as well. . . .

 As in earlier ages, the special truths for this time are found, not with the ecclesiastical authorities, but with men and women who are not too learned or too wise to believe the word of God.  {COL 79.1}

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

the Word of God also contains quotes from extrabiblical sources in order that the readers could better understand, from the context of their times and culture...

for example, Paul, in Acts, stated, "And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, 'Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?  It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks'" (Acts 26:14)

The phrase “kick against the pricks” “comes from Aeschylus (525-456 B.C.) in his work, Agamemnon.  (line 1624)

"Pricks" were the jabs that farmers would give to their oxen if the beasts began to be obstinate and refuse to obey.  Taken at face value in this day and age, the word could have a very different meaning — or the phrase might have no meaning at all to the contemporary reader. Context and culture are important in reading the Bible.  And if one is really interested in understanding the deeper layers of the scriptures (and there *are* deeper layers), the only way is to do extrabiblical study.  

IMHO.

[Green Cochoa]

1 hour ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

And if one is really interested in understanding the deeper layers of the scriptures (and there *are* deeper layers), the only way is to do extrabiblical study.  

IMHO.

In the work of educating the youth in our schools, it will be a difficult matter to retain the influence of God's Holy Spirit, and at the same time hold fast to erroneous principles. The light shining upon those who have eyes to see, cannot be mingled with the darkness of heresy and error found in many of the text-books recommended to the students in our colleges. Both teachers and pupils have thought that in order to obtain an education, it was necessary to study the productions of writers who teach infidelity, because their works contain some bright gems of thought. But who was the originator of these gems of thought?--It was God and God alone; for he is the source of all light. Are not all things essential for the health and growth of the spiritual and moral nature found in the pages of Holy Writ? Is not Christ our living head? And are not we to grow up in him to the full stature of men and women? Can an impure fountain send forth sweet waters? Why should we wade through the mass of error contained in the works of pagans and infidels, for the sake of obtaining the benefit of a few intellectual truths, when all truth is at our command?  {CE 98.2}  

It is a distinguishing feature of the experience of Seventh-day Adventists to give glory to God. When we give glory to human agencies, when we have unlimited confidence in man, speaking of the excellence that we suppose him to possess, we worship we know not what. Let God be exalted. Let frail, erring human beings humble themselves before Him.  {SpTB07 49.2}  

Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.  (Jeremiah 17:5)

Though I be accused of insanity, of unreasoning irrationality, of disrespect of the learned scholar, or of closed-mindedness, I shall continue to stand upon a "thus saith the LORD" in place of an opinion of man.  

 

[APL]

4 hours ago, Robert said:

 "In Christ" there's no male or female.  Why?  Because Christ is promoting ordination?  No!  Because "in Christ"
 now our glorified humanity is neither male nor female, rather it is like the angels in heaven. 

 

No distinction on account of nationality, race, or caste, is recognized by God. He is the Maker of all mankind. All men are of one family by creation, and all are one through redemption. Christ came to demolish every wall of partition, to throw open every compartment of the temple, that every soul may have free access to God. His love is so broad, so deep, so full, that it penetrates everywhere. It lifts out of Satan's circle the poor souls who have been deluded by his deceptions. It places them within reach of the throne of God, the throne encircled by the rainbow of promise. {COL 386.2}

 

In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free. All are brought nigh by His precious blood. (Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 2:13.) {COL 386.3}

 

Caste is hateful to God. He ignores everything of this character. In His sight the souls of all men are of equal value. He "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us." Without distinction of age, or rank, or nationality, or religious privilege, all are invited to come unto Him and live. "Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference." "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free." "The rich and poor meet together: the Lord is the Maker of them all." "The same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon Him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Acts 17:26, 27; Galatians 3:28; Proverbs 22:2; Romans 10:11-13. {DA 403.3}

 

Then as the children of God are one in Christ, how does Jesus look upon caste, upon society distinctions, upon the division of man from his fellow-man, because of color, race, position, wealth, birth, or attainments? The secret of unity is found in the equality of believers in Christ. The reason of all division, discord, and difference is found in separation from Christ. Christ is the center to which all should be attracted; for the nearer we approach the center, the closer we shall come together in feeling, in sympathy, in love, growing into the character and image of Jesus. With God there is no respect of persons. {RH, December 22, 1891 par. 8}