Washington Conference Grants Females ______

[Rossw]

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I question whether or not you even know what a "typical rabbi" would teach and practice in the time of Christ.

Are you aware of the various schools of thought that existed in the time of Christ?  Many of us commonly acknowledge two rabbinical schools that existed, which the Bible mentions.  But, the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls have clearly identified another school of rabbinical thought.    But, these three do not exhaust the number of rabbinical schools of thought.  Others exist.  In the culture of the time of Christ the term "rabbi" was simply applied to one who was recognized as a teacher (no, I am not saying a teacher of quantum physics).  The application of that title did not presuppose any specific doctrinal position

It may be that you can tell us that a rabbi of a specified tradition certain specific teachings.  But, I do not have a sense that you can identify in a general sense what would be taught by one you call a "typical rabbi."  Perhaps you could in very limited specifics?

In any case, to respond to your question you would have to rely on extra-Biblical sources.

 

 

 

I'll admit I'm not those most Biblically literate person. I do read and study as a hobby on the side from my full time job and learn what I can.

What I am able to do is examine the evidence provided by others and determine if it supports the position. 

Greg, thank you for helping me show Kevin comparing Jesus to other Rabbi is problematic. I didn't need to know everything about them to make a point.

[Rossw]

11 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Curious minimizing  role distinctions every time a women is in the picture. That has been an insidious practice through much of the history of the church since around the 3rd or 4th Centuries.  It has adversely effected the translation and interpretation of Scripture and consequently modern church practices.  The example I already noted about Phoebe resulting from mistranslation of two key descriptive Greek words about her position and role with the NT church demonstrate that most clearly.  Diacanos when used in reference to a man is translated as "minister" or "deacon".  For Phoebe it is the most minimizing literal translation as merely a "servant".  And the Greek word most clearly about leadership is always translated as such in reference to men, either in noun or verb form.  But the one time it is referring specifically and only to a women, it gets translated as "helper", further reinforcing the idea that she was just an ordinary servant. This mistranslation really contradicts the context and meaning of everything else that Paul said of her.  As I noted already, he quite clearly instructs the Roman believers to follower her instruction. That makes sense if she was sent by Paul to lead them, not to just deliver a letter and wait tables or other servant/helper tasks.  There would have been no question on this if Paul had sent Phillip instead of Phoebe.

Never any thought that Paul himself was merely a tent maker, or that Peter was just a fisherman or that Barnabas was just a Bible worker, or that Jesus was just a carpenter.  

Curious your generation is feminized due to the sexual revolution of the 60's causing progressivism to the destruction of society. I don't minimize the role women played in the Bible. I don't eisegese their role more than what Scripture simply stated. 

I just don't see the anti feminine conspiracy like you guys do. If a person such as myself reads through Scripture they cannot conclude these women are more than they really are. That's not to say woman don't have an important role in the gospel ministry.

The only way to see more than what is actually written in Scripture is to be influenced by feminism and to look for the conspiracy and filter Scripture with sexual revolutionized glasses.

[CoAspen]

A statement....

Quote

I just don't see the anti feminine conspiracy like you guys do.

And yet we have these same statements....

Quote

Curious your generation is feminized due to the sexual revolution of the 60's causing progressivism to the destruction of society.

Quote

The only way to see more than what is actually written in Scripture is to be influenced by feminism and to look for the conspiracy and filter Scripture with sexual revolutionized glasses.

From the persons own mouth, I have to wonder what is blocking their ears to what they are saying!!!

[8thdaypriest]

On 1/30/2016 at 4:32 AM, Green Cochoa said:

In the NLT, Mike, that verse says:

Then he said to the woman, 
"I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy,
and in pain you will give birth.
And you will desire to control your husband,
but he will rule over you."

Boy, isn't that the truth these days.

Some folks who quote this verse from Genesis, assume this circumstance is the way God WANTED things to be.  That it was His "will". 

Ugmmmm.  That was the "curse" which Satan brought into human man/woman relationships - the result of one trying to "rule over" or manipulate the other. 

Paul wrote that the husband is head of the wife.  He did not say that the pastor is "head" over every woman in his congregation. 

Let's say a Christian woman was sent to a woman's prison in China.  There is no man there.  Through her faith and teaching other women are converted, and want to be baptized.  Should this Christian woman tell the others that they have to wait until a man can baptize them?  I think not. 

[8thdaypriest]

On 6/19/2016 at 11:08 PM, LadyRachelLynn said:

No one would EVER try to say that Samuel, Elisha, Elijah or Jeremiah were not in leadership positions.  Yet Deborah couldn't be because she was a woman?  She was a prophetess just the same as the men.

She also "judged" Israel.  She led the army of Israel. 

[8thdaypriest]

On 6/20/2016 at 3:22 PM, Kevin H said:

Actually that is not true. One piece of evidence I've seen and I have just received a paper from the Seventh-day Adventist Seminary at Andrews University that I have not yet read but which shows more evidence that there were indeed female priests in the Old Testament system.

I read a good book awhile back, titled "Priscilla's Letter" by Ruth Hoppin.  The author presents the evidence for Priscilla (Paul's student) being the author of the Book of Hebrews. 

I can certainly agree there were woman Rabbis.  But the priests dressed the animal sacrifices for the alter.  Would it not have been difficult for a female to dress a large animal?  And there was the issue of child care.  The women who became Rabbis and leaders in the church, most often seem to be older - past child bearing age. 

Also the priests (not just the High Priest) were types of Christ - who was male.  Then again - Queen Esther (a female) was a TYPE of Christ.  She went in to the King, and was accepted on the day which later was celebrated as The Feast of Firstfruits. 

Revelation 20 says all of those from the "first resurrection" will become "priests of God and of Christ".  There is no mention that only males are resurrected at that time.  And Paul says "there is no distinction".  So it seems obvious that females will become priests at the Second Coming. 

Jesus said, "The first will be last."  Makes me wonder if He will reverse the current order of things.  LOL

[8thdaypriest]

On 6/21/2016 at 1:04 AM, Kevin H said:

Yes, but the anti-ordination people like to speak in circles like a lawyer to try to put down the testimony in the Bible that supports women's ordination.

But also looking in our own church. God's highest authority is the Lord Jesus Christ. Second come the Apostles (and yes there were women apostles evidence that they were among the 70). Then Prophets.

The Testimony of these have been recorded in the Bible and records of the prophet's ministry. then come the teachers and pastors and others.

The male headship people are willing to change this authority for their tradition of man placing Mrs. White lower in the chain that the Bible places her just because she was willing to work with the other leaders of the church and not force.

There were some 120 people in the upper room.  Women were among them.  The spirit was poured out on everyone there - not just on the males who were present.

The prophecy of Joel said, "I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh" - not "on your male flesh".  "Your daughters will prophesy."  To prophesy is to "speak for another".  To be a prophet of God, is to speak for God.  If a women can speak for God, then why can she not preach, or teach, or baptize?

[8thdaypriest]

On 6/21/2016 at 7:37 AM, Stan said:

So is this statement true?

 

We still have the priest hood in place from the OT?

 

That is not my understanding, we have One High Priest, and that is Christ.

Christ's death ended the Aaronic/Levite priesthood, along with the system of animal sacrifice.  But the system of Melchizedek priesthood existed before the Aaronic, and it continues, and will continue.  Christ is our high priest - of that order. 

I wrote a study awhile back titled "The END of Sacrifices".  Here's the link:  http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/39-The End of Sacrifices.pdf

[8thdaypriest]

On 6/22/2016 at 0:42 AM, Rossw said:

I'm sorry Greg but none of those verses present Priscilla as an "ordained" female priestess. My wife is well versed in Scriptures but if just because we had a home church does not make her necessarily the headship leader of the church or an ordained priestess.  

Of course I'm not a theologian but to me those verses can, at most, only prove Priscilla was an effective Bible worker.

God ORDAINS - not men.  The Spirit was poured on ALL flesh - not just male flesh. 

[8thdaypriest]

Paul wrote, "I do not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man."  Now - either that is a later "insert" into the text, OR we have to reconcile that statement with Paul's letter telling the church at Rome to respect Phoebe as their "ruler".   It's possible that Paul was giving just his opinion - not speaking for God.

The Church of God 7th Day, does not allow a woman to teach a mixed Sabbath School class.  They do not want a women to even answer a question posed by a male teacher in a mixed SS class.  Women are to "keep quiet in the churches".  They take Paul's statement VERY seriously. 

I tried to point out once, that Paul made mistakes.  He actually went to the Temple at Jerusalem to offer animal sacrifice.  He paid for the sacrifices for 4 other men who had taken Nazarite vows.  Of course - I was addressing men - so that didn't go over well. 

[Kevin H]

10 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Paul wrote, "I do not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man."  Now - either that is a later "insert" into the text, OR we have to reconcile that statement with Paul's letter telling the church at Rome to respect Phoebe as their "ruler".   It's possible that Paul was giving just his opinion - not speaking for God.

The Church of God 7th Day, does not allow a woman to teach a mixed Sabbath School class.  They do not want a women to even answer a question posed by a male teacher in a mixed SS class.  Women are to "keep quiet in the churches".  They take Paul's statement VERY seriously. 

I tried to point out once, that Paul made mistakes.  He actually went to the Temple at Jerusalem to offer animal sacrifice.  He paid for the sacrifices for 4 other men who had taken Nazarite vows.  Of course - I was addressing men - so that didn't go over well. 

Thank you 8thdaypriest for your comments on my posts. One note though; Priscilla was NOT a student of Paul. She was a peer and a partner and already appears to be in power by the time he came around. She might have been among the 70 but we don't know for sure.  Now Apollos was one of her students. So she taught and had authority over him.

Getting to this verse from Timothy. I believe that Paul wrote it. There are 2 problems with this text. The first is that we find other places where Paul supports women's authority. the second is where it is written. It is written in 1 Timothy. It was NOT written in Romans, where he gives his huge thesis. Most of the rest of his epistles repeat ideas in Romans with local applications and dealing with local problems. We don't find this repeated over and over in Paul's works. We only have 2 major passages used against women ministry and one is in Corinthians in a section dealing with order and speaking in tongues etc.  The other is in 1 Timothy. And it is with the section of problems that the church is dealing with.

We now know that Corinth was an interesting city. It was  a large city, but very few people who actually lived in the city. Most of the people were sailors, and people passing through for a couple of months or years of business and then moving on, from all over the world. It was a good church for Paul because it kept having a large turnover as people come and go and the newcomers are there long enough to learn and then leave and can bring their new faith home with them to teach their neighbors.

Often these people would bring their family with them if they were to be there a few years. Unless the wife was educated she only spoke her local language and dialect. The educated women and the men who were doing the trade would know their home language, and Greek and maybe even Latin. But the poor wife would have to spend her time with friends who spoke the same language as she did. For them church and the teaching would be boring. The speaker could either say a line and wait for a long time for all the translations to be made, or they could speak in Greek or Latin which the men and the educated women could understand, but the uneducated woman just had to sit there not understanding and it would be very easy to get off in a conversation with her friend who speaks her language, and soon you get all these women in side conversations so that the message can't be heard. Thus the women need to keep quiet in church in CORINTH and ANY other church dealing with a similar problem in any part of history.  That text make a big difference where it was written. It was not written to churches in cities that did not have this problem, and we find in Acts that this was not Paul's general practice. He would teach then leave the church usually in the care of the leading educated ladies of the community.

Now about 1 Timothy, giving advice to a young pastor in the city of Ephesus during an interesting period of history. At the time 1 Timothy was written in Ephesus there was a movement going on. It was lead by 2 uneducated women. They were teaching the idea of female superiority and the superiority of uneducated people. They were causing havoc in the city. They were anti-education and anti-male. In public meetings and worship services the women involved with this movement would come in and take over the meetings. They required all the males, especially males in leadership position to kneel down before them and grovel and submit to them and to take over the meetings to teach their philosophy of women being superior to men, that men were worthless and that education was worthless. If you were Paul what advice would you give to a young pastor in the city dealing with this problem? Again we don't find this advice given to cities without this problem, and we don't find this being the common practice in Acts. Again in Acts when Paul would leave he's leave the church in the care of the leading educated women of a community. The church in Corinth had problems with women of different languages getting into discussions with their friends since they did not understand Greek and Latin, and in Timothy he was facing this woman's movement making all males submit to the authority of uneducated women who were pushing their views of female superiority.

So what does the church of God 7th day do with the fact that we really don't know who wrote Hebrews, Luke and Acts. One possibility for Hebrews is Pricilla. Luke/Acts is easier because of the "We" verses in acts. We know it was a wealthy person from the "we" section. Which gives the named candidates as Luke or Lydia. From this we can argue over who had more time to research and work on the book, one of the busiest wealthiest business tycoons of the ancient world or a busy doctor.  And do they have language experts to remove the Psalms written in the Feminine?

As for Paul changing have you ever looked at Acts 18 and Acts 19? In Acts 18 Paul was in Corinth. He was teaching in the Synagogue. People opposed him and he made a big display with a grand exit with very sharp words. But many people from the Synagogue, including the Rabbi, people he had just insulted, despite his insult went over and continued to study with him. We can tell that Paul felt horrified because he wanted to give up and God had to give him a vision to continue. In Acts 19 Paul was in Ephesus. Again he was teaching in the Synagogue. Again he was opposed, but instead of storming out with sharp words, Paul said that he was not going to cause trouble. That if he was a liability for the Synagogue that he would teach else where and anyone who wanted to study with him were welcome. Then we find after a while the idol makers cause the riot. As the city official spoke he pointed out that Paul never once blasphemed their God. The Acts 19 Paul shared what he loved, if people wanted to hear him wonderful,  but would not speak against another's views or beliefs.  Often we are tempted and fall to the temptation to be an Acts 18 Paul. But let's keep as a goal to become an Acts 19 Paul.

[Rossw]

19 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

She also "judged" Israel.  She led the army of Israel. 

Did Deborah lead the army or did Barak?

[Rossw]

Kevin H, it seems you like to contextualize meaning into verses to support your progressivism and contextualize meaning out of verses that don't support your ideology. Is it possible the message in 1 Timothy 3 is to prevent the church from falling into a feminine dominated society such as ours now? 

The direction this discussion is going is whether the Bible is "God breathed or not. What is being told to me here is that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says and we must contextually take all meaning out. Did EGW mention that? Did EGW have a low or high view of Scripture including the New Testament? Is all Scripture God breathed and can be used for edification and teaching? Kevin seems to think no. What are we doing when we take contemporary non Biblical manuscripts over the word of God?

This whole discussion is whether God actually means what he says. 

[CoAspen]

Quote

Kevin H, it seems you like to contextualize meaning into verses to support your progressivism and contextualize meaning out of verses that don't support your ideology. Is it possible the message in 1 Timothy 3 is to prevent the church from falling into a feminine dominated society such as ours now?

Quote

This whole discussion is whether God actually means what he says. 

Hmmmmm...it seems to me, as I read this, that it is more about a persons dislike for female equality. Since God declared all humans equal......maybe He didn't mean that? 

I seem to remember something about 'backbiters' in the NT and what Gods thought were about doing that.

Did EGW mean this or did EGW say that.....I thought the subject was about what God says and means.

[8thdaypriest]

10 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Thank you 8thdaypriest for your comments on my posts. One note though; Priscilla was NOT a student of Paul. She was a peer and a partner and already appears to be in power by the time he came around. She might have been among the 70 but we don't know for sure.  Now Apollos was one of her students. So she taught and had authority over him.

Getting to this verse from Timothy. I believe that Paul wrote it. There are 2 problems with this text. The first is that we find other places where Paul supports women's authority. the second is where it is written. It is written in 1 Timothy. It was NOT written in Romans, where he gives his huge thesis. Most of the rest of his epistles repeat ideas in Romans with local applications and dealing with local problems. We don't find this repeated over and over in Paul's works. We only have 2 major passages used against women ministry and one is in Corinthians in a section dealing with order and speaking in tongues etc.  The other is in 1 Timothy. And it is with the section of problems that the church is dealing with.

We now know that Corinth was an interesting city. It was  a large city, but very few people who actually lived in the city. Most of the people were sailors, and people passing through for a couple of months or years of business and then moving on, from all over the world. It was a good church for Paul because it kept having a large turnover as people come and go and the newcomers are there long enough to learn and then leave and can bring their new faith home with them to teach their neighbors.

Often these people would bring their family with them if they were to be there a few years. Unless the wife was educated she only spoke her local language and dialect. The educated women and the men who were doing the trade would know their home language, and Greek and maybe even Latin. But the poor wife would have to spend her time with friends who spoke the same language as she did. For them church and the teaching would be boring. The speaker could either say a line and wait for a long time for all the translations to be made, or they could speak in Greek or Latin which the men and the educated women could understand, but the uneducated woman just had to sit there not understanding and it would be very easy to get off in a conversation with her friend who speaks her language, and soon you get all these women in side conversations so that the message can't be heard. Thus the women need to keep quiet in church in CORINTH and ANY other church dealing with a similar problem in any part of history.  That text make a big difference where it was written. It was not written to churches in cities that did not have this problem, and we find in Acts that this was not Paul's general practice. He would teach then leave the church usually in the care of the leading educated ladies of the community.

Now about 1 Timothy, giving advice to a young pastor in the city of Ephesus during an interesting period of history. At the time 1 Timothy was written in Ephesus there was a movement going on. It was lead by 2 uneducated women. They were teaching the idea of female superiority and the superiority of uneducated people. They were causing havoc in the city. They were anti-education and anti-male. In public meetings and worship services the women involved with this movement would come in and take over the meetings. They required all the males, especially males in leadership position to kneel down before them and grovel and submit to them and to take over the meetings to teach their philosophy of women being superior to men, that men were worthless and that education was worthless. If you were Paul what advice would you give to a young pastor in the city dealing with this problem? Again we don't find this advice given to cities without this problem, and we don't find this being the common practice in Acts. Again in Acts when Paul would leave he's leave the church in the care of the leading educated women of a community. The church in Corinth had problems with women of different languages getting into discussions with their friends since they did not understand Greek and Latin, and in Timothy he was facing this woman's movement making all males submit to the authority of uneducated women who were pushing their views of female superiority.

So what does the church of God 7th day do with the fact that we really don't know who wrote Hebrews, Luke and Acts. One possibility for Hebrews is Pricilla. Luke/Acts is easier because of the "We" verses in acts. We know it was a wealthy person from the "we" section. Which gives the named candidates as Luke or Lydia. From this we can argue over who had more time to research and work on the book, one of the busiest wealthiest business tycoons of the ancient world or a busy doctor.  And do they have language experts to remove the Psalms written in the Feminine?

As for Paul changing have you ever looked at Acts 18 and Acts 19? In Acts 18 Paul was in Corinth. He was teaching in the Synagogue. People opposed him and he made a big display with a grand exit with very sharp words. But many people from the Synagogue, including the Rabbi, people he had just insulted, despite his insult went over and continued to study with him. We can tell that Paul felt horrified because he wanted to give up and God had to give him a vision to continue. In Acts 19 Paul was in Ephesus. Again he was teaching in the Synagogue. Again he was opposed, but instead of storming out with sharp words, Paul said that he was not going to cause trouble. That if he was a liability for the Synagogue that he would teach else where and anyone who wanted to study with him were welcome. Then we find after a while the idol makers cause the riot. As the city official spoke he pointed out that Paul never once blasphemed their God. The Acts 19 Paul shared what he loved, if people wanted to hear him wonderful,  but would not speak against another's views or beliefs.  Often we are tempted and fall to the temptation to be an Acts 18 Paul. But let's keep as a goal to become an Acts 19 Paul.

It was my understanding that - in the Hellenized world, women were second class citizens.  Women were married off very young, because their "husbands" wanted to be sure the offspring were their own.  So ages of 9 or 10 or 12 were very common.  Men used prostitutes for pleasure and conversation.  They did not converse with their wives.  They did not EDUCATE wives. They kept their wives locked up in family compounds.  Then along comes the gospel - and they are supposed to actually love their wives and serve them.  Radical thought!!

Many of these prostitutes were converted to the gospel.  These were educated women.  They could lead.  But Paul was concerned for the reputation of the fledgling church.  You can understand the problem.

Meeting places for "church" were usually houses.  [They had been banned from the synagogues.]  The women would be kept separate from the men - up in a balcony surrounding a courtyard, or a second story, or at least in the back, where they barely hear, much less interact with their husbands.  Just imagine - wives who have been sequestered from other women for years, suddenly getting together.  OF COURSE they are going to chatter!!  We still see the problem today - mostly with teenage girls.

[8thdaypriest]

3 hours ago, Rossw said:

Did Deborah lead the army or did Barak?

Barak refused to go into the battle without Deborah.

[Kevin H]

12 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

It was my understanding that - in the Hellenized world, women were second class citizens.  Women were married off very young, because their "husbands" wanted to be sure the offspring were their own.  So ages of 9 or 10 or 12 were very common.  Men used prostitutes for pleasure and conversation.  They did not converse with their wives.  They did not EDUCATE wives. They kept their wives locked up in family compounds.  Then along comes the gospel - and they are supposed to actually love their wives and serve them.  Radical thought!!

Many of these prostitutes were converted to the gospel.  These were educated women.  They could lead.  But Paul was concerned for the reputation of the fledgling church.  You can understand the problem.

Meeting places for "church" were usually houses.  [They had been banned from the synagogues.]  The women would be kept separate from the men - up in a balcony surrounding a courtyard, or a second story, or at least in the back, where they barely hear, much less interact with their husbands.  Just imagine - wives who have been sequestered from other women for years, suddenly getting together.  OF COURSE they are going to chatter!!  We still see the problem today - mostly with teenage girls.

This was also an issue as well, but one that has been more widely spread. It does have some weaknesses since we do find female leaders in the Bible, so there were places where this would not apply. Ephesus would have more of a risk for this situation due to the worship of Artamus. But the Holy Spirit saw to it that with us having forgotten so much of history that this woman's movement in Ephesus was recorded and discovered.

In most of history women had a second class status. It was only in Israel (until about 200 years before Jesus) and the Church where this changed. Which leads to another interesting thing:

Many rich men did not want their daughters to be second class citizens, so they found  a way for their daughters to keep their status. When they got married the father-in-law would legally adopt the girl. Her legal status would be the husband's sister, daughter of his father but not of his mother.

We find this phrase with Abraham and Sarah. We have automatically assumed that she was his biological half sister, and while that is a possibility, there was this legal status where she did not have to be his biological half sister but legal half sister by adoption. If it was the legal status then often where we read "Abraham" the text would have had in mind "Mr. and Mrs. Abraham". 

[8thdaypriest]

2 hours ago, Rossw said:

Kevin H, it seems you like to contextualize meaning into verses to support your progressivism and contextualize meaning out of verses that don't support your ideology. Is it possible the message in 1 Timothy 3 is to prevent the church from falling into a feminine dominated society such as ours now? 

The direction this discussion is going is whether the Bible is "God breathed or not. What is being told to me here is that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says and we must contextually take all meaning out. Did EGW mention that? Did EGW have a low or high view of Scripture including the New Testament? Is all Scripture God breathed and can be used for edification and teaching? Kevin seems to think no. What are we doing when we take contemporary non Biblical manuscripts over the word of God?

This whole discussion is whether God actually means what he says. 

Those of us who believe in God, also believe that He left us a written record.  It is very painful to realize that men manipulated that record - not very often mind you.  But it did happen.  Almost all NT scholars agree that IJohn 5:7 was inserted into the Latin translation (from the Greek) by those wanting to end all controversy over the triune nature of God. 

Such discoveries are trials of our faith.  Some decide not to study further into those things that are controversial.  They just stick with the 10 Commandments, and "love one another".  Others continue to dig deeper, believing there are grains of truth to be discovered. 

[8thdaypriest]

7 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

This was also an issue as well, but one that has been more widely spread. It does have some weaknesses since we do find female leaders in the Bible, so there were places where this would not apply. Ephesus would have more of a risk for this situation due to the worship of Artamus. But the Holy Spirit saw to it that with us having forgotten so much of history that this woman's movement in Ephesus was recorded and discovered.

In most of history women had a second class status. It was only in Israel (until about 200 years before Jesus) and the Church where this changed. Which leads to another interesting thing:

Many rich men did not want their daughters to be second class citizens, so they found  a way for their daughters to keep their status. When they got married the father-in-law would legally adopt the girl. Her legal status would be the husband's sister, daughter of his father but not of his mother.

We find this phrase with Abraham and Sarah. We have automatically assumed that she was his biological half sister, and while that is a possibility, there was this legal status where she did not have to be his biological half sister but legal half sister by adoption. If it was the legal status then often where we read "Abraham" the text would have had in mind "Mr. and Mrs. Abraham". 

Interesting thought.  I would need to see some historical record of such adoptions.  Can you recommend any sources?

[Rossw]

43 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Barak refused to go into the battle without Deborah.

Why? 

[8thdaypriest]

10 minutes ago, Rossw said:

Why? 

Because he believed that Deborah had a direct line to God.  Barak believed that God would not let his prophet be killed, so he thought that if she was with him, then his army would be "safe" (victorious).  God could also give directions to his army through Deborah.

[Kevin H]

3 hours ago, Rossw said:

Kevin H, it seems you like to contextualize meaning into verses to support your progressivism and contextualize meaning out of verses that don't support your ideology. Is it possible the message in 1 Timothy 3 is to prevent the church from falling into a feminine dominated society such as ours now? 

The direction this discussion is going is whether the Bible is "God breathed or not. What is being told to me here is that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says and we must contextually take all meaning out. Did EGW mention that? Did EGW have a low or high view of Scripture including the New Testament? Is all Scripture God breathed and can be used for edification and teaching? Kevin seems to think no. What are we doing when we take contemporary non Biblical manuscripts over the word of God?

This whole discussion is whether God actually means what he says. 

I am so glad you brought up this point. This is what the whole discussion SHOULD be, however that is not what the discussion has become. When I was at the Seminary one of the professors, Elder Holmes, wrote a book called "The Tip of the Iceberg" which saw the ordination of women as a view of the liberal theologians and that if we ordained women then all kinds of liberal theology would flood the church.

The arguments for women's ordination at that time was that the liberal scholars believed that Paul was against women leadership, but with their not seeing the Bible as really inspired we should not be slaves to his prejudice. That he was living in a culture were women were second class citizens, and this cultural bias was reflected in his writings.  We are in a different culture and thus we should free ourselves from those cultural biases.

And yes, the argument started out whether or not the Bible is authoritive over us. The conservative scholars saying "Yes" and the liberal scholars saying "No". Both groups believed that these texts were against women in ministry and one group says "It is the Bible so we must follow" the other saying "So what if it is the Bible, we don't have to follow." If this was the current issue I would be very strongly anti-ordination.

However over the years the CONSERVATIVE scholars have made discoveries, both Adventists and non-Adventists. These discoveries raised the question "Are we correctly interpreting these texts". As this was discovered Adventists found that James White and others of our pioneers were arguing against the popular interpretation back in the 1800s. Was James and the others liberals who did not submit to the authority of the Bible? If he was one then I am one. About within the past few years the New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists had a historian from Andrews review their documents and history. It was discovered that in the first decade of the 20th century conferences had decided to ordain women and New York was going to ordain one and she was approved by the Atlantic Union. We would have except that Elder A. G. Daniels asked them to "Wait" just a little bit. That he agreed that women should be ordained but pointed out that there were a number of members who thought that the ordination of women was not Biblical and that they needed to be educated to know that it was indeed Biblical and that he did not want to confuse them until they were educated.  May I ask why you want the church to remain in ignorance on this topic?

Soon after this Mrs. White wrote some more articles about women in ministry. Was Mrs. White a liberal theologian?

Right now an argument is that why did Mrs. White write about women in ministry when Elder Daniels promised the conferences and unions that he was going to encourage education among the members for the expressed purpose to ordain women. Why didn't she write letters to Elder Daniels and the conference and union Presidents and tell them they were wrong and nib it in the bud? (sadly it got overshadowed with the fight over Fundamentalism and the events leading to the 1919 Bible conference and 1923 Bible conference and fell by the wayside. We are now returning to where we were then.)

Now the critics of women's ordination look at this information and say "Elder Daniels did not always tell Mrs. White what was going on.  We don't see any documentation of him contacting her about it. Thus it is safe to assume that Mrs. White was ignorant about what the conferences wanted to do, and that she just had bad timing in writing those articles about women in ministry because of her ignorance on what was going on. Had she known she would not have written those things but instead write against women in ministry."

 

[Rossw]

4 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Because he believed that Deborah had a direct line to God.  Barak believed that God would not let his prophet be killed, so he thought that if she was with him, then his army would be "safe" (victorious).  God could also give directions to his army through Deborah.

But this was not the way it was supposed to be. Barak was supposed to have confidence in the Lord and not just look at Deborah as a charm. Idealy Barak was himself was supposed to lead, not Deborah.

[Rossw]

Kevin, I'll look into and am interested in your last very long post but a co-worker/friend was killed last night so it's hard to concentrate on something long and in depth.

[Green Cochoa]

On June 21, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Rossw said:

Biblically were there female priests?

God never chose women to be priests, kings/queens, or for any leadership position in the Bible…ever.  God DID choose women to be prophetesses.  Prophets are not leaders, they are spokespersons for God.  They give God's Word to the leaders, who then must decide for themselves how to act upon it.  Even Balaam's donkey prophesied, but I don't see people wanting to ordain donkeys to church leadership on account of it.  Prophets and leaders have separate roles.  Sometimes a leader, like in the case of Moses, was also a prophet.  More often than not, the prophet or prophetess was NOT a leader.  Consider Huldah, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Jonah, Zechariah, etc., none of whom was a leader, but many of whom spoke directly with the leader(s) of their day to give them messages from God.  (And prophets don't create their own messages, they speak with God's authority, not their own.)

All of the women leaders over God's people in the Bible were usurpers.  Consider Jezebel, Athaliah, etc. who were so destructive, spiritually and physically, and had no true right to the throne.  Deborah is an exceptional case.  The Bible tells us clearly she was a prophetess.  Because the people knew she spoke for God, they came to her for wisdom in judging their cases.  The Bible does not indicate, however, that God made her a judge, simply that the people came to her and asked her to judge them.  Of course, the people came to Aaron for the Golden Calf, and came to Samuel to ask for a king--so we know that the will of the people does not necessarily align to God's will.  As evidence of what God wished to highlight from the story of Deborah, Barak, the leader, receives mention in faith's hall of fame (Hebrews 11), whereas Deborah is unmentioned.  This does not bode well for those wishing to use her as a case for God's support of women's ordination.  God explicitly tells us in the Bible that men were to be priests, not women.  God explicitly tells us that women are not to have authority over men.  How, then, can we presume to change His order?