If it was not for WO what would people be talking about?

[Stan]

If it was not for WOMENS ORDINATION what would people be talking about?

[Stan]

IRONIC, the conversation may be different if they would realize that the conversation is about doing something with females, that actually did not happen to males in the early Church. that is laying on of hands to ordain men. They laid on hands to heal, but I can not find they laid on hands to ordain.

Eager to have someone show me they did.

We all need to go about the work that God has called us to do. MALE OF FEMALE, Jew or Gentile, Young or Old.

*That is my opinion*

[kailooa]

I think it's easy for men to dismiss this issue because they don't understand what it's like to be treated as as second-class.

I don't ever personally want to be ordained but I find the notion that women are somehow unqualified to be ordained offensive. And I don't believe that it has to be shown in the Bible to be adopted as current practice. There are a LOT of things we do in the church organization that are not specifically demonstrated in the Bible.

I'm not saying this to be combative, just giving my opinion.

[OzarkWoman]

I think it's easy for men to dismiss this issue because they don't understand what it's like to be treated as as second-class.

I don't ever personally want to be ordained but I find the notion that women are somehow unqualified to be ordained offensive. And I don't believe that it has to be shown in the Bible to be adopted as current practice. There are a LOT of things we do in the church organization that are not specifically demonstrated in the Bible.

I'm not saying this to be combative, just giving my opinion.

Yeah, like making someone join a denomination just to get baptized.

[Stan]

kailooa, I so understand... I should have been clearer, just not sure why men are ordained in the way they are. Women and several men are are commissioned, with out laying on of hands.

[Woody]

Quote:

*That is my opinion*

R U stickin' 2 it?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I don't know why people can't be happy that there is a difference between men and women... It doesn't mean one is 1st class, 2nd class, or 3rd class.

[phkrause]

I don't know why people can't be happy that there is a difference between men and women... It doesn't mean one is 1st class, 2nd class, or 3rd class.

[Dottie]

Agreed! ! !

[jasd]

QR frame:

Is ordination by the laying-on of hands a superintendent act or does it reflect servitude upon the one administering the laying-on of hands?

Male/female. Rightly dividing the word..., is what it's all aboout - not the massagynistic implementation of a supposed word/dogma.

Oops, there I done went and Capped Male whilst I lower-cased female. Ahh, just got .orged, I suppose.

Anyways, what have thems of Eve's curse to complain about?--for surely there will come a time in the sweet by and by when they'll receive grudging notice that fer durn shur tootin' they coulda served their fellow believers and their Gd better than many of their huffier-puffier-stuffier counterparts could or did.

Hmm, gotta love that sweet by and by sweet potato pie in the sky stuff, yes?

Sheesh, Joel, what's we gonna do with our wimmenfolk when theys begin prophesying -- and the handmaidens when they receive the spirit, fall down and begin to holy roll? ...peel off some duct tape to shut'em up and/or otherwise restrain thems?

Nah, fact is that according to Saint Peter -- they's been in the spirit for nigh two millennia and been thoroughly muzzled though they mightily trod grains of truths upon the collective threshing floors of thems multiple tens of thousands of .orgs.

What for else they's, by inspiration of the HS, called priests and Kings? For gumball and snuff? For ticky-tacky?

"still love and goober stuff, y'alls." --jhames

[Tallmark]

2nd class and 3rd class were on the Titanic and you know how that went.

[Tom Wetmore]

I don't know why people can't be happy that there is a difference between men and women... It doesn't mean one is 1st class, 2nd class, or 3rd class.

It is not about ignoring or being unhappy that men and women are different. It is about recognizing those attributes and gifts possessed by both men and women that are the same, while whole-heartedly celebrating that their differences also have equal standing before God.

[Woodenavaklu]

Stan how many examples are you looking for regarding laying on of hands.

It was done for men who served as deacons.

Act 6:5 KJV - And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

Act 6:6 KJV - Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid [their] hands on them.

It was done for at least one of the apostles at the Lord's command no less.

Act 9:10 KJV - And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I [am here], Lord.

Act 9:11 KJV - And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for [one] called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,

Act 9:12 KJV - And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting [his] hand on him, that he might receive his sight.

Act 9:17 KJV - And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, [even] Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

This act was carried out by the apostles for the purposes of bringing the Holy Ghost upon the recipients.

Act 8:14 KJV - Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

Act 8:15 KJV - Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

Act 8:16 KJV - (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Act 8:17 KJV - Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

St Paul laid hands on others.

Act 19:6 KJV - And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Timothy received it.

1Ti 4:14 KJV - Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

St Paul gave some conditions regarding laying on of hands.

1Ti 5:22 KJV - Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.

It has the status of a doctrine in Hebrews.

Hbr 6:2 KJV - Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

[Woodenavaklu]

To answer your original question I think we may well be debating how the doctrine of marital equality has made it possible for gay marriage to be seriously considered by secular society.

[Woodenavaklu]

It is not about ignoring or being unhappy that men and women are different. It is about recognizing those attributes and gifts possessed by both men and women that are the same, while whole-heartedly celebrating that their differences also have equal standing before God.

How do you propose to support this idea. Ephesian 5 makes it clear in the relationship between men and women that he provides love and protection. In return she provides submission and obedience. Should she choose to withdraw her submission and/or obedience he has every right to withdraw his love and/or protection.

[Gordon1]

I think it's easy for men to dismiss this issue because they don't understand what it's like to be treated as as second-class.

True, many men lack understanding.

But also true that most men have been treated as second or third class - think of the slave trade, visible minorities, the prison population, the native peoples, and the third and developing worlds - those who make our e-toys.

Even in many Western jobs, men are poorly treated by those up the hierarchy. It's human nature.

[whbae]

People living in this American society have some difficulty understanding the marital relationship Paul is talking about. The eastern culture, this includes Asian and the Middle Eastern cultures, knows the relationship Paul is talking about. Nothing new, however, when the situation comes to North America(I even dare to say the European cultures are similar to the culture Paul was accustomed) people have hard time understanding it. Some men love Paul's statement and demand things from their spouse without being reasonable. The American culture has been known to the world that women are very independent and there is no such a thing as obeying their husband.

When I was leaving Korea to study in U.S. my father suggested that I do not marry a woman who was born and raised in the United States because she will dominate you. So, under this kind of circumstance we have to analyze Paul's statement carefully and apply some sort of modification in this society with care otherwise there will be some misunderstanding.

Won

[Gordon1]

...he provides love and protection. In return she provides submission and obedience. Should she choose to withdraw her submission and/or obedience he has every right to withdraw his love and/or protection.

Wooden, It's not really a contract which can be so easily cancelled, more a covenant with God.

Where does man have right to withdraw love or duty? Where does the wife?

Men are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it. No withdrawal of love or protection.

If one party disobeys, they cannot be forced - Just as Christ did not force Israel.

So one chooses a partner with care.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

I don't know why people can't be happy that there is a difference between men and women... It doesn't mean one is 1st class, 2nd class, or 3rd class.

It is not about ignoring or being unhappy that men and women are different. It is about recognizing those attributes and gifts possessed by both men and women that are the same, while whole-heartedly celebrating that their differences also have equal standing before God.

Of course it's about being unhappy that men and women are different, not just physically, but temperamentally, emotionally, and even spiritually. (And I know some won't like that.)

I submit that men and women perceive/relate to the church differently.

I submit that men and women perceive/relate to God differently.

I submit that men and women perceive/relate to a pastor differently.

I submit that men and women perceive/relate to each other differently.

It just seems that nowadays people are trying so hard to eliminate everything that distinguishes men from women, including roles that have been in place since creation. I think it's a shame.

And it's a shame that folks are trying to "fix" something that isn't even broken.

[Gordon1]

Won, the only real issue is submission to Christ.

If each partner is born-again and seeking God's will in every sphere, Christ will not lead them astray. The standards for courtship and selection are in the Bible & SOP. Most people follow their own wisdom instead.

We are best suited to partner with those most similar to ourselves, so your father had sound advice.

He must care for your well-being and happiness. That's a blessing with eternal consequences.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

It is not about ignoring or being unhappy that men and women are different. It is about recognizing those attributes and gifts possessed by both men and women that are the same, while whole-heartedly celebrating that their differences also have equal standing before God.

How do you propose to support this idea. Ephesian 5 makes it clear in the relationship between men and women that he provides love and protection. In return she provides submission and obedience. Should she choose to withdraw her submission and/or obedience he has every right to withdraw his love and/or protection.

Not a problem. Immediately preceding, and widely overlooked by those citing this verse about wives submitting to their husbands in Ephesians 5 is the introductory statement, "Submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ" which is say that the marital relationship involves mutual submission first and foremost. I would also point out that the original Greek word translated as "submit" has a bit different connotation than the English. It implies a voluntary and cooperative attitude in taking responsibility in working toward a common objective. It is not simply obedience.

I would vigorously disagree with your last sentence. That makes it sound like a business transaction rather than a relationship of mutual love and submission. And it seems to imply the very basis of easy divorce under Jewish practice as confronted by Jesus. Jesus emphatically denounced that and declared this as contrary to God's plan for marriage. He said that by God's design the two should be as one (oneness is another way of describing unity) and that what God has joined together no man has the right to separate.

But the issue at hand is beyond the marital relationship or even simply male/female interpersonal relationships. It is about roles and relationships within the Church and in relationship to God. And on that point Galatians 3:28 could not be clearer - "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

[Gordon1]

It just seems that nowadays people are trying so hard to eliminate everything that distinguishes men from women, including roles that have been in place since creation. I think it's a shame.

Yes it's a shame, but few are ashamed, which means they see no wrong in this pursuit.

The solution lies in the old paths, not in the ways of the world.

(The world has converted the Church.)

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

I don't know why people can't be happy that there is a difference between men and women... It doesn't mean one is 1st class, 2nd class, or 3rd class.

It is not about ignoring or being unhappy that men and women are different. It is about recognizing those attributes and gifts possessed by both men and women that are the same, while whole-heartedly celebrating that their differences also have equal standing before God.

Excellent point.

[Stan]

Stan how many examples are you looking for regarding laying on of hands.

It was done for men who served as deacons.

Act 6:5 KJV - And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

Act 6:6 KJV - Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid [their] hands on them.

It was done for at least one of the apostles at the Lord's command no less.

Act 9:10 KJV - And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I [am here], Lord.

Act 9:11 KJV - And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for [one] called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,

Act 9:12 KJV - And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting [his] hand on him, that he might receive his sight.

Act 9:17 KJV - And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, [even] Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

This act was carried out by the apostles for the purposes of bringing the Holy Ghost upon the recipients.

Act 8:14 KJV - Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

Act 8:15 KJV - Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

Act 8:16 KJV - (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Act 8:17 KJV - Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

St Paul laid hands on others.

Act 19:6 KJV - And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Timothy received it.

1Ti 4:14 KJV - Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

St Paul gave some conditions regarding laying on of hands.

1Ti 5:22 KJV - Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.

It has the status of a doctrine in Hebrews.

Hbr 6:2 KJV - Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

HI Woodenavaklu

Am posting this video link for your consideration and thoughts.

http://vimeo.com/42298846

[jasd]

Re Ephesians 5:

The first imperative/command most directly relative to the subject at hand is "be filled with the Spirit" v 18. Thereafter, it is repeating participles rather than direct imperatives, as some would have it:

v 19 Speaking ...

v 20 Giving ...

v 21 Submitting ...

with an imperative [trans-verse] supplied (Col 3), to wit:: v 22 "submit yourselves". OMG! it is not even found in the patristic Vaticanus...,

Incidently, "submitting" in v 21 literally conveys 'arrange (yourselves) one under the other'. That's "under", not over.

"[A] Jewish man every morning gave thanks that God had not made him a Gentile, slave or woman. There were no legal rights for women. The husband could do with her as he willed."

THIS was Saint Paul's milieu even among the uncircumcised, the Barbarian, and the Scythian... THIS is what Ephesians 5 addressed -- not the protocols, dynamics, or mechanics of a Christ church -- no matter that there is a simile between husbands and Christ from which there has been all manner of inferences drawn.

One doesn't necessarily seek the ordination for women -- just the simple act of courteous and Xtian behaviour in all respects -- an attitudinal change within any/all .orgs who profess the teachings of Jesus Christ and not the practices of secular Gentiles (Mk 10:42). That is, the Gd-given opportunity to manifest the gifts of the HS -- to whomever given... And I daresay that

I find it incomprehensible that the HS is making a list, checking it twice -- and if it's a she, checking it thrice.

Saint Paul was addressing the matter of a tender reciprocity, a mutual support between/amongst equals, as he did also in...

1 Cor 12:23 And those [members] of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour;

[...]

1 Cor 12:25 That there should be no schism in the body; but [that] the members should have the same care one for another.

1 Cor 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it;

No gender declension here..., only insomuch as a .org desires to follow after a Laodicean heirarchy -- a thing Protesting .orgs bruit as having left behind with the 'fallen church'.

One is inclined to ask, "Just how far does the acorn fall from the tree?"

Who are we that we may determine what 'gift' of the HS this or that member of the Body Jesus Christ has received?--further, determining the manner or means that gift is allowed its manifestation.

The imperative is "to be spirit-filled" -- to minister/serve one another. No wonder that the HS moans and groans, as the .Org is as the Gentiles who lord it over those given into their authority (Mk 10:42).