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

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Familial guidelines do not translate well to the corporate collective; which, Biblically, is a matter of an entirely different sort.

>>Not according to I Tim.3:5 or I Cor.14:34 or ITim.5:1,2 PP 58,59 ect...<<

First, these texts do not represent a deutero or second law. Second, textual criticism seems to attribute the Pastorals to Timothy and Titus as pseudepigraphals -- written other than by Saint Paul. Moreover, it is in the Pastoral Epistles that the emergent Catholic structural hierarchy appears -- a complete departure from St Paul's writings re church structure given in contradistinction as say..., that found in Epesians 4 and elsewhere. Third, PP?--from one who browbeat both men and women? Anyway,

the translation and interpretation of these texts - until recently evolved times - are of/from an age/time of Patriarchal influence.

Re 1 Timothy 3:5. (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

An example of an advisement re the concerns of marriage errantly transferred to the administration of the corporate collective...

1 Cor 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Given that the text is a part of an entire passage of several chapters dealing with the matter of "confusion", and given the tendencies of the translators of the 1611 Bible -- 1 Corinthians 14:34 can equally read -- Let those wives keep silence among those called of Gd: [...]

We know that wives ought to have been the original translation, as v 35 states: "let them ask their husbands at home"

vvs 34&35 are not dealing with all women, single, widowed, etc -- but of wives, certain ones at that, going back to chapter 12 v 3 ... "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed:"

Whoa, where'd THAT come from? Why the insertion of this anomaly into the text?--unless it was a voiced issue. Who said THAT? Who's out there in left field?

1 Cor 14:35 And if they will learn any thing ...

Verse 35 is still speaking of 'those wives' -- and what's with "if" they will learn...? The implication is that it is doubtful that they are interested in the doctrines disseminated in the Corinthian church, yes?--rather preferring to be part of the "confusion" -- addressed in this chapter by Saint Paul.

1 Cor 14:35 ... for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. Or equally, "it is a shame for 'those wives' to speak 'among those who consist the believers' (as interpreted elsewhere).

And, still speaking of/to 'those wives'...,

1 Cor 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

So, is Saint Paul addressing all women?--or is he being snarky re "those wives" of these several verses?

1 Corinthians 14:39 exhorts all, both men and women (as testified to elsewhere), "Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues" - to attain, literally, to the second highest office after that of Apostleship - and desiring that office, others as well. The denouement is 'all offices'.

[jasd]

>>PP 58,59<<

"It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband." --PP 58

Must be a whole lot of solicitation going on in the animal kingdom..., or mebbe, it's just that the male of the species is almost always the bigger with the most testosterone; therefore, he rules the weaker. Doesn't look like it had anything to do with her beguiling her mate, as he willfully and flat-out disobeyed what he was commanded.

So, how much of cogent value (no diss implied) might one expect from page 59?

Quote:

Quote:jasd

It has taken most of two millennia, but we have evolved.

>>As God predicted 2000 years ago(II Tim.4:3,4).<<

Ahh, well yes, 2 Timothy 4:3,4. And how wonderfully manifest it is that it is always others who will not "endure sound doctrine"!

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Gd calls all His elect, yet we choose - at that, only the male species. "Masculine Xtianity?" Default Xtianity?

>>Only the male species for what?<<

We speak of women in leadership positions within the .Org.

>>To be the spiritual leaders of their families??<<

That's assuming that the male species within the family structure is spiritually-minded, yes? Well, we can see by church attendance that that is often questionable.

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

Incidently, "submitting" in v 21 literally conveys 'arrange (yourselves) one under the other'.

>>Where's the beef?<<

Indeed!--nuthin' but let us and sloppy. However, per "masculine Xtianity" and "Default Xtianity"?--come it truths, come it true, come it strong - whoever is best able - elect. Ain not no matter from which end of the spectrum. Whoever's got Gott, gots Gott.

Wisdom: 'Hey, don't wear yourselves out and don't waste money on maids, buy dimmer switches so's when the dust accumulates you just dim the lights and everything takes on a fantastic glow.' --Rita Davenport

.orgs have installed dimmer switches in place of truths.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

C'mon, not taking anything away from the dear ladies, as my mother was..., but the .org's finest can function beyond baking Xtian matzo -- quarterly. [/hyperbole]

>>Ya think??<<

Ya so, am's thinking.

[olger]

Big slice o' Vidalia...mmm-hmm.

You like shallots?

[M. T. Cross]

There is not an onion that I don't like! My current favourite is red onions. A nice toasted red onion, tomatoe, cheese and avocado sandwich........ try it sometime.

[doug yowell]

>>Not according to I Tim.3:5 or I Cor.14:34 or ITim.5:1,2 PP 58,59 ect...<<

First, these texts do not represent a deutero or second law. Second, textual criticism seems to attribute the Pastorals to Timothy and Titus as pseudepigraphals -- written other than by Saint Paul. Moreover, it is in the Pastoral Epistles that the emergent Catholic structural hierarchy appears -- a complete departure from St Paul's writings re church structure given in contradistinction as say..., that found in Epesians 4 and elsewhere. Third, PP?--from one who browbeat both men and women? Anyway,

the translation and interpretation of these texts - until recently evolved times - are of/from an age/time of Patriarchal influence.

Well then, if, as an Seventh-day Adventist speaking about the Divine injunction concerning church and family leadership, my sources are considered non-authoritative, we've been discussing onions and tomatoes. And since my views on onions is already well known, I'm leaving the rest of the OP to those whose taste buds are not as yet equally enlightened (Rom.14:15-17).

[jasd]

>>Well then, if, as an Seventh-day Adventist speaking about the Divine injunction concerning church and family leadership,<<

Divine injunction?--that devolves from gods, yes?

Jn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

One thinks that being gods, one arrives at the point where one sees through the glass less darkly, yes? Such so, that, as the early church left behind much of OT pedagogy, we too leave behind that which has become fading obsolete. It is the process of setting aside soggy bottoms and proceeding to the meat course, the piece de resistance of the word...

It is past time for .orgs to Bar Mitzvah -- to put aside their childish iconolatries.

>>my sources are considered non-authoritative,<<

Not so. I am not, nor have I claimed to be such as an Or'gon Oracle. I put things 'out there' to mull - to sauce the onion, if you will...

>>we've been discussing onions and tomatoes.<<

Indeed. But what of the substantive?--the fleshpots?

>>And since my views on onions is already well known, I'm leaving the rest of the OP to those whose taste buds are not as yet equally enlightened (Rom.14:15-17).<<

Yet, what of those whose "taste buds" have become jaded? That aside, and per Romans 14:15-17: the small voice asks, "Okay, equanimity is good, now what of equality?" ...the neither Jew nor Gentile, neither male nor female pejoratives.

So, speaking of a 'small voice', how is it that the .Org has lionized the louder and more commercial voice - and will hear nothing from the smaller voices within the ekklesia? Is it that Gd can no longer speak in a still small voice?--larynjamisess or sumfin'? Nah, just anachronistic chauvinism followin' upon each other re interpretashunisms of Writ...

Sez so in the Book.

One simply cannot appeal to the static to justify the fact that the .orgs foolishly stultify those churchy gifts which Gd has showered upon both the male and the distaff, as Saint Paul has been interpreted through jaundiced eyes.

Sez so in the Book.

[olger]

There is not an onion that I don't like! My current favourite is red onions. A nice toasted red onion, tomatoe, cheese and avocado sandwich........ try it sometime.

Them red onions is good onions!

[teresaq]

I would have appreciated this contribution when this verse was being considered as a bible study.

To me your take on the verse is worthy of consideration, tho I still believe

Quote:

for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

is referring to some Judaic tradition since I have seen no such law in the bible itself.

>>Not according to ... I Cor.14:34 ...<<

1 Cor 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Given that the text is a part of an entire passage of several chapters dealing with the matter of "confusion", and given the tendencies of the translators of the 1611 Bible -- 1 Corinthians 14:34 can equally read -- Let those wives keep silence among those called of Gd: [...]

We know that wives ought to have been the original translation, as v 35 states: "let them ask their husbands at home"

vvs 34&35 are not dealing with all women, single, widowed, etc -- but of wives, certain ones at that, going back to chapter 12 v 3 ... "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed:"

Whoa, where'd THAT come from? Why the insertion of this anomaly into the text?--unless it was a voiced issue. Who said THAT? Who's out there in left field?

1 Cor 14:35 And if they will learn any thing ...

Verse 35 is still speaking of 'those wives' -- and what's with "if" they will learn...? The implication is that it is doubtful that they are interested in the doctrines disseminated in the Corinthian church, yes?--rather preferring to be part of the "confusion" -- addressed in this chapter by Saint Paul.

1 Cor 14:35 ... for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. Or equally, "it is a shame for 'those wives' to speak 'among those who consist the believers' (as interpreted elsewhere).

And, still speaking of/to 'those wives'...,

1 Cor 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

So, is Saint Paul addressing all women?--or is he being snarky re "those wives" of these several verses?

1 Corinthians 14:39 exhorts all, both men and women (as testified to elsewhere), "Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues" - to attain, literally, to the second highest office after that of Apostleship - and desiring that office, others as well. The denouement is 'all offices'.

[Woody]

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

I don't know - but it is the most important issue before our church at the present time.

Hopefully we can soon move beyond it and get on with spreading the Word. It's just the Devil trying to confuse our members.

WE need earnest prayer to make sure he does not succeed.

[Naomi]

Granted it is an important issue, however I seriously question that it is in any way slowing those dedicated individuals who are spreading the Word.

Fewer discussions and more workers just might the most important issue facing the church today. Just sayin ....

[Woody]

Granted it is an important issue, however I seriously question that it is in any way slowing those dedicated individuals who are spreading the Word.

Fewer discussions and more workers just might the most important issue facing the church today. Just sayin ....

That's the whole idea of WO - get more workers. Rather than just men - let's include WO-men

[JoeMo]

Hi Naomi,

I think the OW thing is just a symptom of a larger problem - that being change in the church. There are those who want to maintain the cultural standards of 150 years ago; and those that want to evolve with the culture. The SDA institution is very slow to change.

I'm not advocating change for the sake of change; just change for things that cannot be supported scripturally or culturally. Some of those issues are: OW; salvation by grace vs. salvation by the Law; and the infallibility of every word EGW ever wrote.

[Woody]

Hi Naomi,

I think the OW thing is just a symptom of a larger problem - that being change in the church. There are those who want to maintain the cultural standards of 150 years ago; and those that want to evolve with the culture. The SDA institution is very slow to change.

I'm not advocating change for the sake of change; just change for things that cannot be supported scripturally or culturally. Some of those issues are: OW; salvation by grace vs. salvation by the Law; and the infallibility of every word EGW ever wrote.

Excellent - well stated. I totally agree with you JoeMo.

[jasd]

KJV

Gen 2:18

#H5828; ezer: to help, to succour. Tranlated as "help" 19 times -- as "help-meet 2 times

Jn 14:26

#G3875; parakl&#275;tos: ...c) in the widest sense, a helper, succourer, aider, assistant. 1) of the Holy Spirit destined to take the place of Christ with the apostles (after his ascension to the Father), to lead them to a deeper knowledge of the gospel truth, and give them divine strength needed to enable them to undergo trials and persecutions on behalf of the divine kingdom.

Okaayyy, so Writ likened Eve to the HS, a member of the Gdhead... Was Adam a girlie-man?--don't think so; however, Writ seems to indicate that a "helper/comforter of the same design would simply have compounded his obvious deficiencies; ipso..., Eve, an improvement upon the model by almost any definition - a true helper in time of need or confusion.

Redux: Jesus Christ chose a woman (at the well of Jacob) as the first to evangelize His ministry - He chose a woman (Saint Mary) as the first to evangelize His resurrection, His completed redemptive mission. Re today's question of women in the ministry: WWJD?

evan·ge·lize verb

transitive verb

1

: to preach the gospel to

2

: to convert to Christianity

Indeed, the question obtaining is: WWJD?--not what would Saint Paul do?--as that pertains Jesus Christ is clear and specific; whereas, that pertaining to Saint Paul is more 'interpretive', shall we say?

[teresaq]

and the infallibility of every word EGW ever wrote.

[teresaq]

QR frame:

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.

I'm not sure about that Jasd. The logical conclusion if "women" created subordinate to "men" leads naturally to women being subordinate to men in heaven. The natural order of things if you will.

That's not so bad for the women who have it pretty good down here, not so good for the vast majority who don't. But then again the mentality is that all men are over all women. Since no man will have any particular woman to be over up there that would give them carte blanche to all.

I'm not seeing that as heaven for women. (Can't wait for the joker that's sure to come along and say I am rejecting God's natural order of things.) It's more along the lines of 70 virgins to each male Muslim heaven.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

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

That was my small attempt to amuse myself. Anyway, I sometimes enjoy the almost nonsensical as well that absolutely nonsensical. Therapeutic somehow.

[jasd]

>>(Can't wait for the joker that's sure to come along and say I am rejecting God's natural order of things.)<<

Indeed, however, permit me an illustration: the natural order of things is to recognize that the opposing thumb is next to useless by itself. It helps that there is that blessed though delicate forefinger. One finds it difficult to imagine Gd engraving the tablets of stone with a burly thumb, yes?--or, the thumb writing upon the stones of the Temple (...for that was where He was - and I'll bet that her detractors caught the significance of that!) whereupon He wrote - a defense of the woman caught in adultery - no it was the forefinger.

However, I suppose that someone might imagine that Jesus Christ used His thumb for that purpose. Otherwise, seems the best use one puts his thumb to - is sitting upon it; yet, the thumb is a burly and boastful digit.

My brief is: what a sad, sorry state of affairs that anyone, man or woman, having been Gd-gifted in extraordinary ways is repressed and made to stand in the back - to satisfy gender bias. Gifts of the HS stultified for two thousand years because of the heedlessly intemperate words, "I, I, I, I, MARK THIS! I - will not let a woman..." Oh Paul, you've had your boast, and thereby suppressed our noetic complement for these past two millennia - having woven a veil to weigh down our good women - heavier to bear than the one destroyed in the Temple.

That sort of hindrance is definitely not a voice from the mountain. Oy-oy-oy! the sorrow of Paradise lost to our parents. Sadder still, history has proved that unmitigatingly, Eve and her daughters suffered the loss doubly and more intensively than did those who were supposed to husband her and her daughters, but failed to do so. They failed to support and uplift them together with themselves, to be the wind beneath their wings, as it were, failing to allow them a voice - rather, unrelentingly forbidding them the development of their minds that may have helped lessen the effects of our wandering in the deserts of our own making - slouching to Babylon.

>>It's more along the lines of 70 virgins to each male Muslim heaven.<<

Per 70 virgins... that's all? Think I'll dawdle here earthside awhile longer.

[teresaq]

:)

[Woody]

Quote:

This is one time I believe in the "infallibility" of EGW.

Amen sister