Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Conveniently.
So would you say that Paul's reprimand in Corinthians is inconsistent? Was he wrong to do so?
It makes sense of all the evidence.
No, because the context was not the same as other situations.
Probably the only people who could answer that are the original recipients of the letter, as they had to deal with the immediate reception of it.
Indirectly, yes. We see, for example, that Paul describes Phoebe as a prostatis; and that is the same word that Justin Martyr later uses to describe the person who presides over worship.
And how was the context different?
Where did you get 'prostatis' from? The original Greek uses 'diakonon' which literally translates as 'a servant' (noun - active, feminine, superlative) if you need the basis as well.
Because there was clearly some situation in Corinth which required Paul to tell the women to be quiet while they were learning.
In verse 2. It's often translated as something like "benefactor," but that makes it sound like she's a financial donor, where the Greek word is indicative of a much more active role (it literally means something close to "one who stands before others").
Ahh, I see, 'a patroness' or 'a helper'. Still, neither description specifically denotes speaking during a service unless assumptions are made. And God does not live in a world of assumptions.
The application is straightforward, you just don't like the result and have to put these parts of the Bible in a category where you can safely ignore them. But that seems like a very unsafe thing to do, at least to me.
"...I will build My church, and the the gates of hell will not prevail against it." Surely you don't think this is also part of the Bible you can ignore? Or the part about the Holy Spirit leading Christians "in all truth"? Or the part about the Church being "the pillar and foundation of truth"?
The Feminine Mystique, The founding document of the NOW "the National Orginization for Women" Exerpts by Marylin French, some articles by Gloria Steinem
those are all first wave feminist. we are talking 3rd and 4th wave feminism.
to say that a woman can only be a mother and cut off all avenures to personal and professonal development is enslavement in and of it's self. Not allowing a person to reach theie full possiblity as a human being is again enslavement.
no disagreement here.
i think it was 1954.
no one disagree with you on the family issue.
My position it is that Christ is returning and restoring all things back to their original state and established in the Garden of EDEN. That is the Standard for humanity on all things. Christ through his blood brought the right to redeem humanity return us to our first state. This included women being given their rightful place in the order.
?????
Lazy, Not straight forward. I don't like the result because it hurts people and degrades them. You don't seem to care about that. Also degrades the image of God. Misrepids that God's to humans.
None of that is relevant to what we're talking about it's just grandstanding in a red herring
You should read Teresa of Avila and Theresa of Lisseaux they are doctors of the Church and know very well about womens issues
Not interested in pursuing that issue any further than I have to.
Well, clearly he believed he did.
No. Which is why it makes sense that Paul says this in this place, but elsewhere permits women to exercise appropriate leadership.
If this person had been male, and described in these terms, nobody would dispute the idea that he spoke in church services. The assumption that Phoebe did not, is, I would argue, more of a stretch than the likelihood that she did.
And there you have it, you don't like the result, so you look for a way to ignore that part of the Bible you find inconvenient.
I've been able to parse out most of your typos and misspellings, but I have no idea what this is supposed to be.
Sure it is, the Church has the truth, and it follows that the Church was not without the truth for two thousand years. Again, liberals don't like this fact because they want to change doctrines, and that change can only be legitimate if the Church is not the body of Christ and is not guided by the Holy Spirit, but a human institution led by mean old men who can be overthrown like politicians.
What a wacky way of twisting what I am saying. you are saying that you must accept you interpretion even if it hurts us. You are telling everyone on this forum who is paying attention that you do not have there well being in mind. You will uses them and degrade them and thrown them away and you will justify it in the name of Christ. Your religion, as presented by you, is a religion of human degradation. And people should run away.
Misrepresent God to humans
no one is saying that, your appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.
I am an evangelical, I accept the scripture as the word of God, but I don't accept your interpretation and application of the scripture as the word of God.
that is your interpretation of the situation, because you sit at the top and benefit out of the system, you are not the one who sacrifices and must be under the tryanny of the overlord. who's fate is not in your own hands. Having seen many different churhes and cults and religious practices I can tell you that Christianity is only as good as they follow Christ command "love the Lord your God with all your heart and Love your neighbor as yourself"
Take a breath and proofread your posts, please. Are you saying that I'm saying someone in general has to accept my interpretation, even if it hurts him? If so, then no, I'm saying that you should have some humility and stop acting like Christians up until a few decades ago were lazy simpletons who didn't understand your hermeneutic. And if submitting your will to the faith "once for all delivered to the saints" is hurtful to you, that's something for you to work on.
You did, post #56.
Theresa did indeed desire the priesthood out of love for God and admiration of the office. The priest carries the body of Christ in his hands and feeds Him to hungry souls. That put the flame of love in Theresa’s heart.
Well they were lazy simpletons, case in point, people used the bible to justify slavery. Now do you think slavery is God's ideal or it circumstantial? The Ideal is the Garden of Eden. So no. Not circumstances as found in the 1st century. yet people justified the abuse of an entire race of people in Christianity. Now how do you square that circle with "love the Lord your God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself" "In Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, rich nor poor, jew nor gentile" yet people justifed terrible abuse.
By answering 'no', you provide the evidence that your church, as with mine, practice a form of order within church worship and are therefore continuing from the basis set by Paul in this chapter. Proving that this basis is universally beneficial.
I think I have covered this verse quite thoroughly and have provided a very reasonable explanation for what may appear contradictory passages. Obviously we have not covered 1 Timothy 2v12 but that too would fit in with the 'restrictions once founded' notion.
yep
they were lazy simpletons. how else to you get the nunnry and the preisthood, which is not in scripture? how else to you justify Slavery in the name of scripture.
see, just lazy, you assume that you are offering the faith "once delivered to the saints" you are linking yourself to the apostles, then justifying condemning everyone who disagree with you. Kinda of Cult like, you are not the apostles and you did not delieverd the faith to us. you are not some defender, you are just a dude reading the scripture and trying to interpret and apply it in the manner you were taught. not taking into to account that you may have been taught incorrectly.
I didn't say that, though. As far as I know, she did not publicly advocate for women's ordination. She does, however, stand as an interesting example of a woman with a clear sense of vocation.
The insinuation that women who seek to pursue their vocations do so out of selfish ambition is becoming very tiresome.
I wouldn't put it quite like that. I think Paul was reiterating and perhaps expanding something that existed before his instruction.
Except, of course, the Greek is "ei tis," which is "if anyone," and not a gendered expression.
I genuinely appreciate your willingness to say so.
I can see why that would make sense. However, that's not the way I see it. The way I see it is that both men and women have always been called; Paul recognised and honoured those callings (hence his support and positive comments about so many women), and it was only later, as the church became more socially "mainstream," that patriarchal norms were reasserted, taking some comments of Paul's out of their original context as justification.
In my experience, that is true of most women ministers as well.
I'm wary of how far off topic that could go, but I would be willing to venture there a little if we can keep it reasonably close to the topic. I believe in a degree of free will; that is, we make real choices, we make meaningful choices, but we are not always entirely without various limitations on our ability to choose.
