Don

ESV 2Co 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.

The context is Paul is being challenged, so he wants to claim he passes the test.

2Co 13:2 I warned those who sinned before and all the others, and I warn them now while absent, as I did when present on my second visit, that if I come again I will not spare them–
2Co 13:3 since you seek proof that Christ is speaking in me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you.
2Co 13:4 For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but in dealing with you we will live with him by the power of God.
2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?–unless indeed you fail to meet the test!
2Co 13:6 I hope you will find out that we have not failed the test.
2Co 13:7 But we pray to God that you may not do wrong–not that we may appear to have met the test, but that you may do what is right, though we may seem to have failed.
2Co 13:8 For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.
2Co 13:9 For we are glad when we are weak and you are strong. Your restoration is what we pray for.
2Co 13:10 For this reason I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.

2 Cor 13:1-10 is the pericope, the teaching unit explaining the context.

Deu 19:15 A single witness may not testify against another person for any trespass or sin that he commits. A matter may be legally established only on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

Since I am charismatic, sometimes God can speak today, but always in alignment with Scripture.

Cloud/Townsend point out that it is false to think that compliance is always the loving thing and conflict the unloving and that often confrontation is loving, but it needs to be done correctly.

My take is that the non-egals are wearing “blue” glasses and see blue in lots of places it does not exist.

And yet she honored God twice in statements in Gen 4!

I really cannot understand why these non-egals cannot see how they are disrespecting Scripture by doing these types of things you mention. The sad thing is that some are respected and use this respect to promote blarney. It is one thing to quibble about a few points in a story, it is another to make up stories.

Hey!

I am bigger than you and I can read the Bible so I get privileges!

How come some object? They are just being rebels! 🙂

I think it is time to reduce his meds!
They are obviously having a psychoactive effect. :}

That pic is off the scale on the witty meter.

So the egg is from them. And you are trying to flip it?

I could not figure out the cartoon at first, but now I think you are claiming to make a fried egg from their “fire”.

The comps’ basic problem is that if they are wrong, they need to repent bigtime. So their increasing rhetoric can be seen as a strong resistance to the idea of their possibly needing to repent.

The pyro site demonstrates a mishandling of Torah.

Uzziah was not of Aaron and did an act that only Aaronic priests could do according to Torah.

Could women do it? No

Could gentiles do it? No

The mapping that the pyro site wants to make also applies to them.
But this they fail to see, instead pointing to “them”. This is a mistake no one should make who respects Torah, first ask how does it apply to myself. For example, in the Mosaic covenant, I am not allowed to burn priestly incense in the Temple as I am not of Aaron.

The Scriptures, not just the NT, are what is sufficient for our faith and practice. There is a lot in the NT that needs OT context to understand. And there are some things that are simply not stated in the NT as they are taught in the OT and therefore assumed by the NT author.

Jesus was the living Word of God, Paul was inspired by God when he wrote what would become Scripture.

HPK is using a flawed translation that neglects to properly translate some terms as they would have been understood in the 1st century. The solution is for him to get a better translation.

The context of Phoebe being a diakonos is exactly church. A diakonos is to be a “mias gunaikos andres” or faithful spouse, so this shows a woman can be an elder also.

HPK,

Just because you choose to read the Bible in a male preference hierarchy way does not mean that is the best way to read it, actually reading personal advantages into the Bible is one of the worst ways.

Mary sat at Jesus’ feet, which is rabbinic idiom for being a disciple. There were many others.

A male replaced Judas. This was a one-time event. The 12 were all male to map to the 12 patriarchs of Israel, so there needed to be 12 and they needed to be male.

Women were not taught Torah by rabbis other than Jesus. One needs to learn before one can teach and Jesus’ ministry was around 3.5 years. Jesus was radically egal for his 3.5 years of ministry.

I agree that one does not base doctrine on one verse. The primary meaning of the Greek is that Junia was an apostle and so say the ECF who commented on this verse. So the male hierarchicalists have to read against the primary meaning and against the testimony of the ECF.

Phoebe was a diakonos and a prostatis. Many churches met in the homes of women, where the home owner would be the assumed leader in that culture and so not need to be stated, unless it was different.

Jesus had many female disciples, Mary and Martha are examples.

The 12 mapped to the 12 Patriarchs, so there needed to be 12 and they needed to be men. When James died it is not recorded that he was replaced and I think the 12 were unique.

Junia was an apostle. It is only by denying the claims of some ECF AND denying the primary meaning of the Greek that non-egals claim the verse does not teach what it does. This verse by itself destroys the non-egal church leaders claim, so they have to find a way to deny it or repent.

Don said: “Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’

We know that this was not on day 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 in the creation account of Gen 1.”

Cheryl: “Could you please write this statement how God could have written it if the man and the woman were created as male and female? How could he have written it so that we understood that?”

Creation can take time and forming can take time. Moses could have written that Adam before the split was ish, but did not, Adam is simply human and both the man and the woman have that name after the split. The point is to not go beyond the text, going beyond the text in ANY way is speculation; and as long as it is called speculation, I do not see a problem. For our faith, it simply does not matter what type of human Adam was before the split, since it does not say. Since there was only one, it is not even clear what the meaning of type is, type only has a meaning when there are 2 types.

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’

We know that this was not on day 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 in the creation account of Gen 1.

Mat 19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

So Mat 19:4 and Mar 10:6 are saying the same thing in different ways.
They are both speaking about the time of origins and saying in this period of time, God “made” them male and female.

Love God and people and you cannot go far wrong.

I think possible scenarios are fine to discuss, as long as they are claimed to be just that.

Misuse does not deny correct use. Even if something is shown to be pagan before Moses does not mean Moses could not use it.

1. Gen 1 and 2 are not in chronological order. Gen 2-4 is in chronological order, but how Gen 1 and Gen 5 harmonize is not stated, this is left to the reader.

2. When God creates something in Gen 1 it cannot be in contradiction to him forming the same thing in Gen 2; they are different ways of expressing the same thing. In other words, forming something can be PART of the act of creation, it does not need to be ex nihilo, from nothing, or instantaneous.

3. Gen 1-11 are poetic narratives or narratives with poetic elements, the more historical and less poetic narratives start with Gen 12. I use the term poetic broadly, there are MANY understandings of how Gen 1-11 teaches us about reality. Some believers can think something in Gen 1-11 is more poetic and some can think it is more historical but I do not think this should divide believers, just like I do not think end times things should divide them. For example, I do not believe the Gen 1 days are 24 hours and my sis does, we do not let it divide us, altho we do discuss it sometimes, never changing the other’s mind, yet we both agree God is Creator.

4. When Moses does not say something, we need to respect him NOT saying it. As Moses never says Adam/human was male before the split, we do not need to think he was or was not, it is simply not stated. We do know both the male and female were named Adam by God. We do know they were made of the same stuff. There is a lot that is taught and if something is not taught that we wish were taught, then God is telling us we do not need that for our faith, instead, look at what is taught.

Part of the challenge is that translations and commentary use the term man in 2 senses, inclusive for humans and exclusive for males.

Gender is a type of human, however if there is no gender, there is just human.

I do not say that there was female as a part of Adam before the split, the side was formed into a female after the split. But there was no concept of a male or female human before the split, it is not that Adam was both sexes, Adam was non-gendered, there being only 1 human. The terms male and female are only used after the split, that is my point, and trying to have those terms apply before that is not warranted by Scripture, it simply does not say that.

One might think that if one thinks all creation is instantaneous, but that is not true, some things are said in the Bible to be created by God but the creation takes place over time.

Another thing it this is poetic language, it is not a hardware manual.

That is why I used the pot analogy, as that is what forming meant in the most basic way to the original readers. Everyone knew what it meant to form a pot.

God took some dirt/clay and formed a human, this is VERY close to a human forming a pot, it is in simple terms. Then from that 1 pot a human might decide to make 2 pots, this is something everyone can understand in that time. Do not think too technical, it is simple.

God took one formed pot and made 2 formed pots. Why? Because the one formed pot was “not good” as in not fully functional. It did function to water and till the garden, and solved the first lack, but another lack still needed to be solved. It is a 2 stage solution.

Another important point is that creation as done by God in the Bible need not be in an instant and often is not, it can take time, sometimes lots of time. If someone thinks creation is just by speaking in an instant, then it does not hang together as well as if one sees creation as being over time.

My tweak of LITV

Gen 2:21 And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall on the Adam/human, and he slept. And He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh underneath.
Gen 2:22 And Jehovah God formed the rib which He had taken from the human into a woman, and brought her to the human.
Gen 2:23 And the human said, This now at last is bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh. For this shall be called woman/ishah, because this has been taken out of man/ish.

“closed up the flesh underneath” is reforming what was left.

First God formed a human, call this pot 1 to see the simple analogy of forming.

God takes a part/side of pot 1 and forms pot 2, there is no need for pot 2 to be already in pot 1 in some sense. It also said he remade pot 1 some.

And then he calls pot 1 man and pot 2 woman.

What was pot 1 before the split? Who knows? It does not say besides human. One principle is to not go beyond the text, so I do not.