justa berean

Good job on the Chiasm.

I’d like to keep that and incorporate it into my teachings when I teach on that chapter.

I haven’t compared Paul to Peter or James, but I do appreciate the patterns in Pauls thinking and writing.

Hearty noisy hefty hugs and Christian charity back at ya Dusman. I think I’m somewhat in the middle on Calvinistic stuff. And I’m not really concerned about it. After all he was just a brother with some good ideas and a few bad ideas. 🙂

Keep the healthy balance!

Don,
I don’t recognize 33b as part of it. This sentence….

For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints…

I consider to be one whole thought. I’m thinking that vs. 34-35 are Paul quoting another’s words and they don’t include 33b. My reason in part for saying vs. 33b is not included with 34 is because of the words “in the churches”. If it were one whole thought, they wouldn’t be repeated.

It may be Epp that has some discussion on it in his book “Junia-the first Apostle”.

yes, I take it the same way Don. Paul did not often name names. When he did we can well assume the persons were deliberately set in doing what they did.

If we read the epistle as a whole with one thought leading into another, it is not unreasonable that 1 Tim. 3 is effectively telling those who were in error but not named (both men and women) that if they had a desire to lead in the church, it was a noble desire. However, they needed to learn, mature, be tried and proven in character.

Think I read some posts on the Better Bibles Blog where masc. and fem. usage in Greek was being discussed. Greek does not handle these things the same that English does.

Me, I’m more basic. Cannot get past the “anyone”. 🙂 I figure if a man were meant than different words would be used in Greek, then one whose basic primary meaning is “anyone”. It’s the “any” that changes it all.

Just heard M.S. say something to the effect that the Greek “tis” can be masculine and feminine. IOW I believe he is implying that anyone (tis) is not really “anyone”, but any man or any woman accordingly.

“Tis” in 1 Tim. 3:1 is indef., pron., nom., sing. I’m not a Greek expert at all, but that looks like just “anyone” to me.

Blind subservience is the footstool of strict patriarchy. It is what abusers and controllers live for. Those who realize this are the ones who see the link to abuse formed by patriarchy. It can be an enabler for abusers.

now I need to find a link to remind me of the html tricks…… like the strikethru and blockquote. do you have one….. 🙂

Looks like we have html 🙂

Teknomom, do you have references for information on female synogogue leaders.

The thing about what some consider orthodoxy … by teaching the congregations that only leaders can interpret Scripture (I thought the Pope was in Rome? 🙂 ) is that once the people no longer search the Scriptures for themselves, they can be instructed to believe anything the leaders wish. And then such leaders can claim anything is orthodox as long as it comes from them, much like the Catholic Pope. Once people understand how to search the Scriptures for themselves, “popish” leaders will lose their hold over them.

This is more important than we realize because a new trend is starting among patriarchalists. So much authority privileges are being piled onto church leaders and elders that now they are teaching that not to heed the counsel of an elder, whatever that may include, is grounds for public excommuncation from the church. This excommunication would come down from the elders without any legal requirements of proof or witnesses of sin or wrong doing other than the elders acknowledgement that the person did not do as they recommended, required, advised, etc as proof in itself of the larger sin of not bending to the authority of the elders. And the actual issue need never be made public. Further, the excommunicated could never disclose the particulars and the congregation was prohibited from speaking or discussing it.

See what can be built upon wrong doctrines! 🙁

Great rant teknomom. Excellent points.

Regarding the traditional inventing of an hierarchy in 1 Cor. 11:3, the first clue that one should have that the listing is NOT an hierarchy is the thought of Christ being under God. That leads into arianian heresy which is huge.

The problem is a slippery slope one that digs one deeper. Bruce Ware (isn’t he the current pres. of CBMW) has now proclaimed his view of hierarchy in the Trinity in which God the Father is the One who holds all power and authority, to which The Anointed Son Christ and the Holy Spirit must both submit. This effectively places three wills in the Trinity instead of one. It also places one preeminent and two below. All things that Athenasius fought to correct in his era. One need only read the full Athenasian Creed to see the glaring error. In the Trinity there is never disagreement because there is only ONE WILL, not one will which is submitted to by the others who give up their will for that one.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/ecumenical-creeds.html

But they proclaim this error in order to hold tightly to the privileged position of only male patristic will being allowed in marriage and in church. True unity in marriage is to have both “wills” somehow enmeshed, intertwined, interdependently working harmoniously as one.

p.s….. do we have html capabilities yet?

Thanks Don. I’d forgotten that “Learn” is in the imperative. Good thing to remember. 🙂

Don…
“hesuchia is the repeated word that forms an inclusio in 1 Tim 2:11-12 which means 1 Tim 2:11 and 2:12 are to be taken together, like they are together with a parentheses around them.”

Subconsciously I’ve always considered vs 11 to be the main point, with vs. 12 in parenthesis or indented as a subpoint. Thus, in her learning the woman is not to be attempting to teach or take over the teachers role, but to remain in the silence of vs. 11.

That’s what you mean, right. 🙂

Teknomom, it is really nice to see someone else come to the same conclusions as I have. And thanks for the workup on the word “katasteses”.

It is sad to see so much bias in translations. But it cannot be helped due to individuals having blind spots in their understanding resulting in circular reasoning and inaccurate translating.

Don’t forget 1 Timothy 5

4 But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is good and[a] acceptable before God.5 Now she who is really a widow, and left alone, trusts in God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day. 6 But she who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives. 7 And these things command, that they may be blameless. 8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Verse 8 is stated in the middle of twelve verses about widows. Verse 8 is in reference to the widow that if she has any any children or grandchildren that need her, she is worse than an infidel if she does not take care of them. Verse 16 covers people taking care of widows and even that is not addressed to men only but to “any believing man or woman”.

So really, anyone thinking to claim that “providing for one’s own household” only refers to men, just has not read their Bible thoroughly.

In one of Matt’s broadcasts, he says that he is reading the comments here. But he must be speed reading and not stopping to ponder anything he disagrees with….. 🙂

Apparantly he thinks he has “THE” answer to solve everything…. and he’s not saying it on the radio. LOL Smart move. Actually, he’s an interesting fellow.

He does make some unusual statements. I think he said in one place that the apostle Junia mentioned in Rom. 16 could have been a slave who took the name of her master, or something to that effect. I’ve heard of taking the name of a master, but certainly not the commissioned title. This is similar to some who thought the prophetesses of old were just the wives of the prophets. Creative, but not reality. There were women prophets whose husbands were not prophets.

He also considers Deborah, THE Judge of the nation, to be merely a civil judge with nothing to do with religious matters. Amazing. Never mind that Deborahs judgements were equal to the High Priests and anyone who refused to obey was put to death. Never mind that as THE Judge (not a lessor civil judge) chosen by God to lead the nation (she’s in the book of Judges for pity’s sake) and as such she teaches the Torah to God’s people. Such teaching from THE Judge over the nation who led the people by the influence of God, was authoritative….. very.

“You are right in that 1 Timothy 3 lists characteristics of those who are mature in the faith and who may be appointed as an elder – a mature believer. For one to charge a woman with sin for being a Pastor when they do not charge an unmarried man with sin is just plain prejudice.”

Cheryl, you are absolutely correct. I heard you trying to make that point with Matt. But it is a major point as it shows not only the confusion of gender hierarchy interpretations, but the prejudicial treatment of Scripture. If the one is true, then they should be using the same method of interpretation and render the other points as requirements also. ?

“If Acts 15 removed a yoke that as Peter said “neither we nor our fathers were able to bear”, does it make sense that Paul would turn around and slap a new yoke on the church restricting the “roles” of women? No it doesn’t.”

Greg, Well said. In addition the incongruity of a NEW rule, that was supposedly silently instituted at creation, but never observed by God is an amazing leap of logic. That one gets me all the time.

Also, Greg, I appreciated Deal Alford’s insight … the directions given “are altogether of an ethical, not of an hierarchical kind.” You have a 1922 Companion Bible? That’s cool! ?

ps….. Cheryl, is there any way to get html code for comments?

Cheryl,
Also, the way you applauded his good works in other areas was very very well done. I noticed he got really quiet then. 🙂 Too bad he couldn’t have reciprocated.

Cheryl, you did very well.

Matt’s constant demeaning moans and groans and relentless interruptions would be difficult for anyone.

May I recommend that you ask God how to respond without letting him steer you quite so much. Perhaps, instead of responding to some of his interruptions, you can do a sort of ignore with an “OK, but as I was saying” or something to that effect. There has to be a way that you can finish your thought patterns in spite of his trying to cut you short all the time.

I was a bit put off by his comparing you to the Jehovah Witnesses Watch Tower methods. Disruptions. Perhaps, that is his power in debate. hmmmmm. Good debaters come up with methods that will cause them to appear to win, nothing whatsoever to do with true discussion looking for truth. You have to get around that. I’m sure you will with God’s help. 🙂

The man was excessively disrespectful to you, but this is to be expected. I have found that the majority of men who believe that women are subordinated to men, giving men the privilege of leadership authority in church and home, have a certain disdain for women who do not believe men have been given that privilege by God. You are challenging his pedestal and it’s pretty high.

Regarding the “husband of one wife” phrase in 1 tim. 3, I have come to a different conclusion. Rev. Bruce C. E. Fleming has a book “Familiar Leadership Heresies Uncovered”. Rev. Bruce Fleming in two books has put forth what I believe a more correct interpretation. He quotes Lucien Deiss (notes to the French Bible, the TOB, Edition Integrate, p. 646, note a) “This Greek phrase was used in Asia Minor, on both Jewish and pagan gravestone inscriptions, to designate a woman or a man, who was faithful to his or her spouse in a way characterized by “a particularly fervent conjugal love”.”

The discussion around page 126 concludes that Paul lists characteristics, not physical qualifications. He notes 12 points of good character. I can quote them if you like.

I believe he may have illustrated for us all where we got the colloquial phrase “he is a one woman kind of guy” or “she is a one man kind of woman”. And the meaning is clearly: to be “faithful”.

The first time I read this, I remember wondering how we could have ever thought that Paul would be recommending someone be married by such a round about the bush route as to say he “must be a husband of one wife”. No one talks like that. But we do have a very ancient colloquial phrase that praises faithfulness by saying “he (or she) is a one woman kind of guy”…. ergo “husband of one wife”.

Is Matt Slick with Worthy Boards or CARM?

Worthy Boards are getting ready to blackball you big time. In my understanding that means they are running scared. They sense that your aim is good and you’ve hit a vein. They are afraid of losing something important. And unearned priority of power and control is a loss to those who’ve had it when they shouldn’t. It is something that can only safely be held when the aim is totally unselfish. And this isn’t happening.