teknomom

Here’s One. Any search engine will typically provide a large number of tutorials if you just type “html codes” in the search box.

Sorry for the rabbit trail, Cheryl! Maybe I should start a “WIM Only” section on my message board so we don’t clutter up the place.

Hmmm… my attempt to use for a strikethrough on “Side” in “dark side ages” didn’t work. Trying “strike” this time.

I don’t have references, but Dr. Nyland does. 😉

Copyright laws forbid me to copy/paste them here, but you can see them in the PDF at This Link and click on the link for 1 Timothy With Notes.

Now I have to try a blockquote!

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.

Ironically, Calvin earned the epithet “Pope of Geneva” due to his extreme intolerance for dissent.

Yes, we live in a time when good is called evil and evil good, when patriotism is turned into blind subservience to the state, and where there is a great push to return to the Dark Side Ages both politically and spiritually. It’s also been noted that with the rise in body piercing and cutting, global society is returning to the spirit of Baal worship.

This issue of male supremacism may seem trivial to some, but people never do see an individual step as part of a journey. This is just one of many indicators of the abandonment of plain Biblical truth and the simple faith in Jesus for experiences, rituals, and oppression. It is not egalitarianism that is the “slippery slope”!

Thanks JB! And good point also about the “eternal sonship” heresy. Somehow this is now considered orthodoxy!

As with many other heresies, it was born out of the realization that they painted themselves into a corner with their “head = boss” teaching. But instead of giving up the first error they adopted a second one to cover it.

And, just like what they do with egalitarians, they claim that to disagree with them is to deny the eternal divinity of Jesus. (It’s also a Calvinist tactic: Anyone who isn’t a Calvinist MUST be an Arminian, and all Arminians are heretics.)

(tried a little html, we’ll see how it goes)

I’m glad the focus will be on 1 Tim. 2, because Dr. Nyland’s notes for this book are available for free at This Link as a PDF.

One point about this passage is that there were in fact female synagogue leaders in the first century. It is these who thought they could then automatically be teachers of the assembly. But Paul counters this notion by saying they have to first sit down and learn quietly with the other new believers before they can teach, regardless of their position in the synagogues.

Then of course Paul focuses on one particular woman who was teaching the Gnostic heresy that Eve was created first. Paul points out in vs. 13 that Adam was created first according to Genesis. This flow of thought makes perfect sense with the Gnostic heresy in view, but the referral to Genesis is illogical if the topic is instead some heirarchy based upon “outward appearances”. Dr. Rebecca Groothuis in her book “Good News for Women” (which I commented on Here) My comments on that part:

===========================
To say that woman must be inferior to man because she was created from him would be to also say that man must be inferior to dust! To say that man is superior to woman because he was created first is to also say that all the animals are superior to man! As Paul points out, other than Eve, all men have come from women, so by traditionalist logic this should mean that all mankind except Adam is inferior to Eve. And we see in the Bible that God frequently chose the younger to rule over the older (Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, etc.). So neither derivation nor prior existence can be used to argue in favor of male domination or superiority.
…
Traditionalist logic here is circular. They assume that Genesis supports female subordination, then when reading 1 Tim. 2:11-15 they appeal back to it as their justification for their view. In other words, they presume authority being established in Genesis, then use it to support their interpretation of Paul’s words to Timothy as being universally applicable since it refers to creation order.
===========================

And then there’s the whole “authority” issue, as we’ve discussed before. There is no such concept as “authoritative teaching” defined in the epistles. The apostles had authority as having seen the risen Lord, but even then they did not use this authority as hierarchical but laid down their rights and called themselves servants of the assembly. Yet The Institutional Church insists that there is a clergy and laity distinction in the Body of Christ, as if it is divided or has two Heads.

This authority view not only puts men over women but men over men as well. But the epistles know nothing of such division, and Paul spoke out against it. There is to be no “covering”, no “lording it over”, no “Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female” in the Body. The Holy Spirit is our “covering”, the NT is our authority, and no part of the Body can say to another, “I have no need of you!”

I have yet to hear any male supremacist be able to explain how it is not prideful to put onesself over another in the assembly. No matter how kindly, benevolently, or minimally they rule, they still RULE. They want final say in all spiritual matters, not based upon gifting or experience, but upon genetics– the flesh! They invent a “boys’ club” and thereby disqualify the people they’ve excluded from having the right to question them. Very convenient– and very cult-like.

Elders in the assembly were to be respected as teachers, as examples of spiritual maturity and good citizens. They were not to think of this as a position of power, but a service to their students. And the students are supposed to graduate someday, not remain in school forever. So knowing the qualifications of eldership are all about spiritual and behavioral issues, how can anyone be excluded from eldership on the basis of their physical appearance?

And where is the modern-day “Pastor” (spoken reverently) in the NT? Where is this spiritual CEO or sublevel management team called either “associate pastors” or “deacons”? (The word “deacon” is not a translation but a transliteration, and means “minister”, of which Phoebe was clearly called one!) Where is The Pulpit (spoken loftily)? Where is any kind of chain of command?

Typically they hold up 1 Cor. 11:3 for this. But, as is his habit, Paul is making a play on words with “kephale” or “head”. He’s about to discuss the Corinthians’ question concerning the social custom of head coverings, but he prefaces it with the statement here. Hierarchy is not the subject at all, but head coverings, and Paul only uses a common word for “authority” (exousia) when telling them that the woman has authority over her own head. So the use of “kephale” does not indicate “headship” in the modern sense at all. Rather, as Dr. Nyland shows from her notes concerning the semantic range of this word, God is the source of Christ who is the source of man who is the source of women.

Notice that God (theos) is the source of Christ, not the Father (patris). How could Christ have God, not just the Father, as his source unless he were also God, as Christians have always believed? Conversely, how could Theos be the “boss” of Christ when Christ contains all the fullness of Theos?

So Paul is giving a chronological order, not an order of hierarchy. First came Adam, then Eve, then Christ. It’s very simple and straightforward. We could even say it’s “the plain meaning of scripture”. But the supremacist view must impose a modern meaning for “head” onto the text and change the whole topic at hand in order to claim this verse as supporting hierarchy.

Sorry for the long ramble but it just had to be said. Hope it helps!

Yes, thanks!

Checking “notify” feature…

Also, another thought on the tampering issue:

When it comes to essentials of the faith, we have “checks and balances”– denominationalism! The very thing most people cite as a fault in Christianity turns out to be a safeguard against most attempts to alter the Word of God, because each group will insist that others will not get away with obvious meddling.

However…

There is no such safeguard on women’s issues. Male supremacism crosses denominatonal lines, as well as inter-religious lines. Somewhere I read that a committee discussing how to word the part about Junia being “outstanding among the apostles” decided that their assertion of females being forbidden to be authoritative trumped what the Bible actually said in Greek! They started with their bias and bent the Word around it.

This kind of thing, to use a ‘Slick’ quote, is what the cults do.

Glad to help, Dusman. I’d say The Source and Bushnell’s God’s Word to Women are two of the most important books I’ve ever read, not only on women’s issues but on good exegetical practice. I’ve also learned quite a lot from them on how the Biblical texts have been monkeyed with, not only in translations but sometimes also in official versions of original language texts. (GWTW can be read FREE online at This Link.

There’s also a very eye-opening blog article on tampering at The Better Bibles Blog, especially this part:

=====================
When the minuscules (using lower case Greek letters) appeared, Junia was accented with a character which indicates the feminine form of the name. Despite the Roman Aegidus, the feminine form of the name was in the Greek text of Erasmus’ critical text in 1516 and in all critical Greek texts, with the exception of Alford’s 1858 edition, until 1928 when Nestle inexplicably (read, he didn’t explain it in the apparatus) went to the masculine form. This remained the case until the 1998, when the edition just as inexplicably went back the other way and the masculine is dropped as even an alternative (not in the apparatus). Hence, the textual weight is for the feminine name Junia, which most scholars accept.
=====================

When the official original language versions used by translators are tampered with like this, we can see how deep and ugly this bias against women really is. If even the Word itself is not sacred to these men, what is?

Just a little point I felt compelled to make, as I’ve been reading through The Source NT and am at 1 Timothy right now.

If Matt claims that “provide for household” must indicate a male, remind him of the woman of Proverbs 31. She is described as PROVIDING for her household, and she does this in many ways, not limited to financial income.

I highyly recommend finding a printed copy of this NT as the Greek notes are invaluable, especially on 1 Timothy 3. This chapter’s notes happen to be the only ones available for FREE online at This Link.

Cheryl said:
———————
Today Matt’s callers said that he did a really good job with me on the debate and that he was kind and held himself back. I could be wrong and stand to be corrected if I am, but his kind of “kindness” just doesn’t touch my heart.
———————

What this really means is that Matt held himself back ***from his usual level of abusive behavior***. It does NOT mean he held himself back as a mature Christian should, so you have nothing to be concerned about.

He is used to deaing with very abusive atheists and cultists, and is quite capable of dishing out abuse in return. That is the sort of debate environment he’s used to. But he has no idea what to do with a fellow believer who is polite and logical. Ironically, while he is quick to point out numerous logical fallacies used against him, he uses them himself against you (ad hominem at the very least).

Personally, I believe harsh treatment is justified (but of course not demanded) with people who are themselves behaving poorly or attacking our faith. By both example and teaching, Jesus and the apostles were kind to the humble but very nasty to the proud (one of the rare times I agree with a Calvinist catch-phrase!). By that rule, Matt would feel justified in being harsh to you since he views egalitarianism as heresy. But that is countered by the fact that *** this is the very heart of the debate. *** In other words, he cannot claim heresy until it has been proven, so until such proof is established he has no right to be abusive.

Dusman,

Thank you for putting additional “teeth” in what I’ve been saying for quite a while now. The Institution as it is sometimes called comes straight out of ancient Greek and Roman paganism and civic order. I searched the entire Bible once for “pulpit” and only found it in the KJV in the Old Testament, and it was a poorly translated meaning of “platform”. The special building/temple, altar, raised platform, rituals, and even choirs all come from paganism. (This is not to say choirs are evil! Only that they are not a Christian invention and were in fact used in pagan religions.)

I also talked in my message board about gifts vs. offices and what authority looks like among believers. But I should point out that there are many in the house church movement who are even stricter against women than The Institution. Women are not allowed to utter a sound during “services” and have to wear head coverings. I am astounded that people who can see the errors of Churchianity are so blind to this misogyny.

Cheryl,

I’m very encouraged to hear of the interest of people in the studio in the debate. Yes, you stayed calm and he didn’t, which I’m sure wasn’t easy. And you didn’t let him intimidate you either.

But I have to say his attempt to equate your exegesis with that of the JWs was a cheap shot and a low blow. He should be ashamed for doing such a thing. I could easily level that same charge against him, not only on this issue but also on his Calvinism.

Authority, grammatical vs. biological gender, and using English translations as the “plain” reading of scripture seem to be his main weaknesses.

U go girl!

Okay, one more thing… 🙂

Dr. Katherine Bushnell, in her book “God’s Word to Women”, points out something very important about the Genesis passage, in which Slick emphasized “he SHALL rule over you”. Genesis 3:16 should read: “A snare has increased your sorrow and sighing, in sorrow you will bring forth children. Your turning will be to your husband, and he will rule over you.” Bushnell Lessons 13-19.

(see http://www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/scripture/genesis3.htm for more)

That article shows that God never COMMANDED Eve’s subordination (“shall”), but simply warned her of what would happen (“will”) if she elected to follow Adam out of the garden. Eve was never ordered out; it specifically states “the man”. Eve was being BLESSED by God with the promise of the Savior through “her seed”. Why would anyone think God immediately turned to cursing her with servitude? Eve had told the truth! Adam blamed Eve but Eve simply reported what happened. She did disobey God but freely admitted her sin. That is precisely why Jesus had to be born of a woman, a virgin (“her seed”). It was a prophecy and a sign because of Eve’s admission of sin by being deceived.

(Cheryl, you’d be interested in the “sign” aspect as one of those cases of “a second witness”. Isaiah 7:14 says, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a **sign**: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” The immediate context there would not understand “a young woman” as any kind of sign, but a “virgin” is an unmistakable sign! So this sign confirms the prophecy in Genesis 3.)

As I said in the other post, Slick made a very big deal about “authority” in a “church” setting, especially “the pulpit”. The word “pulpit” or its equivalent is not found in the NT at all. Neither are “pastors” ever shown as having authority. And in the link to my message board there’s a good discussion on the fact that Elders are not “preachers” or people having authority **over other believers**.

This is the most fundamental flaw in all complementarianism: “lording it over”. Of course they say they don’t do this, preferring instead to call it “servant leadership”, but actions speak louder than words. They are **usurping authority** that does not belong to them! It’s part of the larger problem of hierarchy in the churches, where a clergy class is invented from thin air. The NT never hints at any such thing.

It’s all about Pride. How can “submit to one another” be twisted to “women must obey men”? How can it not be called Pride to put one half of the Body of Christ over the other? That is not “leadership”, it’s domination, and it’s against what Jesus said and did and what the apostles taught.

Dr. Rebecca Groothuis made an excellent case against such hierarchy in her book “Good News for Women”, especially in quoting the phrase “hermeneutical gerrymandering” to describe the imaginary line these prideful men draw around women’s activities in the church. (see This Link for my review of her book)

Press Slick to define from scripture where these lines of authority are drawn. Ask him where it says certain men have authority over other men. You already tried to get him to prove that all women are forbidden to teach “authoritatively”, which he simply asserts and does not prove, but he has not yet shown where the Bible defines “authoritative teaching” in the NT church. The only such “auth. teaching” I can find is where Acts says the people “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching”, aka our NT epistles.

Thanks Kerryn! God bless.

To: Kerryn

“Elders” is from the Greek word “presbuterous” (plural) [masc. is presbutas and fem. is presbutidas].

“Guardian” or “Overseer” is from the Greek word “episkopos”.

“Deacon” is a transliteration of the Greek word “diakonos”; the translation is “minister” meaning “one who serves”.

The word “elder” sometimes is rendered “older man” or “older woman”, other times as the title of an official. Context has to be used to determine which is meant. But we at least know that both are possible meanings.

That “elder” word is used in Titus 1 for people who were to be appointed, so these had to be “Elders”, not simply “older people”. Then in ch. 2 we see the same basic Greek word yet instead of “Elders” it is typically translated “older men” and “older women”. Were these not the “appointees” Paul just wrote about a few paragraphs earlier? Titus had been left in Crete for the expressed purpose of appointing “Elders”, yet for some reason translators think the subject changed. Can it be prejudice? After all, if these appointed officials are the subject, then it would mean– gasp!– that there were such things as female Elders! Horrors!

These women were to be “holy as is fitting for their appointment…”. The Greek in Titus 1:5 is “katasteses” (verb), and in 2:3 is “katastemati” (noun). Both are listed in the same spot in Mounce’s Analytical Lexicon with the meaning “behavior, appearance”, yet 1:5 is given the meaning “appoint”. This makes no sense; how can it mean “behavior” in 1:5– “I left you in Crete to **appear** elders in every city”? Vine’s Expository Dictionary also uses “appoint”, which makes sense, yet we have to wonder why the lexicon does not include this meaning.

At any rate, the same root word is used in both 1:5 and 2:3. It makes perfect sense to continue the “appoint” meaning in 2:3– “likewise the female elders to behave as is proper for their appointment”. This same word also appears in Acts 6:3 for appointing people to oversee the distribution of food to the Greek widows. Strong’s has these words under 2688 “behavior” but then says “from 2525” which means “appoint, ordain”. But it’s always wise to consult experts in Greek, and one respected scholar is Dr. Ann Nyland. She translates the words as “appoint” and “appointment”.

So we have the same root word, and it is translated “appoint” in places where either men are clearly indicated in the context or the context is not specific. Yet in the instance where women are clearly indicated, they switch to “behavior”. Inconsistent, to say the least, and likely prejudicial.

I should also add that Titus 2:4 has the word “neas” from which we get “neo” or “new” (primary meaning of Strong’s 3501). So these female elders were to teach the “new” female believers, not “young women”.

Hope that helps!

Hoo boy! I don’t know how, but I managed to listen to the whole debate. Cheryl, you had much more patience and poise than I would have had.

I took some quick notes, and here are the main things I put down:

– Slick doesn’t know the difference between grammatical gender and biological gender (linguists all know this)

– He only wants to “dig” if it suits him

– he only wants to consider society in context if it suits him

– he wants a “checklist” only when it suits him

– he says “A CHRISTIAN SHOULD KNOW BETTER”. I couldn’t agree more!!

– he wants to dish out ad hominem but not take it; accused you of listening to “worldly” reasoning

– he appears ignorant of scholarship on Greek word meanings

– at about 30 minutes he starts groaning, sighing, and getting high-pitched and emotional, then can be heard laughing

– he allows women to teach men but “not as elders or pastors”, as authorities, and gives “Adam was made first” as the reason!

– he refused to back up his “federal headship” when pressed whether Eve would have been charged with sin if only Adam had sinned

– rejects Jesus taking away all sin! (Calvinism cited as basis– “limited atonement” heresy!)

– accused you of misrepresentation

– called you a CULTIST in style… BECAUSE YOU DIG INTO SCRIPTURE!!

– called you DECEIVED

– wants to pick his personal choice for what AUTHENTEIN means even while admitting no other scripture uses it

– can’t get past believing “pastors and elders have authority”

Slick would be very hard-pressed to prove that last one. You may be interested in a discussion on this topic at my message board.

For example, “pastor” is a gift, not an office. Only “elders” can be appointed, and he should know better than to claim the word for “elder” in Titus 1 is only referring to males; it is simply the plural form and does not mean only males. In Chapter 2 we see the words “male elders” and “female elders”, and no contextual reason to change the meaning there to “older men” and “older women”, especially given the overall context of the entire letter. And the word “appointment” is given in regards to the “female elders”! Age cannot be appointed!

That seems to be his big sticking point.

Overall, he acted the way I fully expected him to, and he could barely contain his frustration with frequent sighing in the background. You had him on the ropes Cheryl, whether he’ll ever admit it or not. I only hope that the women listening will at least check out the calm and uninterrupted DVD set, or the many fine articles available at your blog and other sites.

Kudos for the effort!

Hoo boy! I don’t know how, but I managed to listen to the whole debate. Cheryl, you had much more patience and poise than I would have had.

I took some quick notes, and here are the main things I put down:

— Slick doesn’t know the difference between grammatical gender and biological gender (linguists all know this)

— He only wants to “dig” if it suits him

— he only wants to consider society in context if it suits him

— he wants a “checklist” only when it suits him

— he says “A CHRISTIAN SHOULD KNOW BETTER”. I couldn’t agree more!!

— he wants to dish out ad hominem but not take it; accused you of listening to “worldly” reasoning

— he appears ignorant of scholarship on Greek word meanings

— at about 30 minutes he starts groaning, sighing, and getting high-pitched and emotional, then can be heard laughing

— he allows women to teach men but “not as elders or pastors”, as authorities, and gives “Adam was made first” as the reason!

— he refused to back up his “federal headship” when pressed whether Eve would have been charged with sin if only Adam had sinned

— rejects Jesus taking away all sin!

— accused you of misrepresentation

— called you a CULTIST in style… BECAUSE YOU DIG INTO SCRIPTURE!!

— called you DECEIVED

— wants to pick his personal choice for what AUTHENTEIN means even while admitting no other scripture uses it

— can’t get past believing “pastors and elders have authority”

Slick would be very hard-pressed to prove that last one. You may be interested in a discussion on this topic at my message board.

For example, “pastor” is a gift, not an office. Only “elders” can be appointed, and he should know better than to claim the word for “elder” in Titus 1 is only referring to males; it is simply the plural form and does not mean only males. In Chapter 2 we see the words “male elders” and “female elders”, and no contextual reason to change the meaning there to “older men” and “older women”, especially given the overall context of the entire letter. And the word “appointment” is given in regards to the “female elders”! Age cannot be appointed!

That seems to be his big sticking point.

Overall, he acted the way I fully expected him to, and he could barely contain his frustration with frequent sighing in the background. You had him on the ropes Cheryl, whether he’ll ever admit it or not. I only hope that the women listening will at least check out the calm and uninterrupted DVD set, or the many fine articles available at your blog and other sites.

Kudos for the effort!

I’ve seen it even worse than that.

I once stumbled upon a message board that was so extreme in its view of women as slaves or children, it made me sick. This was perportedly a “Christian” site! The wives were to be given regular spankings and even “maintenance” punishments to “keep them in line”. And that’s about the only thing I can stand to post about it.

This is even worse than Islam, and rivals the depravity of the Talmud. Satan’s hatred of women knows no bounds.

Today it’s egalitarians… tomorrow it will be those who aren’t “purpose driven”… the day after that it will be Bible believers. And it all comes from “the church”. History tells us that persecution is never worse than when it comes from wolves in sheep’s clothing, from “our own household”.

“Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues.” (Rev. 18:4)

This “heathen” internet may be the last place for true believers to fellowship and speak out, so let all of us who have a web presence shout the truth while it is still “day”.

Hey “David”– aim between the eyes. 😉

I’m going to email you some things I’ve learned from experience in informal debates with Calvinists (and evolutionists, cultists, etc.). I’m sure they’re reading this blog!

Cheryl,

Hmmm… it seems the world was not “Worthy” of you! (Heb. 11:38)

This unfathomable hatred of women by people who should know better is a sign of the nearness of Jesus’ return. I wrote a little about that at http://theology.fether.net/index.php?id=745 if anyone is interested.

Any of us who have stood for how God views women have felt that same sting of betrayal. We tell them what scripture says as kindly as possible yet they react almost like unbelievers. Their anger reveals a deep-seated refusal to fully obey God, because they are proud. Pride in one’s gender is no better than pride in one’s skin color or social rank, and God hates it all.

I’m no one to talk, but I’d suggest going into this arena like a brave Christian thrown to the lions for the entertainment of the crowds. Or like going out for a drive in the car: expect people to cut you off and act like jerks, so that when they do this it won’t be a surprise. I dunno, just trying to help. 😉

I see the predictable ax has been swung… the topic has been locked. Yet look at the Eternal Security thread (“do you believe in once saved, always saved”) in the same Doctrinal Questions category… it has 1771 replies and over 24,000 views, yet it still isn’t locked! (Apparently the topic is only going in circles if the circle is “pink”.)

Just a thought, one I haven’t seen yet in the WB thread (but of course it’s a little off-topic anyway):

Titus 1:5 says Titus was to “appoint elders”, and the Greek word is “presbuterous” (masc.). In chapter 2 verse 2 we see the words “presbutas” (masc.) and “presbutidas” (fem.). All have the same root word. Whoever is being appointed in ch. 1 is being addressed also in ch. 2, and the people they are to train are not **young** but **new believers**.

So the jaw-dropping teaching of scripture here is that the appointed (maybe even “ordained”) elders are to teach the new believers. What it does NOT say is that old women are to teach young women!

But the biggest point of all is that whoever is doing the teaching in ch. 2 had to be APPOINTED. Age cannot be appointed!

Just thought I’d share that.

Hi Cheryl

I was a longtime member of WB. I went many rounds on this and other issues, but can only hope now that what was posted is still there somewhere and will someday help someone. Very few there will tolerate dissention from the mainstream, and their views are solidly hierarchical, both on the issue of women and of “church” itself with its clergy/laity distinction.

I looked at the thread and went about halfway through, and I saw that the same antagonists I had dealt with are still unwilling to stick to the actual questions and arguments, preferring instead to change the topic or set up straw men. You’re doing a fine job of trying to keep turning them back to the points you’re making, but they refuse to listen.

If you want to know why I finally left, please email me, as I have no desire to publicly humiliate them but will leave them to answer directly to God.

Women’s issues and “churchianity” have long been areas of great interest to me. On the latter, you may be interested in what I have written here:

http://theology.fether.net/index.php?id=460

http://theology.fether.net/index.php?id=461

There are websites that go much deeper into these issues, but be advised that some of them also promote heretical things like contemplative spirituality, the defining characteristic of what is being called “the emerging / emergent church”. And many in the “house church” movement are very strict against women. So even some of those who recognize what is wrong with hierarchy in the church still are blind to that same hierarchy between genders.