Karen C. Posted March 8, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 662 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/15/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/01/1960 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Okay, now I've deleted your post, Karen C. As long as you continue to post things from other sites without the proper reference, your posts will be deleted. We have a firm policy against plagiarism. Whatever... :whistling:You obviously did not read where I had wrote on what AUTHORITY I used the AG positional paper.. Did you?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted March 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Okay, now I've deleted your post, Karen C. As long as you continue to post things from other sites without the proper reference, your posts will be deleted. We have a firm policy against plagiarism. Whatever... :whistling:You obviously did not read where I had wrote on what AUTHORITY I used the AG positional paper.. Did you?? All web site design, text, graphics, layout and content contained in this web site are copyright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatingaxe Posted March 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 9,613 Content Per Day: 1.45 Reputation: 656 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1952 Share Posted March 8, 2007 And you didn't give one thing in that entire post to show to dispute the fact that one of the qualifications of a bishop and deacon is that they be the husband of one wife, and that the word translated to husband can only refer to a man. As such, women are not qualified to hold either office. Because it is plain, no I don't have to accept women in these offices because it has been said that Paul's writings are hard to understand. If you feel you do not have to accept a woman in an office, then don't. It's to your own detriment, so stop trying to shove your superior male "headship" down our throats. It is not becoming of a man of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted March 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Okay, now I've deleted your post, Karen C. As long as you continue to post things from other sites without the proper reference, your posts will be deleted. We have a firm policy against plagiarism. The answer she gave regarding the supposed ministry of Phoebe didn't have anything to do with what I said anyway. There is no proof of exactly what kind of ministry Phoebe had, though those with a feminist agenda have been making the charge of bias in the translation. it's true. Phoebe is mentioned highly of by Paul, but he never once wrote that she was a "leader" in any church locality. A deacon is a servant. In function a deacon did not administrate or teach the orthodox doctrines of the church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatingaxe Posted March 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 9,613 Content Per Day: 1.45 Reputation: 656 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1952 Share Posted March 8, 2007 And you didn't give one thing in that entire post to show to dispute the fact that one of the qualifications of a bishop and deacon is that they be the husband of one wife, and that the word translated to husband can only refer to a man. As such, women are not qualified to hold either office. Because it is plain, no I don't have to accept women in these offices because it has been said that Paul's writings are hard to understand. If you feel you do not have to accept a woman in an office, then don't. It's to your own detriment, so stop trying to shove your superior male "headship" down our throats. It is not becoming of a man of God. I can say the same thing back to you. If you want to take a position contrary to scripture, take it, and stop trying to shove your feminist views down our throats. It is not becoming of a lady. I follow what the entire Bible says, not just one verse. If the entire Word of God lauds women in service, and one verse seems to contradict, I go for the majority. You cannot hold to a doctrine based on one tiny verse or two. No wonder there is clamour. I do not have feminist views, but rather this lady holds to the view of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted March 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted March 8, 2007 And you didn't give one thing in that entire post to show to dispute the fact that one of the qualifications of a bishop and deacon is that they be the husband of one wife, and that the word translated to husband can only refer to a man. As such, women are not qualified to hold either office. Because it is plain, no I don't have to accept women in these offices because it has been said that Paul's writings are hard to understand. If you feel you do not have to accept a woman in an office, then don't. It's to your own detriment, so stop trying to shove your superior male "headship" down our throats. It is not becoming of a man of God. I can say the same thing back to you. If you want to take a position contrary to scripture, take it, and stop trying to shove your feminist views down our throats. It is not becoming of a lady. I follow what the entire Bible says, not just one verse. If the entire Word of God lauds women in service, and one verse seems to contradict, I go for the majority. You cannot hold to a doctrine based on one tiny verse or two. No wonder there is clamour. I do not have feminist views, but rather hold to the view of God. The problem as I see it, FA is twofold: On the one hand there is a misinterpretation of the "many verses" which only appear to give women such authority, and on the other there is a clear problem with your keeping of the few verses which withold that authority from women. you cannot keep the whole Bible by selecting only certain verses that support your suppositions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firehill Posted March 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,980 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted March 8, 2007 As far as the apostleship and eldership are concerned, since they include authority, teaching and the establishment of doctrinal orthodoxy, only a man is permitted to hold these offices. Only men eh? Junia was an apostle, Phoebe a deacon, and 1 Timothy and many other passages seem to be speaking of female elders... If Paul believed that only men should be entrusted with his principles, doctrines and teachings then he wouldn't have used a gender neutral term, 'people' in 2 Timothy 2:2. 2 Tim 2:2, "And entrust what you heard me say in the presence of many others as witnesses to faithful people who will be competent to teach others as well." NET 2 Timothy 2:2 2 You have heard me teach things that have been confirmed by many reliable witnesses. Now teach these truths to other trustworthy people who will be able to pass them on to others. NLT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karen C. Posted March 8, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 662 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/15/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/01/1960 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Okay, now I've deleted your post, Karen C. As long as you continue to post things from other sites without the proper reference, your posts will be deleted. We have a firm policy against plagiarism. Whatever... :whistling:You obviously did not read where I had wrote on what AUTHORITY I used the AG positional paper.. Did you?? All web site design, text, graphics, layout and content contained in this web site are copyright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firehill Posted March 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,980 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted March 8, 2007 As far as the apostleship and eldership are concerned, since they include authority, teaching and the establishment of doctrinal orthodoxy, only a man is permitted to hold these offices. Only men eh? Junia was an apostle, Phoebe a deacon, and 1 Timothy and many other passages seem to be speaking of female elders... If Paul believed that only men should be entrusted with his principles, doctrines and teachings then he wouldn't have used a gender neutral term, 'people' in 2 Timothy 2:2. 2 Tim 2:2, "And entrust what you heard me say in the presence of many others as witnesses to faithful people who will be competent to teach others as well." NET 2 Timothy 2:2 2 You have heard me teach things that have been confirmed by many reliable witnesses. Now teach these truths to other trustworthy people who will be able to pass them on to others. NLT Junia was a man. 'Now early in this century a very famous German scholar, Hans Lietzmann, who was a superb philologian, made an investigation into all surviving names of antiquity and came to the conclusion that the name Junias did not exist -- that the name Junianus existed and that the name Junias is possible as a short form for the name Junianus, but there was no evidence that it was ever used. So he says philologically you cannot bring evidence that this was a man Junias rather than a woman Junia, but he says that since it's not thinkable that a woman was an apostle, we have to read the male name Junias. And later commentaries say we have to read the male name Junias, because Hans Lietzmann has brought the philological evidence. Well,... he has done the evidence. He has done the opposite! So, no question -- scholars agree today that indeed Romans 16 contains reference to a female apostle named Junia, whom Paul recognized as an apostle before him. ' There is alot of other info regarding Junia, in a commentary here: http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/rom16.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatingaxe Posted March 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 9,613 Content Per Day: 1.45 Reputation: 656 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1952 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Apart from what most of us have read over the years as Phoebe being a servant (Pastor) in the Church: Romans 16:1... Now I introduce and commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchreae I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a deacon in the church in Cenchrea. I have good things to say about Phoebe, who is a leader in the church at Cenchreae. And I commend you to Phebe our sister -- being a ministrant of the assembly that [is] in Cenchrea -- But I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is minister of the assembly which is in Cenchrea; I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts