Why Can't Men Believe what the Scriptures Say?

[EricH]

Saints,

Please keep the tone of this thread on the up and up. Arguing over the Bible in a way that discredits what the Bible has to say about how we should treat each other is not the thing to do

Thanks,

The mod team

[firehill]

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...

The only mention of Junia in the NT:

"Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." (Rom. 16:7)

This single verse does not prove that either Andronicus or Junia were apostles. According to both Greek and English grammer, they were Paul's "kinsmen" (probably Jews) and "fellow prisoners." They are "of note" among the apostles. This simply means that the apostles regard them highly. It does not mean that they are also apostles. It takes a real stretch of the imagination and a lot of verse-twisting to say that paul is calling either of these two apostles.

"commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a deaconess of the church which is in Cenchrea," (Rom. 16:1)

As I stated before, and many times, that Phoebe was a "deaconess" does not make her one who held a position of authority over men, who established and affirmed the proper doctrines of the church. A deacon is a servant, and the Greek word is used continually to indicate this. There is no reason whatever to presume that Phoebe held a position of authority over men.

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.

That's a presumption. How do you know what Paul would or would have not used?

The word used is not gender neutral, by the way. It's a masculine noun according to Strong's

'In Romans 16:7, Paul praises a woman named Junia as "outstanding among the apostles." Despite the modern mistranslation of her name as masculine "Junias" or "Junius," no commentator prior to the 13th century questioned that this apostle was a woman.1 For example, John Chrysostom, whose writings often express misogyny, wrote of Romans 16:7, "O how great is the devotion of this woman that she should be counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!"'

http://www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/wom...y/rissjunia.htm

The fact that the Greek word for 'people' is a masculine noun proves nothing other than that a masculine noun can mean 'people' a gender neutral word!

There is no proof Junia was a woman. I don't care how many times you continue to repeat this falsehood, you have no proof. The book, "Everyone In The Bible" by William P Barker says the following about Junia:

"Because the name occurs in the accusative form in the Greek, it is impossible to tell whether Junia or Junias was a woman or a man. Some think that the name refers to a woman because it appears with Andronicus and means a person named Junia, wife of Andronicus. They point out that many women are referred to by name in the Letter from Paul to the Romans. On the other hand, it seems more likely that Junias was a man because of the terms Paul used to describe Andronicus and Junias: "kinsmen and my fellow prisoners...of note among the apostles." Junias as Paul's "kinsman: was a fellow-Jew, not necessarily a relative, and was a Christian believer long before Paul.

The web-site you gave is run by a woman trying to promote a feminist viewpoint. All don't agree with her conclusions.

Likewise you cannot prove that the apostle wasn't a woman! But I do see the arguments for a female apostle very comvincing.

[firehill]

I don't have to Firehill. You are using the argument that it was definately a woman to provide proof for your conclusions. I am saying you have no such proof because nobody knows for sure what sex this person was. In addition, the person who wrote the article in the web-site you gave first says it is a woman, and then says there is no proof it was a man. The author is deliberately misleading.

I'm convinced that the apostle was a woman two convincing reasons are:

1) The male name, 'junias' never even existed in antiquity.

2) Up untell the 13th century is was accepted that the apostle was a woman.

Great, glad we cleared that up. let's move on now.

[EricH]

2) Up untell the 13th century is was accepted that the apostle was a woman.

Do you consistently apply this rule to all the doctrines you hold. In other words is that your default, what the early church believed is always correct and the most biblical??

[Ovedya]

The fact that the Greek word for 'people' is a masculine noun proves nothing other than that a masculine noun can mean 'people' a gender neutral word!

Then you know nothing about the Greek language.

[EricH]

The fact that the Greek word for 'people' is a masculine noun proves nothing other than that a masculine noun can mean 'people' a gender neutral word!

Then you know nothing about the Greek language.

Even if we conceded that Junias was a female, the case still has not been made that she was considered as having equal authority to the 12. Paul tends to have used the word apostle in 2 ways:

1. To describe himself and the 12 who had unique authority

2. To describe a spiritual gift of one who is sent on a particular mission.

One would need to demonstrate in which sense Paul was using the word in Romans 16:7 to have a complete argument

[Smalcald]

There is no question that God uses women, and that women have been used to preach. The woman at the well was an example of a woman who was used in the role of an evangelist. The question with me only comes in concerning the offices of Bishop and Deacon. It is obvious from the qualifications listed a woman is not able to fill these roles. I posted these lists in another thread, but will do so here as well.

1 Timothy 3:1-7 Qualifications for a bishop

1 Blameless

2 The husband of one wife

3 Vigilant

4 Sober

5 Of good behavior

6 Given to hospitality

7 Apt to teach

8 Not given to wine

9 No striker

10 Not greedy of filthy lucre

11 Paitent

12 Not a brawler

13 Not covetous

14 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity

15 Not a novice

16 Of a good report of them which are without

1 Timothy 3:8-12

1 Grave

2 Not doubletongued

3 Not given to much wine

4 Not greedy of filthy lucre

5 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience

6 Let these also first be proved

7 Blameless

8 The deacon's wives must be:

a Grave

b Not slanderers

c Sober

d Faithful in all things

9 Deacons must be the husband of one wife

10 Ruling their children and their own houses well.

It is obvious from the qualifications for these offices, it has to be referring strictly to a man. In both cases, they have to be the husband of one wife. The word translated to husband is aner which means a man (prop. as an individual male): fellow, husband, man, sir. It cannot be refering to a woman, and a woman cannot have a wife. Hazzard wants to know why people cannot accept what the Bible teaches, so I would ask him the same question. The Bible also tells us why these offices are to be held by a married man.

1 Timothy 3:5 "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" Before someone comes back and tries to de-sex the man, I will once again point out that regardless of the Greek word translated to man, which can mean a man or anybody, we know it has to be a male because of the other qualification that he be the husband (aner-man (prop. as an individual male): fellow, husband, man sir) of one wife.

My position, which I believe to be the Biblical one, is that women can be preachers, but not Bishops or Deacons.

According to your logic Karen, the reason for these guidelines was the people were from a heathen past. That would mean men and women alike. Then why temporarily exclude women from these offices, and later allow them to fill them? In addition, why not take the time to state these qualifications are only temporary? Next, why stop there? How about allowing a drunkard to serve, even though one qualification is not given to much wine? Back then, they used to think of being a drunkard as a sin, but in today's enlightened society, we know better than God and think of it as merely a sickness. It is judgemental and unfair to exclude a sick person from the offices as well, don't you think? Do you see the slippery slope you are going down?

Right Butaro and we have the proof that this is EXACTLY the slope which those major denominations which began ordaining women 40 years ago have gone down, almost without exception.

I want to make another point, this is NOT just a couple of versus it is in several Epistles of Paul, not just Timothy. Beyond that this theme of male leadership is in 1 Peter, with Peter supporting these positions. So the theme of the WHOLE Word IS indeed that women are not called to be Deacons, Elders or Bishops (pastors), and that they should not have authority over men in a Christian Congregation. In fact if all we had was that one passage in Timothy in which Paul says I do not let a women be in authority over a man, I would indeed take a harder look at cultural context. But we don't, we have numerous passages in numerous epistles by several authors, Peter and Paul being the foremost describing the qualifications for congregational leadership.

[firehill]

2) Up untell the 13th century is was accepted that the apostle was a woman.

Do you consistently apply this rule to all the doctrines you hold. In other words is that your default, what the early church believed is always correct and the most biblical??

No I do not apply this rule to all sound doctrines. In other words I do not apply this rule as a means to formulate sound doctrine as a default. It's just a fact that added to others...makes the case for the female apostle convincing. It is not a default I use.

[EricH]

2) Up untell the 13th century is was accepted that the apostle was a woman.

Do you consistently apply this rule to all the doctrines you hold. In other words is that your default, what the early church believed is always correct and the most biblical??

No I do not apply this rule to all sound doctrines. In other words I do not apply this rule as a means to formulate sound doctrine as a default. It's just a fact that added to others...makes the case for the female apostle convincing. It is not a default I use.

So, really it is not a part of your argument. If you are willing to admit that the early church fathers did not always know best, stating that they believed Junias to be a woman does not carry weight. In other words, it does not follow that because the early church fathers believed it, they were correct.

So your argument seems to hinge on the fact that that exact name is never found referring to a woman, is that correct?

[firehill]

The fact that the Greek word for 'people' is a masculine noun proves nothing other than that a masculine noun can mean 'people' a gender neutral word!

Then you know nothing about the Greek language.

At least prove what I said above as false.