I've attended church
ALL my life
I've heard at least
(AT LEAST)
an average of one sermon
(AT LEAST)
an average of one sermon
a week
not counting all the sermons lived out
in the lives of people I admire
60 years x 52 weeks each year
I've heard in surplus of
three thousand
one hundred
and twenty
sermons preached
no doubt
by dozens or hundreds of preachers
For the first ~half of my life
all those preachers would have been men
For the second ~half of my life
almost all those preachers would have been women
(including some transgender women)
I can say
with complete and utter confidence that
FAR and away
not even close
in any way
whatsoever
the very best sermons I've heard
the best preachers and teachers I've heard
the most compelling prophets and
words of wisdom I've heard
have been from
women
Period
And so
if it happens that there are some
men
who believe that women
can't teach
preach
be prophets calling down holy fire
and who try to stop words of wisdom
from the wisest and strongest
well
they are damned fools
End of my poor sermon
A Woman could have preached it better
193 comments:
One of the lessons I've learned from all the good teachers and preachers over the years is the lack of value in some people's words.
Consider this,from Paul...
Warn them before God against quarreling about words;
it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved,
a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who
correctly handles the word of truth.
Avoid godless chatter,
because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly.
Their teaching will spread like gangrene...
Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments,
because you know they produce quarrels.
And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but
must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.
Opponents must be gently instructed...
And...
If anyone teaches a different doctrine and
does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and
the teaching that accords with godliness,
that person is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing.
They has an unhealthy craving for controversy
and for quarrels about words,
which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions,
and constant friction among people who are
depraved in mind and deprived of the truth...
Or these, from Proverbs...
A dishonest man spreads strife, and
a whisperer separates close friends...
A person of wrath stirs up strife, and
one given to anger causes much transgression
Or these, from my mother:
IF you can't say nothing nice
then don't say anything at all.
Marshal...
when we could better have engaged in a discussion about female pastors.
There's no conversation to be had. Some men (and women) want to decide who can and can't be a pastor because they think, in their arrogance, that they speak for God and THEIR understandings are The One True Understanding. The pharisees thought in a similar fashion.
But small-minded people with personal agendas and tremendous egos just don't get to speak for God. Your arms are too short to box with God, mortal.
You want to tell God that women can't be pastors? Take it up with God. You're not going to pass on your personal opinions and human traditions as if you speak for God here.
Now, if you want to say something constructive and helpful here, that is fine. Rude, unsupported comments however, will not.
And when I say that people who presume to speak for God are doing that... and that they're small-minded, it's simply a descriptor. Some of you all read these passages in the Bible and YOU THINK in your minds that this means - can ONLY mean - that God is opposed to women pastors. It's a human opinion based on human traditions. God has not told us this. Period.
It's small-minded and arrogant to read these passages and conclude NOT ONLY that, to you, it seems that God is saying women shouldn't be pastors, BUT that YOU all are THE ONES who understand God correctly on this point and no one else does.
Do you understand how this is arrogant? Small-minded?
And that my pointing that out is not saying something unkind, it's just being descriptive.
Another thing to keep in mind is that it's fine to agree to disagree and remain very polite when it's two humans saying, in good faith, "here is my opinion and it's what I'll act on in my life." It's another thing when ONE of the parties is saying THEY alone are the correct ones and they'll implement their opinions not only in their own lives, but in the lives of others.
If you personally believe that licking mossy, muddy rocks is a good thing and you want to do that in your own life, I don't have to respond harshly or condemn you in any way. Live and let live. BUT, when you want to say everyone should lick mossy, muddy rocks and you start implementing rules to force your opinion on others, then it behooves rational people to react strongly and even harshly... at least to the degree that you have power to force your will.
The Southern Baptists and their ilk are making themselves irrelevant and pharisee-like, and that's not good for them and, to the degree that they have power in certain circles to enforce their opinions, we need to speak out.
Then surely, Dan, you have some passages or verses which completely promote the concept and contradict those verses which clearly state an opposition to the notion. I'll wait here while you don't provide them.
And as to one insisting one has the correct understanding of Scripture and thus God's Will, it stands as truth until some whiny leftist can provide something substantive other than "Nyuh uh" or less as an argument, while laughingly speaking in condescending tones about "adult conversation" and "arguing in 'good faith'". I am not "alone" in my beliefs in the least. I'm supported by centuries of commentaries and understandings, as well as by a clear reading of the clear teachings of Scripture. What have YOU got?
If the Lord of the Universe who created the Universe cannot do anything new and surprising that is wholly of grace and love, then you have two options, Marshal.
Your god is dead.
Or you don't believe in a real god.
Then surely, Dan, you have some passages or verses which completely promote the concept and contradict those verses which clearly state an opposition to the notion.
Feodor addressed this magnificently. Your response above MIGHT make sense if you view the Bible as a magic rule book, a little paper god you must seek approval from. But not everyone operates from your magic rule book approach. The Pharisees did, and the Southern Baptists still often do. But none of them are God or Reason or Human Decency.
There are passages in the Bible that affirm that in God there is neither male nor female (yikes! That must be terrifying for those opposed to transgender people). There are passages that speak of women leading men, of women preaching and teaching, prophesying and speaking truth to power - including to powerful men who needed to be rebuked.
There are passages that speak of human rights and affirming that of God in all of us AND there are passages that condemn the deadly legalism that the Pharisees (ancient and modern) live by. "Look. I've found a rule in these pages. It applies to YOU, therefore, you must trust me when I say YOU must obey this rule. I speak for God on this point..."
Death-dealing. Anti-human rights. And invariably, in opposition to the poor, the oppressed, women, children, those with disabilities and otherwise marginalized.
But we don't have JUST the Bible and we are not limited in understanding moral questions and procedural questions to what we can and can't find in the Bible.
We have our God-given moral reasoning. Our understanding of right and wrong... our ability to recognize overtly good and overtly bad actions.
The SBC approach is that - overtly bad actions.
The "magic rule book" approach is that - a philosophy that leads too often to overtly bad actions and opinions.
So, as long as your allegiance is to that TINY book of words and YOUR PERSONAL human opinions of those words, you fail to pledge allegiance to God and basic goodness.
God is not the Bible. The Bible is not God. Set your little god free from the impressions you've formed from the words on those pages which, in turn, have been informed by your human traditions. The Bible is too small a cage to contain an omnipotent God.
Women in ancient societies and in biblical times - as well as children and slaves and the poor and oppressed - had very few rights and their worth was too often devalued. I don't look to the Bible to find a reason to oppose slavery, or forced marriages and I don't look to the Bible to find a reason to support women preaching and women pastors.
My God is not caged.
But for those who remain caged to their traditions, here are some biblical evidence of women prophets and leaders of men in the Bible:
https://sojo.net/articles/what-does-bible-say-about-women-ministry-pastor-preaching-church
I am not "alone" in my beliefs in the least. I'm supported by centuries of commentaries and understandings, as well as by a clear reading of the clear teachings of Scripture. What have YOU got?
Reason. Common Sense. The recognition that "the Bible" doesn't demand an end to slavery or to selling one's daughter into a forced marriage and yet, we don't NEED the Bible or God to send an angel to tell us, "Um... seriously, don't sell people to other people. Don't be a goof!" Reason, common sense, respect for human rights that we enjoy now even if people in centuries past didn't enjoy... THESE are sufficient.
as to one insisting one has the correct understanding of Scripture and thus God's Will, it stands as truth until some whiny leftist can provide something substantive other than "Nyuh uh" or less as an argument, while laughingly speaking in condescending tones about "adult conversation" and "arguing in 'good faith'".
There are some, like you, who have what I've called the Magic Rule Book approach to understanding morality as it relates to the Bible. That human theory goes like this:
IF we can find a line in the Bible that seems to suggest (or literally does suggest) that Action A was considered wrong in biblical times in specific texts and
IF we don't find any other lines in the Bible that suggest or demand otherwise,
THEN we must assume Action A was and is always wrong in all times and circumstances.
Is that not something close to how you operate when it comes to understanding morality and in deciding upon positions to take on moral questions?
Here's the Biblical thing:
The Bible nowhere recommends THAT as a method to understand morality. The theory itself is unbiblical.
For those like you who affirm the human tradition of Sola Scriptura, it is a self-defeating theory. Here's what the fine conservatives at Ligonier have to say about morality and SS:
"How do people know what to think about relationships, morality, God, the origins of the universe, and many other important questions? To answer such questions, people need some sort of norm, standard, or criteria to which they can appeal. In other words, we need an ultimate authority...
Christians have historically rejected all of them as the ultimate standard for knowledge. Instead, God’s people have universally affirmed that there is only one thing that can legitimately function as the supreme standard: God’s Word.
There can be no higher authority than God Himself."
cont'd...
The rational (and therefore, biblical) problem you all make is in assuming - without support - that when YOU interpret this passage to mean X and that passage to mean Y and so on is that you are rightly understanding the biblical text and, beyond that, reality and God. ALL BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION is HUMAN interpretation and, as you all affirm, humans are imperfect, prone to misunderstandings, mistakes and mis-readings.
Also, the hole in this self-defeating SS theory is that "God's people (ie - SOME HUMANS) have SOMETIMES affirmed (not universally, as God's people have not all agreed upon this human theory) that there is only one thing that can legitimately function as the supreme standard..."
SOME HUMANS may affirm that theory, but it's not biblical. It's just not. It's not in there. NOT by the term SS OR by any other term. ANYONE who reads texts and draws out a SS theory is reading into the text what is literally, factually simply not there literally. SS IS A HUMAN INTERPRETATION, not a word from God. As such, SS is self-defeating.
As Ligonier says (using the wrong words, but still...) SOME PEOPLE hold that theory and affirm that theory. But it's just not biblical.
So, when I affirm, Nyah, I don't accept your personal human theories and traditions, that IS sufficient. I don't owe you all any allegiance to your human theories. I've explained why they're problematic, rationally and biblically speaking and that suffices in a good-faith conversation between adults.
“I am not "alone" in my beliefs in the least. I'm supported by centuries of commentaries and understandings, as well as by a clear reading of the clear teachings of Scripture.”
Marshal asked for scripture. But he blew right on by the Acts story of Peter in Cornelius’ house didn’t he? Not a word? And the shock of the Jerusalem elders that Gentiles - those “unclean” and “outside” of the promise - god had just put inside the promise of the Holy Spirit? And Jesus had never prepared them for that, had he?
Marshal is unprepared for scripture; and for god’s active grace that the book didn’t cover.
Like all violent extremists, Marshal is a book worshiper not a god worshiper.
I expect you'll delete what follows, possibly cherry-picking certain things I've said out of context to lamely rebut them. It's how you roll. Get a spine.
"Feodor addressed this magnificently."
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
You clearly have a different definition of the word "magnificent" than rational people have. I took the time to do what I rarely ever do anymore, and that's actually read the words of the clown "feo". I guess it's nice to be reminded what a pretentious idiot he truly is. I'll take that as a public service.
Thus, I'll ignore that crap sandwich of nonsensical gibberish and focus on your own, since I wasn't talking to that buffoon anyway.
"Your response above MIGHT make sense if you view the Bible as a magic rule book, a little paper god you must seek approval from. But not everyone operates from your magic rule book approach."
It's only a "magic rule book" to you when there are rules and teachings you find inconvenient and contrary to your marxist, immoral preferences. The following demonstrates how, in Scripture, many instances of reading Scripture are presented. Most of them speak of it as if we're to rely upon Scripture for understanding. You and your troll think you know better than these people. Also, not listed, is that from Acts 17, in which a reference to the Bereans and their constant referencing of Scripture to affirm or reject that which is told to them. You two boobs think your "reason" is a better resource than Scripture, and so you mock Scripture as simply words on pages rather than the Word of God revealed to us. Whatever you bozos think you've been "inspired" to believe, if you can't find specific and unassailable support for it in Scripture, it's likely from your true Father of Lies, rather than from God the Father or His Holy Spirit.
Indeed, Jesus has referenced what is written many times. If It's good enough for Him...
"The Pharisees did, and the Southern Baptists still often do."
First, the Pharisees were often pushing an oral tradition for which there is no reference in the Pentateuch. That's where many of them went wrong, pushing invention as if the same as the Word in Scripture at the time.
Second, what's with this SBC crap you've been going on about recently? Neither Craig or I am of that tradition. Yet for this issue, you're attacking those who adhere to Scripture as if they're the SBC people who are wrong. I don't follow much of what the SBC does, but there's much I have read of that which is like the crap you spew. It seems there are the Arts who follow Scripture in the SBC, and the Dans in the SBC who make shit up to rationalize their corruption.
"But we don't have JUST the Bible and we are not limited in understanding moral questions and procedural questions to what we can and can't find in the Bible."
We have nothing which trumps the Bible. Certainly what for you passes as "moral reasoning" is nothing any serious person would regard as legit. You're an idiot. You're a heretic. You are in rebellion against God and because of that you reject references to Scripture which exposes your abject sinfulness as "legalism". Good luck with that on Judgement Day. If your understanding of right and wrong conflicts with Scripture...which it so routinely does...you're moral reasoning is clearly not of God. It's from your real father of lies.
"The SBC approach is that - overtly bad actions."
What's with your current hard-on for the SBC?? Again, there's a schism within it, and you're on the wrong side from what little I've seen thus far. Not surprising. You're drawn to the anti-Christ like a fly to shit.
"The "magic rule book" approach is that - a philosophy that leads too often to overtly bad actions and opinions."
Not that you or your chancre has ever been able to identify in me or demonstrate in my words. It's just something you say because you can't counter the truth I bring to the table. You certainly haven't with this lady pastor issue!
"So, as long as your allegiance is to that TINY book of words and YOUR PERSONAL human opinions of those words, you fail to pledge allegiance to God and basic goodness."
My allegiance is to the Word of God only found in that "TINY book of words", you hell bound reprobate. If you have a problem with my "personal interpretation" of those words...interpretations validated and affirmed by centuries of Christian theological study and commentary....you constantly fail to provide a better understanding supported by Scripture. And listen...if you can't support your objections with Scripture, it's not worth the breath you expend to express them. In that case, you're REALLY just rendering your opinion, and that has no value.
Marshal, who hasn’t met an opposing point he won’t twist, fulminate on, or defame at hysterically ad nauseum length with his home lab of irrational concoctions… says if the scripture that destroys him…
“Thus, I'll ignore…”
On biblical literacy he’s so fragile and so badly self-educated, with only helicopter engineers as mentors. He’s aware and proud of this too, so he does the White Fool thing when confronted with a reality that impugns his racist, misogynist, bigoted, Imperialistic religion:
Dodges
Deflects
Diverts
Denies
Lies
Doubles down in the lies
Just pure makes up his own myths
A Trump acolyte before he even heard of the cretin.
The book of Acts, like all of Holy Scripture is used by him, not revered. Whatever is Holy is corrosive to his default hateful, Will to brutal evil.
First of all, Marshal, I keep referring to the Southern Baptists specifically because it is the big news in religious news this week that the Southern Baptists have banned women pastors as an option for all SB churches. They have decreed that because THEY THINK that women shouldn't be pastors because of how THEY INTERPRET a couple of verses, that therefore, NO SB churches can have women pastors.
That's why the references to SB. But it's true for most modern conservative religious traditions (often including those outside of Christianity - this aversion to women leadership over men is a commonality to conservative structures, not religious views generally).
Likewise, we have a SINGLE verse in all the Bible like this message from Paul in 1 Timothy where he says specifically to Timothy who was specifically in Ephesus where Paul literally says, "HE (Paul) DOES NOT PERMIT a woman to teach..." He doesn't say even that this is God's message to everyone everywhere. It's literally, textually, Paul's command literally to Timothy literally in Ephesus...
“Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man;
rather, she is to remain quiet..."
...and, well, that's it. Unless I'm forgetting one, there is just the one verse in 1 Timothy where Paul offers what HE thinks (not God) about women preaching in Ephesus.
Now, we could ASSUME that Paul meant that as a literal rule for all people everywhere in all times that he has. We could further assume that Paul was saying that this is GOD'S rule for all people in all times.
But it's not what the text says. That's reading into the text something that is not there if you want to make that a universal rule.
In both cases (selling your stuff which has a great deal more support than the latter, "women shouldn't be pastors") that SOME humans can and have taken to mean these ADDITIONAL ideas, but the ideas themselves are not in the text. It's a human tradition being read INTO the text. Literally, that is what is happening. EVEN IF you ultimately think, "Yes, that is rational to me that women shouldn't be 'allowed' to preach men..." you have to admit that there is no universal rule from God stating that anywhere in the pages of the Bible. It's an eisegesis and human tradition, not a literal command from God.
Do you understand and acknowledge that much?
Now, while there IS the ONE VERSE in all the Bible where Paul literally offers what he clarifies is HIS rule, HIS opinion about "women shouldn't preach/have authority over men..." there are some other passages that are "women-can't-be-pastors-adjacent..." Like this from Titus...
An elder must be blameless,
faithful to his wife,
a man whose children believe
and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.
And, IF WE choose to take this fairly literally and IF we assume that "elder" is equivalent to a modern pastor, then we COULD read into the text a suggestion that Paul thinks a pastor should be married with believing children. This is found again in 1 Timothy 3 that says the preacher should be the husband of ONE wife.
Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife,
temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome,
not a lover of money.
He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him...
Or the 1 Corinthians passage that says...
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for
holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ,
and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.
But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—
it is the same as having her head shaved.
For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off;
but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved,
then she should cover her head.
None of these passages in ANY way directly says that a woman can't be a pastor, or that it is a rule from God that a woman can't be a pastor.
Indeed, the latter passage talks about women who "prays or prophesies" indicating that, in the traditions and cultures that Paul is speaking to and offering his opinions, women sometimes were PROPHETS, giving teachings from God. And that they prayed publicly, presumably in church meetings.
Some points though:
1. Again, NONE of these adjacent passages says that God commands women to not preach/be pastors in all times and places. Indeed, NO Biblical passage does that.
2. Paul makes clear that these are HIS traditions and the TRADITIONS that they are practicing in that time and place. Nothing about a universal rule.
3. Are you okay with women praying and prophesying in church meetings?
If so, do you require that they have a head covering?
Do you REQUIRE men to have one wife before they can be preachers?
Do you REQUIRE that those men have children?
Do you therefore BAN any men from being pastors who are single (and thus, without a wife or children)? If you're taking the one tradition/opinion that Paul gave as if it were a universal rule (women can't preach) do you likewise treat the mention of a wife and kids as a universal rule?
There are lots of instructions and traditions that Paul passes on in his letters to specific churches in specific time and place. Do you treat them all literally? That slaves should not try to get freedom, but should serve their master faithfully?
This is the problem with magic rule book bible idolatry. It leads to all sorts of inconsistencies and mischief and ultimately, pays disrespect to God in lieu of allegiance to their human traditions.
Jesus! When will people who claim the Bible is sovereign EVER read it?
Romans 16:
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord, as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.
Greet Prisca and Aquila, my coworkers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but also all the churches of the gentiles. Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert in Asia for Christ. Greet Mary, who has worked very hard for you. Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Israelites who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles…”
3 women: a deacon, an apostle, and one coworker with Paul who leads a parish.
And who shared the good news of Jesus' resurrection to the male apostles? THE first sermon, post Easter..?
Dan
For that matter, who bore the Incarnate god into this world? Both god and human by virtue of a woman. No greater service to god and humankind has anyone ever done? And by agreeing!
"They have decreed that because THEY THINK that women shouldn't be pastors because of how THEY INTERPRET a couple of verses, that therefore, NO SB churches can have women pastors."
I don't follow the SBC, so I don't know the details of their arguments. However, Scripture is clear on the subject such that "interpretation" is not necessary. What is necessary is for those like yourself to provide a solid argument from Scripture which stands as a direct counter to the verses speaking against women leading congregations. You haven't done that. Your link doesn't do that. Citing passages which reference female figures from Scripture is not the same as indicating which were placed as leaders of congregations. I have a few commentaries I could provide which explain the concept in far better detail with actual Scripture evidence your link doesn't provide. But I'll need assurances you'll not delete them. The best way to assure me is to stop deleting my comments...like this one.
"And none of them - not one single instance - says that
1. we are ONLY able to know morality through the pages of the Bible;
2. that the pages of the Bible are the ultimate, premiere, final, most-preferred way of understanding morality;
3. that we should presume that when WE (and those in our tradition) understand a passage to mean X, that ONLY we are the correct ones and ONLY we are the ones who are to be recognized as an authority on right interpretation."
1. I've never said we are ONLY able to know morality through the pages of the Bible. Certainly those who know Scripture can pass it on verbally to others. But you'd be hard pressed to prove whatever you regard as moral...assuming it actually is...isn't in some way that which flowed from God's Will as clearly revealed in Scripture. Indeed, you won't even try. Worse, you can't prove that it DIDN'T arise from the culture being so deeply (even now as our culture has degraded so badly due to progressive rejection of God) entrenched in Christian influence.
2. They were not selected for that reason. Yet, it is certainly more than implied elsewhere, such as in the reference to the Bereans, 2 Tim 3:16, 2 Peter 1:19 and Christ's constant referencing of Scripture. Of course, that's only Jesus, right? What does HE know?
3. We are indeed correct until some lefty joker can prove otherwise. Any chance we'll see you ever doing that? You like to speak of "those in our tradition" as if those like me are simply another political party religiously speaking, rather than a group who continues to abide Scripture as it has been for centuries. If you can show how "those in our tradition" have erred in our understanding, you need to do so rather than simply rag on about "those in our tradition".
"Sola Scriptura is an extra-biblical interpretation. Period."
Sez you. But only the term is extra-biblical...not the concept. The real problem here is that you have no understanding of what it truly is. Or worse, you can't stand that so much of what you want to be true is exposed as crap by a true devotion to the Word of God. I've no doubt THAT is what makes you wet your panties. THAT is the true reality, not what you demand I accept as reality because you need it to be.
"So that is ONE POTENTIAL human interpretation of those lines of passages."
Here we see that you indeed do not grasp the concept of Sola Scriptura, just as you don't understand what it means to take Scripture literally. None of this or what follows to the end of the comment is relevant to the concept of SS. Not even a little.
“Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a “standard of truth”—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.”
“Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:
a. The reference to “He shall be called a Nazarene” cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was “spoken by the prophets” (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be “God’s word,” was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based “on Moses’ seat,” but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of “teaching succession” from Moses on down.
c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.
d. “As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses” (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.”
“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17).
This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:
“And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Eph. 4:11–15).
If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.
So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.“
“When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to “the Bible’s clear teaching.” Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.
This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, “Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t.” The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.
But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only “go to the Bible” themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so “minor” that differences “don’t matter.”
But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are “minor” and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the “three-legged stool”: Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.”
"Likewise, we have a SINGLE verse in all the Bible like this message from Paul in 1 Timothy where he says specifically to Timothy who was specifically in Ephesus where Paul literally says, "HE (Paul) DOES NOT PERMIT a woman to teach..." He doesn't say even that this is God's message to everyone everywhere. It's literally, textually, Paul's command literally to Timothy literally in Ephesus..."
1. That is not the only verse which prohibits women leading congregations. But, as is always the case with real Christians, one verse is enough and with fake Christians, one verse alone is reason to reject it as being unworthy of abiding if inconvenient.
2. Paul was an apostle. He spoke for Christ. Therefore, he spoke the words of Christ. And if He spoke the words of Christ, 1st Timothy 2:12 and other relevant passages are the words of God Himself.
3. Nowhere in 1st or 2nd Timothy does Paul say he's commanding Timothy only about how the Ephesus church should operate. Don't forget that he wrote to Titus to instruct him similarly about the church in Crete. His letters and instructions were prescriptive about how churches should be set up and run.
"Now, we could ASSUME that Paul meant that as a literal rule for all people everywhere in all times that he has. We could further assume that Paul was saying that this is GOD'S rule for all people in all times."
Yeah...it's easy to "assume" what is clear and true. Find me a place where it contradicts this instruction. I'll wait here while you don't.
"But it's not what the text says. That's reading into the text something that is not there if you want to make that a universal rule."
Ah...your usual "it must say exactly what I say it must say for it to be true". But the text isn't required to satisfy Dan Trabue's demands that it speak in a specific way in order for Dan to abide. Dan must find some verse or passage which counters the clear implication (and it does more than merely "imply") in order to presume to ignore it as not universal. Got anything?
"It's an eisegesis and human tradition, not a literal command from God.
Do you understand and acknowledge that much?"
I understand and acknowledge that you demand it be so without doing a damned thing to compel such understanding and acknowledgement. When you can prove when an apostle speaks for God versus rendering a personal opinion not from God, then you can try to run this crap. But your "human tradition" angle is nonsensical and meaningless without something more than saying "human tradition".
Marshal is claiming that Paul doesn’t know what “deacon” and “apostle” mean.
"Now, while there IS the ONE VERSE in all the Bible where Paul literally offers what he clarifies is HIS rule..."
Just because Paul says "I don't permit.." doesn't mean it is his rule apart from God's Will. That's stupid to suggest just to defend your support for women pastors. He even says just prior, "And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle--I am telling the truth, I am not lying--and a teach of the true faith to the Gentiles." and he says this without saying "sometimes I'll add my own preferences to all of that". Shame on you for suggesting it.
"And, IF WE choose to take this fairly literally and IF we assume that "elder" is equivalent to a modern pastor, then we COULD read into the text a suggestion that Paul thinks a pastor should be married with believing children."
Validating the obvious you've demonstrated constantly over the years, that you "choose" to believe what you like as opposed to "choosing" to believe the Word in Its entirety. Then, you go on with the semantic games regarding "elder" versus "pastor". He's clearly speaking of those who will lead congregations. Stop being willfully obtuse and obfuscating.
"None of these passages in ANY way directly says that a woman can't be a pastor, or that it is a rule from God that a woman can't be a pastor."
No. It's part of his explanation for why they can't. They can't. He says so. He speaks for God. Believe him, not the world.
"women sometimes were PROPHETS, giving teachings from God. And that they prayed publicly, presumably in church meetings."
...which is nothing at all like leading congregations and having authority over men. Indeed, the men would listen to the prophesies to determine if they reflected sound doctrine.
"1. Again, NONE of these adjacent passages says that God commands women to not preach/be pastors in all times and places. Indeed, NO Biblical passage does that."
Paul was an apostle. He spoke for Christ. Therefore, he spoke the words of Christ. And if He spoke the words of Christ, 1st Timothy 2:12 and other relevant passages are the words of God Himself. He does not have to say that no woman can be a pastor of a fake church on Jeff St in Louisville, KY for it to be just as true as back when he first said it. Only a progressive looking for loopholes would suggest such a thing.
"2. Paul makes clear that these are HIS traditions and the TRADITIONS that they are practicing in that time and place. Nothing about a universal rule."
No he doesn't. That's just your "progressive tradition" of rejecting that which you find inconvenient to your desires, as oppose to the "Christian tradition" of putting God's Will above one's own personal desires. And by your twisted logic, there's nothing in Scripture which assures us it's not a universal rule and that only Ephesus must abide.
continued...
What follows must be comedy...it's that silly!
"3. Are you okay with women praying and prophesying in church meetings?"
Why wouldn't I be? There's certainly nothing in Scripture which prohibits it as it does women pastors.
"If so, do you require that they have a head covering?"
I don't have to. Paul mandated it. He speaks for God.
"Do you REQUIRE men to have one wife before they can be preachers?
Do you REQUIRE that those men have children?
Do you therefore BAN any men from being pastors who are single (and thus, without a wife or children)? If you're taking the one tradition/opinion that Paul gave as if it were a universal rule (women can't preach) do you likewise treat the mention of a wife and kids as a universal rule?"
These are not rules prohibiting single men from pastoring. Paul wasn't married when he set up the many churches. (There's no certainty he was ever married at all!) Timothy wasn't said to be married. What he's doing is being specific about men who are married. And while one can say that married men were preferred. Nothing about any of the above confirms they had to be. Nice try. (Just kidding. It was weak.)
"There are lots of instructions and traditions that Paul passes on in his letters to specific churches in specific time and place. Do you treat them all literally?"
Which instruction to a specific church in a specific time and place is not applicable to all churches in all times and places? I'll wait here while you fail to provide.
"That slaves should not try to get freedom, but should serve their master faithfully?"
"Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you – although if you can gain your freedom, do so."
(1 Corinthians 7:21, NIV)
So you pretty much know little of the subject.
"This is the problem with magic rule book bible idolatry. It leads to all sorts of inconsistencies and mischief and ultimately, pays disrespect to God in lieu of allegiance to their human traditions."
Nonsense. You use the term "magic rule book" when you don't like the rule, but say nothing of magic where rules of Christ find favor in you. Talk about disrespect to God! You pay allegiance to a far more contemptible tradition...the "progressive tradition"....whereas mine is the Christian tradition. What you spew is what we real Christians refer to as "heresy"...because it is.
"And who shared the good news of Jesus' resurrection to the male apostles? THE first sermon, post Easter..?"
Oh my gosh! Sharing the gospel is not the same as leading a congregation and having authority over men. Jeez, you're insipid!
The person who’s in love with their vision of community will destroy community. But the person who loves the people around them will create community everywhere they go.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Marshal...
Just because Paul says "I don't permit.." doesn't mean it is his rule apart from God's Will.
Conversely, just because Paul says, "I don't permit" doesn't mean it IS a rule from God.
CAN YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT RATIONAL REALITY?
It's part of his explanation for why they can't. They can't. He says so. He speaks for God
PAUL DID NOT SAY that he speaks for God when he says, "I don't permit" to that specific church and time. NOR does he say it is a universal rule for all places and all times from God's own Self.
CAN YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT RATIONAL REALITY?
Answer carefully and factually and rationally or you're done here.
Dan:
"If so, do you require that they have a head covering?"
Marshal:
I don't have to. Paul mandated it. He speaks for God.
So, your church insists upon women having head coverings? YOU insist upon it for your church? Does your wife and women family/friends wear head coverings?
Good God. Fascist no-nothings and their deadly legalism were a curse in Jesus' day and they remain so.
"Conversely, just because Paul says, "I don't permit" doesn't mean it IS a rule from God."
Until you can provide a foolproof means by which you can determine when Paul's words don't reflect God's Will, you just rejecting that which you personally regard as inconvenient or objectionable. But at least this is consistent with all the many ways you rationalize rejecting other teaching, commandments and concepts you personally regard as inconvenient or objectionable.
"PAUL DID NOT SAY that he speaks for God when he says, "I don't permit" to that specific church and time."
Paul, nor Christ, nor any of His Apostles needs to say anything like that everything they express concepts and teachings just because demand he must when he's mandating or teaching something you personally regard as inconvenient or objectionable. Children do that. Adults don't.
Answer this line of questions before making any further commentary.
Until you can provide a foolproof means by which you can determine when Paul's words don't reflect God's Will, you just rejecting that which you personally regard as inconvenient or objectionable.
So, if YOU conclude that Paul's words are literal rules for all times and places from God - EVEN THOUGH the text does not insist upon that, then it's settled? But if I point out that the text literally doesn't say that and I don't agree with that human theory, I have to provide "foolproof means by which I (anyone) can determine when Paul's words don't reflect God's will."
THAT is literally what you said. Is that what you meant?
If so, how is that rational? Why is the burden of "proof" (for something that 100% can NOT be proven one way or the other) on those disagreeing with you and your tradition, and not also on you?
Do you recognize that this is irrational and hypocritical?
Do you recognize that this is literally, factually not a provable point, this notion that we can have a objectively foolproof means of determining when Paul's (or anyone's) words reflect the Will of God?
I have no authority and am not an official member. But were I to have opportunity to offer my opinion, I would say "Paul mandated it. He speaks for God." and thus, we should do so as well.
Does this mean you ONLY attend churches that insist upon women wearing a head covering? I would imagine that limits which churches you attend pretty significantly.
Does this mean that you are not sufficiently "in charge" of your own household (what egregiously piggish language!) that you can't convince the women in your family to abide your telling them what God's will is for them?
Secondly, abiding God's Will is not "legalism". I'm quite certain Jesus encouraged abiding God's Will and what He opposed was abiding that which was NOT in the written Law of Moses, but that which those like the Pharisees added to it in what they referred to as the "Oral Law".
Yes, the Pharisees then and now DID and DO add stuff that is not from God to their list of demands of "commands" for other people to obey. The "demand" to assume that the Bible is the Sole Authority for faith and morality, for instance, was never commanded from God. It's literally a human tradition. The demand to pay allegiance to some form of Atonement Theory is literally something that is a human tradition, not a line from God.
And the demand that your opinion about what Paul meant must be heeded as if it were a command from God even though it literally isn't, that, too, is a human tradition.
For instance.
Do you recognize that?
Of course, the answer is probably, No, but that's the problem. You can't distinguish between your human opinions and traditions and what is definitively of God.
The Protestant reformation was devastating in its solitary focus on textual reading. Out of spite and anger and brutality, as millions of Europeans warred with other Europeans over Christianity, protestants destroyed as much of your “beautiful architecture”, Craig, as it could, both inside and outside. Statuary, bas relief carved doors and arches, stained glasses windows, altars, reredos, rood screens, carved heads of sainted christians serving as hand rest knobs at the ends of pews, etc. Destroying faithful beauty dogmatically ravaged churches in the north of Europe.
Protestantism privileged only the 17th century rationality of reading texts and nothing of visual and olfactory and, in the beginning and still for some, auditory beauty. Radical Protestantism sees such non-textual things still as suspiciously base manipulations of our sensory affirmations of creation. And in response to violent attacks and political and geographic losses of dominance, the Roman church in its counter-Reformation Inquisitions jettisoned its heretofore Thomistic and Franciscan attention to the whole being of the human person, and also entered into centuries of rhetorical fixation only and violence.
When one worships today in a catholic context - whether Roman or English or Lutheran (and especially Orthodoxy) - one enters into a worship of god as the Highest Beauty and Highest Good as the Creator of the Universe as well as the Most True.
And as beings made in the image and likeness of the most beautiful and most good as well as most true, we worship with our whole selves and all of our senses. In thought, word, and deed, and in body: we kneel, we bow, we cross ourselves, we fill the air with the incense of spirit and the organ, both mechanical and vocal, of sound, and admit our createdness in layered psychologies of conscious and unconscious with manifold interpretations of scriptures - metaphorical, typological, allegorical - and pay attention to the effects of biblical poetry and prose, epic and myth…
… and the whole experience is attended to as a phenomenon directed by the living Spirit.
Such that the traditions of Christianity serve to shape us in the reception of an eternally renewing and ever new breadth of grace, where “grace” is the word for the active life of god’s loving.
SO… ornate buildings raised in mortal beauty are job creating projects, community building edifices, and a stand to testify to god’s mysterious, commanding majesty.
500 years of protestant denial of all this - as well as catholic amnesia - has worked to corrupt a theology of the human person and the communion of the saints, all for the purposes of maintaining Atlantic imperial slave economies for so long.
And by which half of radical Protestantism like Dan’s loving, Christlike attention to the marginalized and brutalized is crippled by a Calvinist guilt that refuses “the poor” pretty and wonderful and inspiring things until we “make” them become economically equal agents.
God’s splendor isn’t bought in Christian “faith”. And neither is it spent in a “Christlike” masochism which punishes.
Worship of god requires our best. Not an anti-intellectual, anti-cultural, anti-embodied despair.
Jesus came in all of human flesh to absolutely glorify all it. Jesus did not come as a brain or a pointed finger or a pocket book.
And look what embodied human communities have done in the past to speak beauty and goodness to the world, not one whit less than truth.
Right wing extremists talk all about truth and nothing else, and so corrupt the truth.
Liberal protestantisms talk all about the good and nothing else and so corrupt the good.
Neither see the beauty in embodied, corporeal faith, faith in the Incarnate god who dwells in everyone.
There is no truth without the good and the beautiful. There is no good without the true and the beautiful. There is nothing beautiful that is not also good and true.
Stan-bin-Laden has been now twisting Paul’s message to the Galatians across four posts. Paul tells the Galatians that they have departed the gospel preached to them because they’ve followed Judaizing Christian’s who demand they obey all the Laws of “former fathers” as Paul calls Judaism.
Today, Dan, Stan bin Laden asks how we can hold scripture in reverence but differ from it.
Bite revered does not mean godlike. He and his brutality loving friends replace the living Christ and the active Spirit with scripture. For the very reason that they don’t want to watch for or listen to the life of the Trinity in the midst of us now. Which is what you have been saying.
More than that, they trap the living Christ and moving Spirit in the pages of scripture and earn the label of blasphemers.
To whom is god really dead? To them. They have a paper god.
They are the Judaizers (Paul’s term) adding the burdens of 2000 year old cultures on believers. They are the ones Paul wishes would castrate themselves
Has scripture, Stan bin Laden, of all things created, alone of everything in the cosmos, escaped the Fall? Is that book you hold, where even Paul says all things under heaven are tainted with Adam’s sin, as perfect and living as God himself?
Ooh boy. You are a blasphemer.
"Answer this line of questions before making any further commentary."
Can we expect that someday before the end of the decade you might do what you demand of others?
A rhetorical question. Of course we can't. It's not how you roll.
"So, if YOU conclude that Paul's words are literal rules for all times and places from God - EVEN THOUGH the text does not insist upon that, then it's settled?"
All from God, whether delivered directly by Him, or through His prophets or apostles...like Paul...are literal rules for all times and places unless you can provide evidence that specifically contradicts that obvious truth. Paul speaks for God as His apostle. It's as if God spoke Himself. So the trick here, is for you to prove what you "conclude" when you find Biblical principles you find inconvenient and cramping your marxist, leftist fake Christian style. Ripping on me...demanding I respond to your petulant demands, either convincingly enough for you to actually admit you've been schooled or not convincingly you enough to compel an honest, Christian response, doesn't absolve you from your obligation to provide a solid argument against my positions beyond your typical childish demands and ultimatums.
And once again, the text doesn't have to keep Dan Trabue in mind in order to have spoken as I've parroted in these "discussions". Scripture isn't required to state anything in just the exact manner you demand it must in order for it to be true.
"But if I point out that the text literally doesn't say that and I don't agree with that human theory, I have to provide "foolproof means by which I (anyone) can determine when Paul's words don't reflect God's will.""
Yeah...though I know full well you prefer "Nyuh uh" because it doesn't require actually defending your position with Scripture...or any other facts for that matter. The fact that you refuse to defend your position in even a modest manner, say nothing of a "foolproof means", strongly suggests your position is total crap and "Nyuh uh" is all you have. Look...you can makes all sorts of goofy demands on me and it won't alter the truth of which I speak, even if I can't negotiate perfectly (to your fake "good faith" attitude) every freakin hoop you set before me. None of that crap makes my position or view wrong in the slightest. It only means you're using what for you passes as "God-given reasoning" to avoid actually proving me wrong or that you have an actual legitimate alternative understanding supportable in any way.
"If so, how is that rational? Why is the burden of "proof" (for something that 100% can NOT be proven one way or the other) on those disagreeing with you and your tradition, and not also on you?"
It's rational because that's how rational...even mildly intelligent people like you who aren't dishonest...debate issues and notions of Scriptural meaning. But you don't debate at all. "Good faith" and "adult conversation" are just punchlines for you. You put all the burden on me to prove that the sky appears to be blue or that fire is hot. There's nothing I believe which isn't directly from Scripture in a direct way based on the words of the text in the order they appear in each sentence and each sentence in each paragraph and each paragraph in each chapter in each book in the Bible. So when the plain reading of Scripture is so obvious in its meaning because of how the words are arranged to convey thoughts, principles and commandments, to reject, dismiss or oppose them in any way requires YOU to dirty your hands with some actual work to support your alternative "interpretation"...which we really never hear while you attack our accurate understanding because you simply don't like it.
Have I been direct enough for you in answering so far?
"Do you recognize that this is irrational and hypocritical?"
I can only recognize that you need to believe it so, because of the detailed failures I've described in the previous comment I submitted. Maybe if you offered an actual argument, I might be able to see what you imagine is true. I doubt it. I deal in reality and facts and truth. You deal in what you want those things to be.
"Do you recognize that this is literally, factually not a provable point, this notion that we can have a objectively foolproof means of determining when Paul's (or anyone's) words reflect the Will of God?"
I can't for the life of me imagine any true student of Scripture or theologian who would suggest there's any part of his epistles in which he wasn't reflecting the Will of God. I can't for the life of me suppose that any apostle of Christ would and if you think something he's said is in direct conflict of the Will of God, you'll need to do more than just insist it is so. You'll need to provide some kind of evidence...some kind of even semi-intelligent argument, which I know is a high bar for you.
"Does this mean you ONLY attend churches that insist upon women wearing a head covering?"
No, but the question does mean you'll ask any dumbass question rather than do the heavy lifting of supporting your contrary position. I could attend ONLY those churches which refuse to abide Paul's direction and Paul's position on the subject would still be what Christian churches should do. Unlike you, I don't put my own desires above God, Christ, His Apostles and Prophets or Scripture.
"Does this mean that you are not sufficiently "in charge" of your own household (what egregiously piggish language!) that you can't convince the women in your family to abide your telling them what God's will is for them?"
No. It only means I don't beat them into submission just to satisfy a progressive fake who can't defend his position on Paul's teachings.
"Yes, the Pharisees then and now DID and DO add stuff that is not from God to their list of demands of "commands" for other people to obey."
Yeah, but I'm too far away to make you stop and you'd likely call the cops on me if I made the trip for that purpose...because you'd likely pretend there's no other means of persuasion but force, so you'll wet yourself and scream for help.
"The "demand" to assume that the Bible is the Sole Authority for faith and morality, for instance, was never commanded from God.""
He never needed to do so. At least not for real Christians and those who seek to be among them. For where else can you insist you have any clue about faith and morality? YOUR reasoning abilities? That's hilarious! Take away Scripture and all we have are people like you imposing your own preferences for what is or isn't moral based on those personal preferences...not for any legit reason based on logic, science or anything else. Hell...we have Scripture and you do that anyway!
Yet at the same time, as I demonstrated in an earlier comment with multiple examples with which Scripture is rife, Scripture was so often referenced to discover and understand moral precepts which informed moral living. Christ constantly made references to Scripture as it was at the time. But Dan knows better than Jesus and the many characters of the Bible. He needs some Biblical author to have recorded God as saying the obvious in just the exact way from which Dan cannot ignore and dismiss because of the obligations it puts on him he so vehemently dislikes.
"The demand to pay allegiance to some form of Atonement Theory is literally something that is a human tradition, not a line from God."
The term is merely a label for a Biblical principle invented by scholars/theologians to easily identify the principle for the purpose of teaching and education. But PSA is a fact of Jesus' purpose on earth. The "Good News" He brought to the poor in spirit and the world in general.
"And the demand that your opinion about what Paul meant must be heeded as if it were a command from God even though it literally isn't, that, too, is a human tradition."
On what basis do you suppose apostles taught Christ's teachings and added their own personal twists at the same time without explicitly differentiating between the two, as if they were Pharisees like you? When you can in any way explain this made up, human tradition you're now promoting in order to continue to ignore Paul's instruction and defend your female pastor, you would at least be demonstrating a "good faith" attempt to engage in "adult conversation". Are you really suggesting like atheists and other lefty asshats that Paul was a misogynist? Really? You think Christ or other apostles wouldn't put an end to that sort of thing? What is your argument beyond "Nyuh uh"?
These three verses speak of specific instances when Paul says he is speaking and not God:
1 Cor. 7:12, “But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, let him not send her away.”
1 Cor. 7:25, “Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.”
2 Cor. 11:17, “That which I am speaking, I am not speaking as the Lord would, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting.”
He doesn't do anything like this regarding the inappropriateness of women as pastors over men.
"In the verses where Paul said that he was speaking, not God, then it is absolutely true and correct that he was speaking and not God. But, this also means that he knew when he was speaking for God. This is no challenge to the inspiration of the word of God at all. Paul was able to distinguish between his own words and those of the Lord and, again, the Bible accurately records what was said–including the differentiation between what was Paul’s opinion and what was God’s word." ---CARM
"You can't distinguish between your human opinions and traditions and what is definitively of God."
And yet you provide nothing, nada, zilch, not a freaking thing in the way of even bad evidence which demonstrates you do. Indeed, YOUR traditions, which fly in the face of clear and direct teachings of God/Jesus/Scripture have no basis beyond your "reasoning" or personal preferences, period. I provide verse after verse...all of which are far more relevant and direct, while you provide, at best, verses you corrupt and twist into a badly lame attempt to rationalize your immoral human traditions and opinions.
You lose yet again and your upcoming deletion of my comments will once again prove it.
There are a few hundred Protestant denominations that believe that everything in creation is corrupted to some extent by sin. From everything from human nature itself, and therefore everything humans have a hand in, to physical and biological nature all the way out to the entire existing cosmos is tainted by the so-called Fall.
They believe this because this is how they interpret in common some passages of scripture.
And yet these hundreds of evangelical, inerrancy believing Protestant denominations cannot agree on the right way to worship, the process of salvation (though with their lips they claim it’s just by believing in one’s heart), the manner of redemption, the structure of atonement, the degree to which the Spirit can be manifested in the believer’s body or speech or the church’s relationship with snakes. Is wine OK? Dancing? Mixed swimming? Cards? What is free Will?
“Inerrancy” believers cannot agree, so… clearly most if not all have erred in reading an inerrant text.
Neither can they agree at all about how to translate original language texts into English. There have been over 100 translations for “inerrancy” believers alone.
I cannot imagine that Marshal has any explanation for this other than the effects of Sin in creation.
But he believes the book he holds, written by ancient writers, typeset by computers, printed by machines, sold by companies, bound in imitation leather (probably too cheap to honor it with genuine leather) or paper, printed with black or red ink… is the inerrant and very word of god’s own mind.
He argues that no sin has touched the Word of God he reads by electric light with corrective lenses.
If that is true, then it is obvious to the most casual observer that god’s mind, when voiced in scripture, is as weak as hell - especially among its most ardent faithful.
To the vast majority of the world, us reasonable Christians (believing that we are made in the image and likeness of god and so can think our way out of a paper box), and everyone else, it really looks as if “inerrancy” isn’t an effective article of believing faith. Its believers agree only and exclusively in its inerrancy and nothing else. What his “inerrancy” really is, revealingly, is the thinnest of sheer skirts that cannot hide its function as justification for “inerrant” evangelicals taking out their rage on non straight-white-male children of god because straight white male “inerrant” Christians cannot control the world.
On this kind of evil corruption of faith they are solidly bound in agreement.
And in this they are brothers and sisters to terrorists of Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Marxist, and Atheist extremism.
To all you who believe by way of American agrarian radical Protestantism: which is more important for Christian faith?
a) the living Christ
b) Mary, who agreed to bear the Son of God into the world, thereby making him God Incarnate in human nature
c) the Bible that, following the church, tells this story as well
Elizabeth, when the pregnant Mary came to visit:
“Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord.”
Marshal: Respond/answer the question in bold before making further comments.
I had asked...
"So, if YOU conclude that Paul's words are literal rules for all times and places from God - EVEN THOUGH the text does not insist upon that, then it's settled?"
Marshal responded...
All from God, whether delivered directly by Him, or through His prophets or apostles...like Paul...are literal rules for all times and places
Prove it.
Seriously, DON'T DO ANYTHING ELSE UNTIL YOU PROVE IT OR ADMIT YOU CAN'T.
Marshal continued...
unless you can provide evidence that specifically contradicts that obvious truth.
Obvious to whom? YOU? Who died and made you God? Do you not understand the arrogance of this line of thinking?
If you're saying that your interpretation is objectively demonstrably an "obvious truth," THEN PROVE IT.
Paul speaks for God as His apostle.
PROVE IT.
It's as if God spoke Himself.
PROVE IT.
So the trick here, is for you to prove what you "conclude" when you find Biblical principles you find inconvenient and cramping your marxist, leftist fake Christian style. Ripping on me...demanding I respond to your petulant demands...
IF you're going to claim to speak for God and that YOUR PUNY, arrogant human opinions are the same as the Word of God, then you're going to have to prove it. Your assertion that you're the right one is simply not enough for rational adults.
Do you understand? That is, do you understand, saying, "I, Marshal, am telling you this is obvious, therefore, I, Marshal, don't have to provide objective support. Trust me..." is NOT a compelling reason to take your human opinion as if it were God's Word?
Have I been direct enough for you in answering so far?
No. Not in the least. Do you understand why?
Your mere assertions that what you're saying is right and YOU are the one who understands the Word of God are NOT compelling. You're going to have to either PROVE your assertions are objectively correct OR release your white patriarchal arrogance/presumption and have the decency and intellectual integrity to admit, "No, I can't prove it. This is what SEEMS right to me, but I can in no way whatsover at all in the whole wide word come close to 'proving' these opinions of mine are factually correct."
To answer some of your questions...
On what basis do you suppose apostles taught Christ's teachings and added their own personal twists at the same time without explicitly differentiating between the two, as if they were Pharisees like you?
1. As you already pointed out, SOMETIMES, these authors were clearly speaking for themselves. Do they tell us, "And here's the thing: ANY TIME I'm not speaking for God, I'll point it out otherwise, you can assume I'm speaking for God?"
Factual answer: No.
2. On what basis would we assume that these human words, literally written by literal humans, using human minds and opinions MUST be equivalent to "the Word of God..."?
Does the Bible tell us that all opinions offered in the pages of the Bible are infallible? No.
Does the Bible tell us that all INTERPRETATIONS of the words in the pages of the Bible are infallible? No.
You're defending an unbiblical human tradition/opinion and acting as if everyone must share your human presumptions. Rational adults don't HAVE to share your presumptions. Acting as if we do makes you less-than-credible.
When you can in any way explain this made up, human tradition you're now promoting in order to continue to ignore Paul's instruction and defend your female pastor, you would at least be demonstrating a "good faith" attempt to engage in "adult conversation".
ALL human traditions are, by definition, HUMAN TRADITIONS. When some religions throughout history, accepted slavery as a viable moral option, it was a HUMAN tradition. When parents arranged forced marriages for the daughters, it was a human tradition. When some religions deny women the right to vote or to work where they want, it is a human tradition.
Period. That is the reality.
Do you recognize that reality?
cont'd...
Are you really suggesting like atheists and other lefty asshats that Paul was a misogynist? Really?
I'm stating as a fact that Paul was a product of his time and place, as we all are. People back then didn't dream of condemning slavery or polygamy, it was just a reality in their world and those people living in those times would have no reason to speak out against it. Same for women-as-chattel, having fewer rights than men/being denied certain roles.
Does that make Paul a misogynist? Not necessarily. BUT if one lives in a misogynistic, patriarchal society and see no reason to object to it, then they are accepting misogynism and patriarcy, as a point of reality, just like they accepted slavery. It was of the time.
Do you understand the point?
Now, to Paul specifically, I don't think he was especially misogynistic, but he WAS a product of his era and place.
If Paul came here today and said, "What's the problem with slavery? Slaves should respect and give honor to their masters!" He would be recognized as a person in opposition to basic human rights.
Paul living as was typical of the time/era/place he lived is not necessarily misogynistic. Someone TODAY with the benefit of improved understandings of human rights advocating the same WOULD be a misogynist. Times change and moral people embrace moral changes.
Do you disagree? Do you think we should STILL counsel slaves to be respectful to their masters?
Good Lord, let's hope not!
You think Christ or other apostles wouldn't put an end to that sort of thing?
I think Jesus promised that we would do greater things than even he did. Our improvements in human rights would qualify, in my mind. Things that were just NOT going to be overthrown in Jesus' day (slavery, women having few rights, harmful patriarchy...) HAVE largely been overthrown in many cultures in the world today. Again, people were products of their societies and societal change takes time. Did Jesus "fix" slavery and women not having rights in his day? No. But we've done greater things in that regards, thanks to the kernels of human rights found in good teachings throughout history, including in Jesus and Paul's words.
Are you really suggesting like atheists and other lefty asshats that Paul was a misogynist? Really?
Are you really suggesting that the world/era in which Jesus and Paul lived were ideal MAGA-land dreamscapes? OR do you recognize that basic notions of morality and human rights were nowhere NEAR recognized or accepted then, as they are moreso now?
In many, many ways, we are a better humanity now, than then. This is certainly what formerly enslaved people recognize, what formerly voiceless women recognize.
Do you?
Feodor...
“Inerrancy” believers cannot agree, so… clearly most if not all have erred in reading an inerrant text.
This whole question of, "EVEN IF you and your group believes in something like 'inerrancy...' the question will ALWAYS remain, according to WHO?" WHO decides which interpretation is right. All the "inerrantists" will agree that all of THEM (those they disagree with... including some conservative inerrantists) are wrong and wrongly interpreting the pages of the Bible. In so doing, THEY ACKNOWLEDGE that humans have it wrong, sometimes. That being the case, is it just supreme arrogance or what that allows them to say... "...but WE, WE got it right. YOU ALL can trust that WE in MY tradition are the Ones who are Right..."
Says who?
"Says who?" as it relates to interpreting scripture is the reason that here has never been a unified protestantism. From the first step it was Luther's intention to reform Catholic theology and practice. From the 95 theses nailed on the door it was just 19 years until Calvin published his Institutes.
There has never been one protestant church nor one Reformed Church (protestant but not Lutheran) ... ever.
Because there is no written text anywhere at all in the history of human civilization that can be absolutely agreed to by absolutely everyone as to how to read it.
But! Radical protestants (those who still adhere to the belief that sin corrupts everything except that book) cannot face these facts. They never have been able acknowledge that clear sense of scripture cannot be grasped. That fact disestablishes the principle that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God because either, if it is it doesn't matter because we cannot get to an inerrant understanding, or it isn't inerrant in the world of sinful existence.
So....... what to do when your fellow Christian believes as you do that the Bible is inerrant but you two cannot agree as to Incarnation, Atonement, Redemption, Salvation and Sanctification?
You vilify each other. All the fake bagpiper ever does is to split hairs and vilify other evangelicals. In his view if an evangelical does not believe as he does, then that guy is in jeopardy of going to hell. He pressed an absolute adherence to one certain doctrine at Stan-bin-Laden's site a few months ago. They were barely able to avoid anathematizing each other.
How did they avoid that?
Even better that vilifying each other is to repress the obvious differences that destroys both Christians' belief system and agree to vilify someone else.
Like Catholics. Like, for 400 years.
When Catholics join in the crusade against women owning their own bodies and deserving full access to all of healthcare, then Black people are always good to unify the Whites. Gays, too. Trans. Nonbinary.
We see how such 500 years of radical protestant rhetoric has taken over the GOP in the last 60 sixty years: find some group to vilify or make up some myth about a mortal danger to our way of life... and unity is kept.
You're not wrong.
I asked Marshal to prove his claim or admit he couldn't. He did neither, he just chose to try to attack me with grade school nonsense. That nothing-comment was deleted.
The ball is in your court, Marshal. PROVE your claims or admit you can't. It's just very basic adult level reasoning and respect.
I have indeed proved my claim and will be providing more. What's truly noteworthy is your demand I prove the obvious. The apostles were given great power by God through Christ and the Holy Spirit. How can any teaching or instruction by any of the Epistle writers, particularly Paul and Peter, for example, NOT be as Christ or God speaking through them, even if, as my examples of Paul illustrate, they might acknowledge that a certain concept wasn't expressly and specifically commanded by God? It's an absurd thought to suppose that simply because of such a thing that what is expressed might somehow be either in conflict with God's Will, or not in any way in agreement with it.
Thus, what your demand demonstrates is not that my position is untrue, but like so much, it is too inconvenient for you and your self-satisfied corruption of Christian teaching. You think Paul is speaking contrary to the Will of God by not permitting women to lead a congregation over men. Rather, you NEED to BELIEVE that in order to continue pretending there is no issue with a woman seeking a pastor position over men. It's basic idolatry, worshiping the self and personal desires over the Will of God. You're down with that sort of thing on many issues. Real Christians carry their cross in this as in many other ways, putting God's Will above their own desires. Not a progressive trait at all.
More later.
I have indeed proved my claim and will be providing more.
So you say. And yet, you clearly haven't.
What's truly noteworthy is your demand I prove the obvious.
Obvious to WHOM? You and people who think like you? So what? Do you realize that that is meaningless and NOT "proof" in any objective, demonstrable or authoritative way?
Answer the questions put to you.
How can any teaching or instruction by any of the Epistle writers, particularly Paul and Peter, for example, NOT be as Christ or God speaking through them, even if, as my examples of Paul illustrate, they might acknowledge that a certain concept wasn't expressly and specifically commanded by God?
I'm not even talking about what they did or didn't teach or instruct. I'm talking about YOUR HUMAN INTERPRETATION of what YOU THINK those teachings mean. YOU THINK that Paul was announcing a universal rule from God, but did Paul say so? Did God say so? WHY should any rational person accept your say so?
Paul also counseled (commanded?) that slaves be obedient to their masters. Was that a universal command? Do you, likewise, tell enslaved people to be docile slaves?
BULLSHIT. To hell with that kind of "opinion" if that's what you in your head think. THAT is sick and evil ideology. Do you understand that? Will you rebuke ANYONE who says that slaves should be obedient to their enslavers?
Where is your moral compass hidden, son?
Answer the questions put to you. Last chance.
Just so you know, it's THIS kind of thing (one of the things) that keep getting your comments deleted:
Rather, you NEED to BELIEVE that in order to continue pretending there is no issue with a woman seeking a pastor position over men.
That is just an incredibly piggish, oppressive comment that has been used by misogynists over the years to "keep women in their place." That's the point: It's not for YOU to tell everyone else what women should and shouldn't do. It's ugly. It's irrational. It's arrogant as hell and it's part of real world history of oppression of women. I've left the comment so far, just to illustrate your chosen bigotry, but it's just as likely to get deleted if you make such a vulgar comment again.
Rather, you NEED to BELIEVE that in order to continue pretending there is no issue with a woman seeking a pastor position over men.
This is why, no doubt, some people would refer to your belief system as a brutalist one, devoid of grace. WHY is a pastor even "over" anyone? You are embracing a graceless system of deadly, oppressive rules from the rulers foisted upon the ruled, the ones who are "under" them. That is not grace. It's bullying, it's brutal and, given the real world history of oppression of women, it's continuing that path of oppression. I just don't think you get how harmful this mindset is for everyone, yourself included.
"I'm not even talking about what they did or didn't teach or instruct. I'm talking about YOUR HUMAN INTERPRETATION of what YOU THINK those teachings mean."
You insist I simply "think" the teachings mean what the words on the page clearly say. This is common practice for you. Reject the clear meaning, pretend what is said to be clear meaning isn't while never doing jack shit to provide a logical, convincing and Scripture-supported alternative which makes much sense...much less ANY sense.
And you can drop the meaningless "human tradition" crap. It doesn't make your dodging any more effective or honest. You've even said all interpretations are "human traditions", so it's really quite moot and useless, isn't it? But to bore with another mention of "human traditions" so as to distinguish the exact representation of the clearly worded text from the Will of God demands YOU provide support for the counter claim. Let's go back to the "hot fire" analogy. For centuries, as with the teachings about female pastors, fire has been regarded as really hot. Call it a human tradition to say so. You come along and reject that, as you have Paul's clear teaching, for baseless reasons. You simply don't want to accept it. Am I supposed to prove fire is hot, or in the face of centuries of accepted understanding, are you not the one obliged to do the heavy lifting? Even if I couldn't provide as strong an argument in favor of the hot fire position as I have already for the "women can't be pastors" truth, you still have an obligation to support your claim which is out of the mainstream. Indeed, if you truly believe it to be the proper understanding, your obligation is non-negotiable if you care about truth and its acceptance for the greater good.
But no. You and your kind simply don't like the instruction, as you dislike so much of Scripture which doesn't match your leftist agenda. So you put the onus on those who don't put their own desires and preferences above the Will of God as clearly revealed in Scripture.
"YOU THINK that Paul was announcing a universal rule from God, but did Paul say so? Did God say so? WHY should any rational person accept your say so?"
This is just another cheap dodge so you don't have to back up your choice to reject what Scripture teaches. You've done it before with God's Will against the practice of homosexual behavior. Paul doesn't have to say a "rule" is universal. He merely has to say so and actual, rational Christians abide until some evidence-based argument compels one to set it aside as not a rule. God doesn't have to say so, either. But YOU have to prove that it is NOT something actual Christians should abide...or even fakes like you so that you can keep up the facade. Actual rational people wouldn't question the teachings of Paul without a solid basis. You have none here or you would have presented it. But that's not how leftists roll. They just reject and deride those who won't.
"Paul also counseled (commanded?) that slaves be obedient to their masters. Was that a universal command? Do you, likewise, tell enslaved people to be docile slaves?"
This is just another dodge from the Trabue playbook of deceptive discourse. It's got nothing to do with whether or not the instruction about pastors is for us to abide. It also demonstrates your lack of understanding regarding Paul's instructions to slaves and their masters and what his point was in teaching it. Here's some info from among many possible links I could have chosen for you to seriously and prayerfully study so that you don't make this foolish mistake again:
https://bibletalk.tv/pauls-teaching-on-slavery
"Where is your moral compass hidden, son?"f
I love when the immoral condescend to me about morality. It makes me laugh. I love to laugh.
I'm not your son. I'm likely quite older than you and so very clearly wiser and possessed of a better grasp of the faith you exploit for personal worldly gain.
"Answer the questions put to you. Last chance."
I always do...I always have...though at times your questions are just too stupid and lacking in any sincere desire for understanding and "adult" discourse.
"Just so you know, it's THIS kind of thing (one of the things) that keep getting your comments deleted:"
You're right. It's just the kind of thing you believe provides you opportunity to force evil intent into comments where none exists. Then you pretend you have justification for deleting them. So let's look at the comment you pretend provides that opportunity again:
"Rather, you NEED to BELIEVE that in order to continue pretending there is no issue with a woman seeking a pastor position over men."
From this you say:
"That is just an incredibly piggish, oppressive comment that has been used by misogynists over the years to "keep women in their place.""
Let's concede that might be true. What makes you think I have any such intention and ignoring how your imaginary misogynists might have exploited it, how is it true of this statement at all, given it's directed specifically at YOU, especially given the context in which you ripped it, which was the following sentences preceding it:
"Thus, what your demand demonstrates is not that my position is untrue, but like so much, it is too inconvenient for you and your self-satisfied corruption of Christian teaching. You think Paul is speaking contrary to the Will of God by not permitting women to lead a congregation over men."
The sentence you falsely and gracelessly deride as "piggish" isn't even about women. It could be applied to possible a half dozen or more cases where you've tried to rationalize rejecting Scriptural teaching without providing an actual argument to legitimize it. It's got nothing to do with women, but with YOUR lack of regard for the Will of God, or that which suggests it. An "adult" engaging in discourse in "good faith" would respond in kind by explaining how Paul is either speaking contrary to the Will of God, or just making shit up because he's a misogynist. That's a far rougher row to hoe than my position which you simply dismiss as not amply supported.
"That's the point: It's not for YOU to tell everyone else what women should and shouldn't do."
That might be the point if anything I said suggests in any way that I'M telling women what they should or shouldn't do. Here, I'm simply relating accurately what Paul instructs what women should or shouldn't do. Or more to the point, what women shouldn't be allowed to do. As an alleged "serious" student of Scripture, you'll remember this concept goes all the way back to Moses when he ordained only Aaron and his male descendants to be priests for Israel. Apparently, he too, like Paul, failed to imagine how "incredibly piggish & oppressive" modern progressives would regard such a directive from a man of God.
"It's ugly. It's irrational. It's arrogant as hell"
Sez you. What other instructions of Paul do your regard so derisively? Oh yeah...the slavery thing. But you don't understand that, so...
"...it's part of real world history of oppression of women."
Regardless of how leftists perverted this Scripture as they have so many other teachings...and as you've proven, continue to do so today, how does that mitigate the truth that Paul didn't permit women to be pastors over men?
"I've left the comment so far, just to illustrate your chosen bigotry, but it's just as likely to get deleted if you make such a vulgar comment again."
Bigotry? In recognizing Paul's clear teaching inspired by God? How does that work, exactly? How doe acknowledging the clear teaching of Scripture...regardless of how you hate it, but can't prove it's inaccurate...indicate vulgarity in any way? (This should be good)
"This is why, no doubt, some people would refer to your belief system as a brutalist one, devoid of grace. "
Clearly that's an indictment on the character of those who would so refer to the accurate representation of Paul's instruction to the church in such a manner. I don't waste too much time on the opinions of morons and heretics...aside from you, that is.
"WHY is a pastor even "over" anyone?"
Every time you ask these petulant questions I think of your insistence of having "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture. Such questions belie the claim more and more with each incidence. So rather than attempt to provide my own humble explanation, I will instead offer the following link which, if you actually choose to read it...not a common practice of yours...you will find several "questions" of your resolved quite efficiently, if you have the "God-given" reasoning to accept them.
"You are embracing a graceless system of deadly, oppressive rules from the rulers foisted upon the ruled, the ones who are "under" them."
You have a distinctly different and rebellious way of regarding the teachings of Scripture. Real Christians do not define Scripture as "oppressive rules from rulers"....God or His apostles..."foisted upon us. And while some teachers can be bullying and brutal, most rational and stable people do not regard teachers in general either. Your attempt to pretend Paul's instruction represents another phase of leftist understanding of oppression of women is unique and just a bit psycho. Normal and rational people, like Paul, recognize the quality of men and women while also recognizing their differences and the different roles for which each is suited. It's not lost on such people how your views on the subject are only held by effeminate men and radical feminist women. Women of character are no more averse to God's Will than are men of character. Progressives are an entirely different animal.
YOUR mindset is harmful. Mine, which is informed by the clear teaching of God as revealed in Scripture, isn't harmful to anyone but those who reject God. Stop doing that. It's not good for you.
So, before you delete my comments because the truth and logic is too much for your progressive rebelliousness to overcome, go ahead and list the dates and times of your comments where I've not responded to your liking. Barring your doing that, I may...likely will... peruse further back to hit on various points for your edification. You're welcome.
So, first of all, I'd say roughly 99% of your non-answers to my questions are some version of, "Because I think it's a reasonable interpretation..." and when I ask, "So what? Why should we care what you think is reasonable?" your response if "because it IS obvious to me and all people of at least average intelligence what it means..." And that's NOT AN ANSWER to the question being asked. We don't care what you think Paul means. You DO care, but how does that mean a thing to the rest of us who don't care what you do and don't think is obvious?
In what reason-based way should we care what you think is obvious and not?
Because you're REALLLLLLY pretty dang sure that you and people who agree with you are right? That is STILL not an answer.
So, you're making it clear without saying so that you can in no way OBJECTIVELY PROVE your hunches and opinions about whether Paul's one line where he offers his opinion that women in that specific church should not teach men is a universal command for all places and times and people, is that fair? You have NO OBJECTIVE proof that this line should be taken as authoritatively correct idea of what God wants... but you're pretty sure you're right... you just can't prove it in any way whatsoever at all, not in the real world beyond your head.
Can you DIRECTLY affirm this?
I had also asked:
"Paul also counseled (commanded?) that slaves be obedient to their masters. Was that a universal command? Do you, likewise, tell enslaved people to be docile slaves?"
And you responded (but did NOT answer):
This is just another dodge from the Trabue playbook of deceptive discourse.
An empty-minded, ad hom attack that does NOT answer the question. You continued...
It's got nothing to do with whether or not the instruction about pastors is for us to abide.
An entirely empty claim that does not have ANY support. That you, in your head, don't think the question of Paul's commands to slaves and masters is not relevant to Paul's one opinion he offered to one church one time about women in leadership roles at that church... that you don't see the relevancy between the two commands doesn't mean anything and is just an empty and unsupported claim.
You continue...
It also demonstrates your lack of understanding regarding Paul's instructions to slaves and their masters and what his point was in teaching it. Here's some info from among many possible links I could have chosen for you to seriously and prayerfully study so that you don't make this foolish mistake again:
https://bibletalk.tv/pauls-teaching-on-slavery
1. You SAY it demonstrates a lack of understanding about Paul and slavery, but you don't do anything to prove it, your words here do NOT answer my question.
2. But presumably, you think this one "bibletalk.tv" "expert" somehow addresses my concerns. So, let's look at it...
3. This guy, whoever he is, "Mike Mazzalongo" (he has Massa in his name... hmm...) (that's primarily a throwaway joke) makes a bunch of claims about what slavery was and wasn't like in the OT and in the first century Roman world of the early church. He provides not one link or line of support for these claims, just his word. He offers no credentials, just his word. That's often a bad sign.
4. Here's another link about slavery in the first century Roman world. This was from a PBS production based upon scholars, historians and research:
https://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/slaves_freemen.html
The experts behind this production. At least two of them are Christian scholars, just noting:
https://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/series/expert.html
5. What these experts had to say about slavery in this time period:
All slaves and their families were the property of their owners, who could sell or rent them out at any time. Their lives were harsh. Slaves were often whipped, branded or cruelly mistreated. Their owners could also kill them for any reason, and would face no punishment...
Once freed, former slaves could work in the same jobs as plebeians – as craftsmen, midwives or traders. Some even became wealthy. However, Rome’s rigid society attached importance to social status and even successful freedmen usually found the stigma of slavery hard to overcome – the degradation lasted well beyond the slavery itself.
They also point out/agree with your source that manumission (eventually freeing one's self from the bonds of slavery) was a possibility for at least some slaves in this time.
Out of time, more later. That's just setting the ground work.
So, given the horrific nature of enslaving humans in the time of first century Roman empires, this guy you cite - whoever he is - says...
Although morally wrong, the slavery of the Roman Empire was not the same as the slavery of the 18th-19th century slave trade that took place in the U.S.
No, not the same. It was a DIFFERENT sort of atrocity with some slightly different details, but still an abuse of very basic human rights.
Agreed?
He continues...
In the first century, there was relative peace and so there were few slaves from war or kidnapping.
Most were domestic slaves or those who had become slaves through indebtedness.
The Bible certainly doesn't tell us this and, as I pointed out in my first response above, it was still a great abuse of human rights, even if the details of human enslavement were different.
Agreed?
Slaves learned trades (usually the same as their masters') and worked side by side with them sharing in the prosperity.
Ah, the happy slave myth that has long been popular amongst slavery defenders and is currently being pushed on the public by Florida's extremist governor. A meaningless point, slavery remains a human rights abuse.
There's other nonsense and slave-defending talk but the guy's main conclusion, if I'm reading him right, is:
It was a social reality in that time but did not cause social unrest. It was part of the system that no one questioned because the people did not have the "Western" mindset that we have inherited over two millennia of social change and progress.
Yes, it WAS a social reality at the time, just as the other types of slavery that happened in the OT. It was just accepted, not questioned, as he rightly notes (well, accept by the enslaved and oppressed. We KNOW they questioned it!)
So, if I'm reading him right, then it was socially accepted then and that is why Paul didn't even TRY to condemn it, instead telling the enslaved to cooperate and be kind to their enslavers.
Is that how you're reading it and your point, as well? That it was not wrong in that context, because it was accepted and part of the culture?
But you'd agree today that, of course, people owning other humans, enslaving them to do their work, that this IS a tremendous evil and abuse of human rights?
Marshal’s claim: “The apostles were given great power by God through Christ and the Holy Spirit. How can any teaching or instruction by any of the Epistle writers, particularly Paul and Peter, for example, NOT be as Christ or God speaking through them…”
Well, either God gives faulty powers or Paul didn’t get the memo that Marshal pulls out of his ass:
“When Peter came to Antioch, I told him face to face that he was wrong. He used to eat with Gentile followers of the Lord, until James sent some Jewish followers. Peter was afraid of the Jews and soon stopped eating with Gentiles. He and the others hid their true feelings so well that even Barnabas was fooled. But when I saw they were not really obeying the truth that is in the good news, I corrected Peter in front of everyone and said: Peter, you are a Jew, but you live like a Gentile. So how can you force Gentiles to live like Jews?”
Maybe Marshal should actually read the damn thing instead of just spouting 17th century propaganda.
I wonder what portion of the de Santis' and Marshals of the world recognize the appeal to the defense of slavery and racism that they're doing and do it on purpose as dog whistles and what portion are just so indoctrinated that they don't even see it and, even when it's pointed out, just can't see it (refuse to see it, even if subconsciously)?
You'd think that Marshal would give SOME direct answer if he even on some level recognized the appeal to slavery/racism in his responses... but then, maybe that doesn't serve his interests to recognize and give direct answers...?
It's amazing.
Radical protestantism got really stupid quickly. And when smarter people pointed out how stupidly they read - Marshal serves as an example - they vilified the smart people.
Being unable, as Christians, to admit facts, is the 500 year old thread for the brutality of the Atlantic slave trade and the DNA of whiteness down through all these years to be figured in all these idiots reading from the hole in their ass: Marshal, Craig, Stan bin Laden who actually writes that my home, New York, home to 8 million people, is Sodom, and Craig and the fake Scot.
They share the thrill to brutality by which millions of Christens slaughtered each other in Europe at the dawn of White Supremacist power violently committing genocide and colonizing other peoples around the world.
Getting Marshal to conscientiously denounce racism and misogyny and bigotry is to kill off his faith - not in a god of love - but his deity of Whiteness.
Marshal also said somewhere above in his mile high pile of shit that repentance is necessary.
Jesus asked active repentance of only one person. Not of any of the apostles; they didn’t have to repent of anything: they just dropped their nets and followed. Not the one to whom he said go and sin no more as she had been doing. Not the one to whom he said to come down off the tree and host him for dinner. Nor the one healed by the pool, healed on the mat, or raised from the dead. Not even the one being crucified for some crime to whom Jesus said he would be in Paradise by COB.
The only one to whom Jesus said, but first go repent… was the rich man. Then he could follow. The only one. Hmmmm.
Further toward warding off the damage of Marshal’s biblical illiteracy and stagnant, corrupt thinking… and continuing with Peter in the gentile Cornelius’ house and Paul rebuking Peter for waffling behavior and dealing with contradictory Apostolic teaching to gentiles…
… let us remember that Jesus was born, lived, died, risen, and ascended before god did a new thing in the Spirit by demonstrating that the faith of the gentiles in the story of Jesus being the son of god was their entry into the kingdom of heaven and the community of the church. Peter had a hard time with that. He was reluctant. He gave conflicted teaching about the status of gentiles being fully counted as among the saved for the faith alone. The church in Jerusalem had to be convinced to: they wanted to add conditions. Paul struck them down as man made laws opposing the grace of god.
This was something new moving through and beyond the expectations of the first, Jewish, Christian Church. But how can new things ever not be realized by Christians who believe in a living god?
Slaves and the children of former slaves, and women… it took time for the church realize the universality of Christ’s work of redemption. Jesus never said anything about welcoming gentiles. Nor did he say anything about equal female leadership capacity. Nor did he say to free all slaves. But god has never stopped moving the church to pay attention to the Spirit. And if we cannot be humble before the spirit-filled faith of our pew neighbors who are gay or lesbian or asexual or trans or bi or non-binary…
… then the living god making all things new is not in us.
Marshal and the thugs et al are just old soured wine and desiccated dogma.
Marshal and the Dessicated Dogma! Worst band name ever.
July 22, 2023 at 6:06 AM
"So, first of all, I'd say roughly 99% of your non-answers to my questions are some version of, "Because I think it's a reasonable interpretation..." and when I ask, "So what? Why should we care what you think is reasonable?" your response if "because it IS obvious to me and all people of at least average intelligence what it means...""
So, first of all, you're reference to "non-answers" is a lie, given my answers are far more direct to whatever goofy question you ask than any "answers" to questions to which you deign to respond when you respond at all. So cut the crap.
Secondly, my answers are not simply "Because I think it's a reasonable interpretation..." That's your self-serving false representation of my answers. That is, another lie. Again, my answers are direct and to the point...assuming you've have a legit point at all, besides dodging the truths I present.
Thirdly, frankly I don't give a flying rat's ass if you care about what reasonable positions I present. You're unreasonable about anything which conflicts with your self-worshiping alternative. This is especially true given the dearth of evidentiary support for alternatives you don't even present.
With the third point in mind, we see this line of questioning ("why should anyone care...?") is just more dodging. You can refuse to care all you like. You still haven't done squat to rebut my position and my accurate understanding of the principle on the table.
"We don't care what you think Paul means."
I'm shocked to hear it. But you don't care what Paul does mean. More to the point, you hate what he teaches about women in ministry because it conflicts with your personal preferences...not because you have a legit argument that it isn't a universal instruction.
"In what reason-based way should we care what you think is obvious and not?"
That's a moron question given the issue is whether or not God prohibits...through the instruction of His Apostle, Paul...women having authority over men in churches. But that Paul absolutely put forth that instruction is obvious, is it not? What do you find so mysterious or ambiguous about it? I know ambiguity is essential for the modern progressive in order to avoid doing what's right when what's wrong has more appeal, but there's no ambiguity here.
"So, you're making it clear without saying so that you can in no way OBJECTIVELY PROVE your hunches and opinions about whether Paul's one line where he offers his opinion that women in that specific church should not teach men is a universal command for all places and times and people, is that fair?"
Neither fair, nor honest, nor intelligent. No rational, honest or even mildly intelligent person would suggest that it isn't universal. Only modern progressives would do such a thing when the absence of exact words such as "I, Paul, say to Dan Trabue 2000 years from now, 'THIS IS A UNIVERSAL RULE!!!!'" seemingly provide the loophole you need to reject it. Here's an analogy for the childishness of your objection to that reality:
The Trabue family is visiting Granny and little Danny's sister screams out a vile obscenity in everyone's hearing. Your mommy scolds here and demands she never says that word again. But Mommy didn't say to Danny, "That goes for you, too, girl, regardless of where we are!" Because Mommy didn't say those words, little Danny-girl cusses up a storm everywhere which isn't Granny's house, because why would he think Mommy's rule wasn't universal if she didn't say it?
Because Paul was speaking to Timothy while Tim was in Ephesus, you choose without any reason or evidence to pretend Paul's instruction about what he permits or prohibits in Christian churches is specific only to the church in Ephesus. Yeah. That's an intelligent and adult inference from the text. Sure.
"Can you DIRECTLY affirm this?"
Why would I but to appease your childish, baseless, self-serving position on the issue? There's absolutely no indication in any of Paul's writings that he was only prohibiting chick preachers in Ephesus. That's a stupid suggestion. REALLY stupid and totally dishonest. "Prove he meant it!" Yeah. "Adult discourse"! What a joke!
July 22, 2023 at 6:19 AM
"Paul also counseled (commanded?) that slaves be obedient to their masters. Was that a universal command? Do you, likewise, tell enslaved people to be docile slaves?"
Paul was teaching Christians to act like Christians and thus it's universal. If the slave and his master were both Christians, then obviously how they treated each other matters. If only one of them was, they were still expected to behave toward the other in the manner appropriate for Christians. Do you suppose that in such times slaves who were Christians were absolved from acting and living according to Christian teaching? Do you really think it's OK for a Christian slave to murder his master regardless of the belief system of the master? So like Paul, I wouldn't encourage any Christian slave to be "docile", but rather to be Christian. Keep in mind before you tale this irrelevant tangent further afield, that's not the same as prohibiting a slave from seeking freedom.
Despite answering this deflection from the issue, it remains irrelevant but asked so as to avoid defending your position on the issue at hand with evidence or rebutting mine. A cheap dodge and dishonest for daring.
"'This is just another dodge from the Trabue playbook of deceptive discourse.'
An empty-minded, ad hom attack that does NOT answer the question."
Nothing "empty-minded" about so easily recognizing a cheap ploy every time you perpetrate one as you did then with the slavery question. It's not an ad hom to recognize its an obvious dodge from the issue on the table. Perhaps you don't understand what an "ad hom" truly is. But it didn't answer the question because the question is crap and a dodge without any relevance to the issue whatsoever.
"That you...don't think the question of Paul's commands to slaves and masters is not relevant to Paul's one opinion he offered to one church one time about women in leadership roles at that church..."
I don't "think" it. I'm asserting it as the fact it is. There's no relevance whatsoever to Paul's several rendered instructions on who can be church leaders (that is, there's not just this one on which you deceivers and heretics focus your attention).
"...that you don't see the relevancy between the two commands doesn't mean anything and is just an empty and unsupported claim."
That you don't demonstrate and explain the relevancy means you're desperately hoping I'll be taken in by the distraction. There's no relevancy at all. Two distinctly different and disparate issues.
RE: the link
https://bibletalk.tv/pauls-teaching-on-slavery
1. The link is my evidence. You act as if all slaves are like those of the antebellum south prior to the Emancipation Proclamation. The word is used in Scripture to describe various types of people in various levels of servitude. Can you confirm which types are the subjects of Paul's teaching? Can you confirm it refers to all of them? I don't see how it would make any difference given that regardless of which type, it would require proof that he wasn't speaking to those who followed the teachings of Christ. Thus, if we want to speak of this issue as having relevance to the issue on the table, it's only in the broadest sense (no pun intended) of teachings Christians how to live. As such, all such teachings are indeed universal. Thanks for pushing the issue allowing me to drive home the truth you'll nonetheless reject in your rebelliousness.
2. The link provides context you ignore or of which you are ignorant. It's one of many I could have chosen for the task. To pretend you can find any fault within it which would to any extent mitigate the truth that the slavery issue is irrelevant to the teaching regarding pastors is a fool's errand. I can think of no fool better for the task than you.
3. No bad sign at all. The truly bad sign is the suggestion that the info about slavery in ancient times is not in the least bit difficult to find that he doesn't himself need to be a specialist on the topic. It's a bad sign that you'd demand credentials for such a thing in order to pay it heed. Were it one which supported your position about chick preachers, you'd not worry about credentials or links from your source. Cut the crap. Your desperate attempts are embarrassing.
4. & 5. None of this matters in the least. I've not said anything which suggests slavery in ancient times was like a lefty utopian fantasy. More embarrassment on your part.
July 22, 2023 at 11:47 AM
By and large, what begins this comment is just another case of you thinking you're scoring points. Sadly but predictably, you're only wasting keystrokes on irrelevant stuff. But that's what you do when you can't support your position, so OK.
"No, not the same. It was a DIFFERENT sort of atrocity with some slightly different details, but still an abuse of very basic human rights.
Agreed?"
Yeah, but so what? Still not relevant to the issue of who can be a pastor. You can continue to dissect the crap out of my link, but it won't change that, and it won't inform me of that which I already didn't know about slavery in the ancient world. For example, some types of servitude spoken of as "slavery" wasn't atrocious at all, especially given how one could come to be a position of servitude. THAT was the point of Mike Mazzalongo's essay. Had you actually studied it instead of hunting down something you could pretend serves your purpose, you'd not have wasted so many keystrokes.
"'Most were domestic slaves or those who had become slaves through indebtedness.'
The Bible certainly doesn't tell us this and, as I pointed out in my first response above, it was still a great abuse of human rights, even if the details of human enslavement were different."
The Bible doesn't have to tell us this for it to be the case. Archaeology and history does, and that should be enough for any honest person. It's certainly not an abuse when one freely enters into the situation to absolve himself of debts he can't otherwise pay, when he is seeking to provide for himself having no other means, etc. They were all referred to under the same general term of "slave", particularly in Scripture. Honest people are fully aware of this, but you insist on asserting there's no distinctions whatsoever that made forms of the practice beneficial for even the "slaves" themselves which served them in ways not being in servitude provided. Worse, you ignore the context of the time and pretend it's no different than the worst forms of slavery in human history in every case. That's a willful lie or abject ignorance of the subject.
"'Slaves learned trades (usually the same as their masters') and worked side by side with them sharing in the prosperity.'
Ah, the happy slave myth that has long been popular amongst slavery defenders and is currently being pushed on the public by Florida's extremist governor. A meaningless point, slavery remains a human rights abuse."
What a liar you are! First, he's not promoting any "happy slave myth". He's stating facts regarding the situation of the times. I know you are constantly trying to resolve the problem of your support for the party of slavery, oppression, identity politics and discrimination, but it doesn't serve you to beclown yourself by slandering someone you don't know, be it Mazzalongo or DeSantis, neither of whom defends slavery in any way, you inveterate liar. Slavery as we define it today is a human rights abuse...despite your party enabling it...but as the term is used in Scripture means you're a liar to pretend it's abusive.
So you think it's a human rights abuse for someone who destroyed property, let's say, but is without the means to pay the property owner is someone abused by offering to work for the property owner for free until the property owner is satisfied the debt is paid? Or that one who is without the means to provide for himself is being abused if someone agrees to let the pauper work as a servant in order to eat, be clothed and housed for the rest of his life? Both of these situations were labeled "slavery" in Scripture and you're simply dodging the babe priest issue with this unconvincing sanctimony.
"So, if I'm reading him right, then it was socially accepted then and that is why Paul didn't even TRY to condemn it, instead telling the enslaved to cooperate and be kind to their enslavers. "
Clearly you're not reading him right at all, just as all lefties ignore the realities of slavery even in our own country up until the Emancipation Proclamation. Slavery existed everywhere until then, and continues to this day, even in this country thanks to open borders policy of your kind. But far more than now, in ancient times it was a way of life and a means by which many avoided death and misery, even if the life contained it's own kind of misery. To ignore how some benefited by being in servitude is a lie.
More importantly, note how neither Paul, nor Christ for that matter, ever praised the institution in any way. Paul's teachings to slave and master certainly doesn't do it. Only lefties dare suggest that the lack of condemnation means some degree of tolerance for the practice. That's bullshit we've come to expect from the modern progressive. Case in point:
"Is that how you're reading it and your point, as well? That it was not wrong in that context, because it was accepted and part of the culture?"
Nothing said by me, Paul or Mazzalongo so much as hinted it was "not wrong" in ANY context. Feel free to not find any evidence of such a slanderous suggestion.
"But you'd agree today that, of course, people owning other humans, enslaving them to do their work, that this IS a tremendous evil and abuse of human rights?"
It's why I don't vote Democrat.
July 22, 2023 at 1:41 PM
"I wonder what portion of the de Santis' and Marshals of the world recognize the appeal to the defense of slavery and racism that they're doing and do it on purpose as dog whistles and what portion are just so indoctrinated that they don't even see it and, even when it's pointed out, just can't see it (refuse to see it, even if subconsciously)?"
One can't recognize what doesn't exist. No one on my side of the ideological divide defends slavery or racism in any way. No one is "indoctrinated" to ignore racism but the modern progressive who follows those who keep the flames of racism burning brightly. What you think you're pointing out is perversions of the positions of better people because you need to turn suspicions of racism from those for whom keeping racism alive is essential for the achieving of power and profit. Only lefty liars and the morons they con believe racism is a right-wing thing.
"You'd think that Marshal would give SOME direct answer if he even on some level recognized the appeal to slavery/racism in his responses... but then, maybe that doesn't serve his interests to recognize and give direct answers...?"
There's no appeal to slavery/racism in any response I've ever given to any of the tens of thousands of questions to which I've directly and unequivocally responded. There's only you trying to inject racism where it doesn't exist. This from one of two who constantly make racist references, rely on the proliferation of racism, belittle as incompetent the black race and generally, like all marxists and modern progressives, continue to divide the nation in order to make groups believe you're doing them any damned good.
It's amazing...in the modern progressive's high degree of evil. I always think I've seen it's limit. Then you reprobates prove it's worse than I thought.
At this point I just want to say that I think you load me up with all this crap so that I have no time left for your other examples of stupidity, such as your comments about Trump in the other thread. But I'll get to them in time.
It’s a revelation of his paranoid personality that Marshal goes to the moon and back in blather to deify scripture but cannot deal with Galatians 2:11.
Idolators will not read - it destroys them.
my answers are not simply "Because I think it's a reasonable interpretation..." That's your self-serving false representation of my answers. That is, another lie.
VERY last chance: If it's NOT simply "Because I think it's a reasonable interpretation..." What is it?
Answer THAT question specifically and directly.
given the issue is whether or not God prohibits...through the instruction of His Apostle, Paul...women having authority over men in churches. But that Paul absolutely put forth that instruction is obvious, is it not?
NO. Simply NO. That Paul in ONE verse says to ONE person that he (Paul) doesn't support women teaching men is LITERALLY NOT saying that this is a universal rule from God.
Last chance: Do you recognize that reality?
If you think it IS an objectively provable reality, then PROVE IT.
Last chance.
I asked:
So, you're making it clear without saying so that
you
can in
no way OBJECTIVELY PROVE your hunches and opinions
about whether Paul's one line where he offers his opinion that women in that specific church should not teach men is a universal command for all places and times and people...?
You responded, but didn't answer:
No rational, honest or even mildly intelligent person would suggest that it isn't universal.
That is NOT, in fact, correct. There are a world full of honest, rational and intelligent people who disagree with your personal hunch in your particular human tradition. Unless you have some conspiracy theory going that says EVERYONE in the history of everything who disagrees with YOUR OPINION on this matter is not honest, rational and intelligent.
If THAT is what you're suggesting (and it's batshit crazy), then PROVE IT.
And if you DO think that your opinion is objectively provable, then PROVE IT.
Answer the questions and support the claims I'm requesting in bold or you're done. Why will you be done?
1. Because you have demonstrated by your absence of support that you CAN NOT PROVE YOUR HUNCHES authoritatively and objectively. You just can't. That is clear or you would have done so already.
2. Because your refusal to answer these reasonable questions and requests for proof is rude, irrational and frankly, childish, dishonest and cowardly.
You're THIS close to being done, Marshal. The ball is in your court. But when your non-answers and your rude responses get deleted, you'll have only yourself to blame. I've made it clear what I'm asking.
What you're doing, Marshal, is belligerently (and unsuccessfully) trying to gaslight me and people who agree with me. It's a typical method men (especially) have used over the years to try to control women and their allies.
Gaslight: manipulate (someone) using psychological methods into questioning their own sanity or powers of reasoning...
In relationships, an abusive person may use gaslighting to isolate their partner, undermine their confidence, and make them easier to control. For example, they might tell someone they are irrational until the person starts to think it must be true.
When you act as if YOU don't have to provide support for your irrational claims but everyone who might disagree with you DOES, that's gaslighting. When you call people "irrational" when they don't agree with what you CLAIM is "obvious," that is gaslighting.
But that's not going to work here. Step up, PROVE your claims (you can't) or ADMIT you can't prove them objectively and acknowledge that they ARE your opinions and interpretations, not a Word from God. Then apologize for acting as if your opinions were equivalent to the Word of God.
That, son, is blasphemy and, well, just dumb.
There's no appeal to slavery/racism in any response I've ever given
Just fyi, you should know this as a grown up adult, but in our real world, there is this tradition that people who either wanted to defend slavery, or defend the White South and its practices or who wanted to play down the severity of slavery of promoting "they happy slave." This myth goes that, "Slavery wasn't that bad. Many slaves learned useful trades and it made them more employable once they left slavery. There were benefits TO THE ENSLAVED from THE ENSLAVERS that in the long run helped those enslaved."
The happy slave is a myth. It's a racist myth. It's a myth that has been used historically by white defenders of slavery and the south and "the Lost Cause," which is, itself, another myth promoted by defenders of the South and slavery (and to be clear: When I say, defenders of slavery... I'm not suggesting that every Happy Slave/Lost Cause promoter is defending the continuation of slavery... they are just defending it in the sense of downplaying how very evil it was/is).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_as_a_positive_good_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy
These are racist myths, something that should not be promoted by Florida governors or rational, moral people anywhere, any time, and certainly not 150+ years post slavery. I'm allowing that, in your efforts to silo yourself and surround yourself only/primarily with those who agree with you, that you are ignorant of these myths. But now you're not. Don't defend racist, slavery-promoting false histories.
And, for the record, when conservative Christians today (like your uncredentialed man you cited) defend slavery in the Bible by saying, "Well, it was DIFFERENT than our slavery in the US..." that's another way of defending slavery, by downplaying the severity of the evil of slavery and promoting the societal benefits that came from enslaving people.
That it was a different world 150 years ago and 2000+ years ago doesn't mean that we can't recognize it as a great human rights atrocity and denounce it as evil without any hesitation or caveats.
July 23, 2023 at 1:06 PM
"VERY last chance: If it's NOT simply "Because I think it's a reasonable interpretation..." What is it?
Answer THAT question specifically and directly."
What it is is an exact representation of Paul's intention. I don't know how else to respond. Perhaps you're so distracted trying to rationalize your inability to prove I'm wrong that you can't craft an intelligent question. Try restating it with some context attached. I don't feel like again wading through all the comments to make sense of this.
"NO. Simply NO. That Paul in ONE verse says to ONE person that he (Paul) doesn't support women teaching men is LITERALLY NOT saying that this is a universal rule from God.
Last chance: Do you recognize that reality?"
But you provide no reason to suppose it's not a universal rule from God outside your preference that it mustn't be. The reality is that neither Paul nor God needs to state emphatically and with the exact wording you demand in order that one should regard such an instruction to one guy and that one guy only that in the church that one guy is working on Paul's behalf, which is to say God's behalf given Paul is God's Apostle...that one should regard the rule as universal DEMANDS that YOU provide some fact-based, Scripture-based, logic-based argument to the contrary. Without that, you can't suppose it's not universal.
No honest, rational Christian reads Scripture and says to himself "Oh...God didn't say I can't have a cookie before dinner, so I can go ahead and do what I like." That's a modern progressive thing. Not an honest, rational Christian thing. An honest, rational Christian takes God and His Apostles at their word until Scripture somehow, somewhere provides something...ANYTHING...which can unequivocally disabuse an honest, rational Christian of such a belief.
But no. YOU simply say, "I don't like that rule, so I'm going to pretend it isn't universal and insist it must be proven to my satisfaction that is if I'm to abide." Good luck with that.
"If you think it IS an objectively provable reality, then PROVE IT.
Last chance."
I did. I've blasted every objection you've put forth in doing so constantly while you do nothing to prove me wrong. You simply raise the bar and move the goal posts, which is your only tactic since an actual, legitimate contrary argument doesn't exist...OR YOU WOULD HAVE PROVIDED IT BY NOW!!!
So, stuff your "last chance". You delete me or block me from further comment on this issue and that will stand as a white flag of surrender....proof you've nothing but your childish petulance.
"So, you're making it clear without saying so that
you
can in
no way OBJECTIVELY PROVE your hunches and opinions
about whether Paul's one line where he offers his opinion that women in that specific church should not teach men is a universal command for all places and times and people...?"
What makes you think this is in any way possible?...that because he's instructing Timothy, that he's somehow instructing him differently than he would anyone else in any other church...such as he had done with Titus? The REALITY!!!!!!!!! is that you want it to be that way, not that you know or can prove it is that way OR YOU WOULD HAVE BY NOW!!!
I've provided. You've provided nothing but whining, petulance and unsupported objections.
"That is NOT, in fact, correct. There are a world full of honest, rational and intelligent people who disagree with your personal hunch in your particular human tradition."
Bullshit. While there exists other modern progressives like you who pretend to be Christians while crapping on His Word, there are none that can provide an intelligent argument to support the notion Paul's instruction isn't universal. Such an argument would include evidence that Paul ordained a woman to lead a church. Where is such evidence?
July 23, 2023 at 2:04 PM
"The happy slave is a myth. It's a racist myth."
Well then it's a damned good thing nobody I cited so much as hinted at such a thing. No Florida governor who wasn't a Democrat ever did, either. So stop lying about people you need to regard negatively in order to bolster your nonsense.
"Don't defend racist, slavery-promoting false histories."
Never did, never do and never will. Nor have any sources I've cited in order to argue a position I've support. You're a liar for pretending I have when you couldn't prove it if I helped you lie harder. Talk about being incredibly rude, irrational and frankly, childish, dishonest and cowardly!! No one tops you on that score!
July 23, 2023 at 2:06 PM
"And, for the record, when conservative Christians today (like your uncredentialed man you cited) defend slavery in the Bible by saying, "Well, it was DIFFERENT than our slavery in the US..." that's another way of defending slavery, by downplaying the severity of the evil of slavery and promoting the societal benefits that came from enslaving people."
Straight up lying again! I cited no one who defended slavery in any way. Stating the fact that what is referred to in English translations of the ancient languages as "slavery" is often far, far different than what lying modern progressives need to believe is meant in order to falsely prance about as defenders of the downtrodden. Yet even with this fact attested to by many Biblical scholars knowledgeable about those languages, there's still no defense made for anything even marginally similar to non-consenting servitude. So you're proving the long understood fact that you're a liar. No actual Christian makes such weak claims against even people they know personally, much less those they don't know at all. You need to make this accusation in order to mitigate truths I present that are inconvenient for you to acknowledge. Shit. You don't even need to acknowledge them all, only that which relates to the main issue being debated. It wasn't slavery. YOU brought that up and I proved you weren't referencing it accurately. Now you choose to cast aspersions on the source used for that purpose. Shame on you for this blatant and obvious slander.
"That it was a different world 150 years ago and 2000+ years ago doesn't mean that we can't recognize it as a great human rights atrocity and denounce it as evil without any hesitation or caveats."
It does if the actual situation is not slavery as we understand it today. If someone called a slave in Scripture...or even ancient Rome...was one who consented to a life or period of servitude in order to serve his own interests, how is that and "atrocity"? Explain that given the times in which it took place and the consequences facing the person who so consented if that person chose not to consent to it?
You're not fooling anyone with that strategy of yours, far closer to the definition of "gaslighting" than anything I've ever done.
So, in summation:
1. Marshal BELIEVES that all the people who disagree with his subjective opinions on the nature of women in ministry are ALL dishonest, stupid and irrational. Marshal can't prove it and it is, of course, an absurdly stupid and dishonest claim, itself, born of the sort of conspiracy theory mindset disease that has consumed modern "conservatives." There is no proof that all who disagree with Marshal are dishonest, irrational and stupid because it's just not reality.
Thus, Marshal can't prove it but rather than admit he is entirely powerless to prove this false claim, he doubles down and says, "yesitis! yesitis! YESITIS!!"
Grow up.
2. Marshal BELIEVES that Paul was objectively, authoritatively giving a rule that GOD says no women can be in a pastor role "over men" BUT Marshal can not prove it, not objectively, because of course he can't. But rather than admit that this is HIS opinion, not something he can prove at all, Marshal continues to insist he HAS "proven" it by repeating the same unsupported nonsense.
Is it possibly the case that you don't understand what "prove objectively" means, Marshal? If someone said it's FREEZING OUTSIDE in Phoenix this afternoon, then ALL they have to do is stick a thermometer outside and prove it or, conversely, admit, that no, of course, it's not freezing outside in Phoenix today, it's incredibly hot. That is what it means to PROVE something objectively.
Marshal says about Paul's ONE TIME quote about women in authority...
What it is is an exact representation of Paul's intention. I don't know how else to respond. Perhaps you're so distracted trying to rationalize your inability to prove I'm wrong that you can't craft an intelligent question.
"It is an EXACT REPRESENTATION of Paul's INTENTION."
That, Marshal, is a subjective opinion, NOT an exact representation of Paul's intention. Your subjective interpretation and opinion about Paul's "intention," is NOT proven objectively merely by your say so.
Do you not understand the meaning of "prove objectively..."?
And, even though this is just nonsense, let me remind you of what it is you NEED to prove objectively (or admit that you can't). In ONE passage, Paul is talking to Timothy about what he, Paul, allows/encourages/teaches...
I also want the women to dress modestly,
with decency and propriety, adorning themselves,
not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,
but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;
she must be quiet.
Given all these things that PAUL SPECIFICALLY says are things that HE, Paul, encourages/teaches/"permits," then, there are SOME human traditions that expand that to say,
"...and what this MEANS is that Paul was speaking for GOD and that GOD doesn't want women to 'teach' or 'assume authority over a man...'"
But that is literally not what the passage says. The question then is where is the PROOF that God doesn't want women in pastor roles? In leadership roles over men?
After all, Deborah (among others) in the OT had a leadership role over men, so it's not like leadership over men is not represented in the Bible.
And Paul doesn't "want" women to have "elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes..." so, what is the ruling on that from you, Marshal? No gold marriage bands? Who decides what is and isn't an "elaborate hairstyle" in Marshal's church (if Marshal were actually in a church)? Do you have a hairstyle committee to issue a ruling on that?
And the problem with Paul's encouragement for people who have been enslaved to be obedient and respectful, because Paul utters those words, does that mean that GOD wants the enslaved to be respectful to their owners?
THAT is what you need to prove and prove objectively - NOT with a subjective opinion, but objectively, demonstrably, authoritatively. YOU literally have not done this, NOR have you admitted the reality that you can't prove it.
We do not give one single damn about your opinions about enslaved people and oppressed women.
Short of actual, OBJECTIVE PROOF or an admission that you can't prove it objectively and an apology for being so obtuse on this point, you're done, Marshal. I've been more than patient.
Let me offer one more example/illustration to maybe help Marshal make a break through and understand why he's so wrong in his suggestion that he has "proven" anything.
Marshal rightly notes that sometimes in Paul's epistles, Paul says something like "And here I'm speaking for myself, not for God." and then proceeds to offer his opinion. Here's at least one example of that, from 1 Cor 7:
To the married I give this command
(not I, but the Lord):
A wife must not separate from her husband.
But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.
And a husband must not divorce his wife.
To the rest I say this
(I, not the Lord):
If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him,
he must not divorce her.
And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her,
she must not divorce him.
Now, there are at least two different ways to read that kind of line, as it relates to the 1 Timothy words about women's hairdos and gold wedding bands and not being in "authority" "over" men:
First of all, we can all note that CLEARLY, literally, Paul is offering his opinions. He states this clearly. "Don't be stupid! I'm not saying this is from God, I'm literally telling you this is from me."
1. From THERE, though, we can guess/interpret/read into the Pauline epistles, "Ah, so when Paul is speaking ONLY for himself and not from God, he over-states the point and makes it clear, 'HERE, I'm speaking for myself!' and we can ASSUME that ANYTIME Paul is speaking only for himself, then he will say that same thing or something just about the same to make that point clear... and so, in 1 Timothy, where he offers a series of opinions about what he, Paul, allows, he DIDN'T specify he was speaking only for himself, so he MUST have been speaking for God and declaring a universal rule."
OR
2. From THERE, we can note that Paul is quite clear that at least sometimes (and maybe all of the time) Paul is speaking FOR HIMSELF and he's not saying that his words are as if they were from God. Paul makes clear at least sometimes that this is from Paul, NOT GOD. How will we know when Paul thinks he's speaking for God? Well, the text literally does not say. We might want to lean towards when Paul is saying "Here is what I allow/permit/encourage/forbid..." that he is clearly speaking for Paul, not God. And ONLY when Paul explicitly says, "This is from God," THAT is the only time we should presume that Paul thinks he's speaking for God.
and a third option:
3. EVEN IF Paul thinks he's speaking for God, GOD has not said that Paul is speaking for God, so, we should take Paul - or ANY human's claim to be speaking for God with a grain of salt.
Do you understand? You are offering an OPINION that YOU THINK if and only if Paul explicitly says this is my opinion using words pretty close to that, that THEN and ONLY THEN is Paul speaking for himself. But that is an opinion, an interpretation, a subjective theory, NOT PROVEN OBJECTIVELY.
WHY could it not also be the case that when Paul says "HERE IS WHAT I, PAUL 'allow..." is that not ALSO Paul being clear that he's speaking for himself? That is another rational way to read that text.
And beyond that, why could it not also be the case that EVEN WHEN Paul says he's speaking for God, that Paul was just mistaken?
I know that you hold to the human (not biblical) theory of "inerrancy," but just because you hold to that theory doesn't mean that it's right or proven objectively and other people of intelligence and good will may well disagree with your human theories that you can't prove and haven't even tried to prove.
Do you understand this distinction then between unproven subjective opinion and objectively proven facts?
you claim the meaning is somehow different than the words on the page imply.
The "words on the page":
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
I [ie, "I, PAUL," the HUMAN who sometimes writes his opinions and offers his advice to the church IN THAT TIME AND SETTING should do according to PAUL]
do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;
she must be quiet.
The words on the page do NOT in any direct way "imply" that Paul is speaking for God. We CAN see that this is what PAUL thinks, as he abundantly makes clear.
SOME humans could make a guess that, "When Paul makes these suggestions, he was speaking on behalf of God. Further, we believe that Paul was speaking on behalf of God not just to people at that church, but to all people everywhere in all times..." That is what SOME HUMANS read into the text, but it's literally not there and is not IMPLIED. You're INFERRING what is NOT implied textually.
Do you understand the difference between infer and imply?
Marshal continued...
No evidence, no verse which contradicts it
I don't need any evidence for what is NOT THERE. YOU are the one reading something into the text which is not there. You want to objectively prove that GOD thinks that women shouldn't preach, then objectively prove it.
You. Can't. That's why you haven't proved your bigotry yet, because you can't. All that remains now, if you were a reasonable adult engaging in good faith discussion, is for you to ADMIT you can't prove it, that you ARE reading into the text something that literally isn't there and apologize for being so belligerent.
July 24, 2023 at 5:43 AM
"So, in summation:
1. Marshal BELIEVES that all the people who disagree with his subjective opinions on the nature of women in ministry are ALL dishonest, stupid and irrational."
All me to clarify: I believe that you and all you claim agree with you are dishonest, stupid and irrational. More to the point, it's not about disagreeing with me personally. It's about making your case that your understanding is possibly more accurate. You can't do that or you would have by now, so you attack me personally. Embracing grace again, I suppose.
"Marshal can't prove it and it is, of course, an absurdly stupid and dishonest claim, itself, born of the sort of conspiracy theory mindset disease that has consumed modern "conservatives." There is no proof that all who disagree with Marshal are dishonest, irrational and stupid because it's just not reality."
Once again, my conclusion is based on you and your claim that others agree with you on the issue on the table. If they're like you, why would I suspect they're not dishonest, stupid and irrational than you when your position and avoidance in supporting it suggests all of that? Is that why you cite "other people" as you do (as in what other people?), so that you can then attack me for regarding them with the same contempt with which I regard you? Real nice.
"Thus, Marshal can't prove it but rather than admit he is entirely powerless to prove this false claim, he doubles down and says, "yesitis! yesitis! YESITIS!!""
Thus "Marshal" has indeed proven his case and Dan, being dishonest, stupid and irrational does nothing to address directly anything I've offered with proofs, evidences and Scriptural citations, but instead continues to insist I do what's been done more directly and comprehensively than any example of his own to which he can point.
"Grow up."
That's funny coming from you given your childish behavior throughout this thread alone.
"2. Marshal BELIEVES that Paul was objectively, authoritatively giving a rule that GOD says no women can be in a pastor role "over men" BUT Marshal can not prove it, not objectively, because of course he can't."
Not only can, but did, despite your petulant lie that I haven't. But let's look at this again:
First of all, it's easy for you and those like you to suggest that anything in Scripture isn't a reflection of God's Will and it's up to those who accept the teachings of Scripture as written to prove it. This allows you to ignore absolutely anything in Scripture which doesn't have some connection to what is recorded as words out of the mouth God the Father or Son. This is really convenient for the modern progressive for whom truth is such a burden when it conflicts with the progressive's marxist preferences.
Second, we can easily see that throughout Scripture, when there was anything akin to an ordination, there were never women selected. I don't recall...and I think it's a stretch, but I'll concede I might be forgetting...any female priests among the tribe of Levi. No, it was Aaron and his sons and to my knowledge there were no females in that position.
July 24, 2023 at 5:43 AM
Christ selected twelve men to be His Apostles, and when Judas did his thing, he was replaced by another man.
Paul said, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man..." But then neither did God the Father or Son based on the examples above. What's more, nothing in the passage...ANYWHERE!!...suggests he was speaking of the church of Ephesus. NOTHING! YOU, childishly, want to insist he was speaking ONLY of Ephesus simply because he was writing to Timothy while Timothy was in Ephesus. But then Paul goes on to explain his reasoning and it would take something substantive to insist his reasoning doesn't represent his instructions to ALL churches. That is, v 13-14 are somehow also specific to Ephesus??? Tell me how you make that work!!
"But rather than admit that this is HIS opinion, not something he can prove at all, Marshal continues to insist he HAS "proven" it by repeating the same unsupported nonsense."
Clearly, I've provided even more which supports my position, while you have yet to provide jack to the contrary. Your link way above does not, but with all your constant nonsensical responses to every recent comment I post, I don't know if I'll ever have time to address that, too. Not that it matters given none of the women cited were ordained to lead any churches.
"Is it possibly the case that you don't understand what "prove objectively" means, Marshal?"
No. Not at all. But it's probable (I'm being kind here. It's absolutely the case) that you aren't willing to concede regardless of how solid my case is made. You simply don't care that God has inspired Paul to instruct as he has.
"If someone said it's FREEZING OUTSIDE in Phoenix this afternoon, then ALL they have to do is stick a thermometer outside and prove it or, conversely, admit, that no, of course, it's not freezing outside in Phoenix today, it's incredibly hot. That is what it means to PROVE something objectively."
Oh look!!! More condescension from one with no argument to support his case or to rebut mine.
Marshal says about Paul's ONE TIME quote about women in authority...
What it is is an exact representation of Paul's intention. I don't know how else to respond. Perhaps you're so distracted trying to rationalize your inability to prove I'm wrong that you can't craft an intelligent question.
""It is an EXACT REPRESENTATION of Paul's INTENTION."
That, Marshal, is a subjective opinion, NOT an exact representation of Paul's intention. Your subjective interpretation and opinion about Paul's "intention," is NOT proven objectively merely by your say so.
Do you not understand the meaning of "prove objectively..."?"
It's a statement affirming the truth of my position. You can't seem to understand the distinction between that and your false claim I haven't provided objective support for that position. What's more, "prove objectively" that I'm wrong...that the passages to which I refer do not mean what they clearly say. As always, you refuse such counterpoint, favoring instead hectoring me for more than I've provided, as if there's any amount, including a personal visit to you by God Himself, which could possibly convince you of the truth...because you don't like the truth. It means your cherished woman pastor must step down so a man can do a man's job. Boo-hoo.
July 24, 2023 at 5:43 AM
"Given all these things that PAUL SPECIFICALLY says are things that HE, Paul, encourages/teaches/"permits," then, there are SOME human traditions that expand that to say,
"...and what this MEANS is that Paul was speaking for GOD and that GOD doesn't want women to 'teach' or 'assume authority over a man...'""
Again with the "human traditions" trope as if it strengthens the fact-free objection to the instruction in question. It is a Christian tradition...by which I mean the understanding of actual Christians who truly put God above their own preferences as a default position. That is, what does Scripture say? I will abide what it says until there is some fact-based, intelligent argument which truthfully disabuses me of my position. I will set aside my personal preferences, desires and compulsions until such a compelling, irrefutable argument is presented. "Nyuh uh" isn't among them.
In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul passes along instructions which he ends in v 40 with, "And I think that I too have the Spirit of God." Again, in Acts 20:27 he says, "For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God." Just these two verses alone indicate whence came his understanding, such that if any modern progressive questioned whether or not he was speaking for God when he didn't explicitly say when he was or wasn't, the proof that he should be regarded as doing so is clear and without equivocation or ambiguity...two traits essential for the modern progressive who prefers his own desires to trump God's.
And of course, with regard to this nonsense about Paul ONLY instructing the church of Ephesus to refrain from women pastors, he says this in 1 Tim 3:14: "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." One would have to set aside all reason, logic and honesty to suppose this isn't speaking of ALL Christian churches, and not just Ephesus.
Clearly, more proof and evidence that I am accurate in my position and that you have no honest objection against Paul's clear instruction on the issue at hand. I we were keeping score, I would be well into slaughter-rule territory, while you'd not have had so much as a foul tip.
"After all, Deborah (among others) in the OT had a leadership role over men, so it's not like leadership over men is not represented in the Bible."
Most modern progressives try to run with this extreme exception to God's rule as evidence Paul's instruction can be ignored for personal preference over God's Will. An honest reading of Judges shows that God sought a man to lead His armies against the villain of the story. But the nation of Israel was at a moral low point, and the men of that time were as effeminate as the modern progressive. Thus, God used the prophetess instead. This was a case of no man being available to lead...a complete and utter rare situation. It is not the case today in any way, except among the modern progressives. But for them they can gravitate to true Christian churches instead of pretending they're more "sophisticated" in allowing women to pastor over men in stark rebellion to God's Will. As stated earlier, there are no cases where God put women over men and this is an exception, not a mitigation of the truth you find so inconvenient.
"2. Marshal BELIEVES that Paul was objectively, authoritatively giving a rule that GOD says no women can be in a pastor role "over men" BUT Marshal can not prove it, not objectively, because of course he can't."
Not only can, but did, despite your petulant lie that I haven't. But let's look at this again:
First of all, it's easy for you and those like you to suggest that anything in Scripture isn't a reflection of God's Will and it's up to those who accept the teachings of Scripture as written to prove it. This allows you to ignore absolutely anything in Scripture which doesn't have some connection to what is recorded as words out of the mouth God the Father or Son. This is really convenient for the modern progressive for whom truth is such a burden when it conflicts with the progressive's marxist preferences.
Second, we can easily see that throughout Scripture, when there was anything akin to an ordination, there were never women selected. I don't recall...and I think it's a stretch, but I'll concede I might be forgetting...any female priests among the tribe of Levi. No, it was Aaron and his sons and to my knowledge there were no females in that position.
"And Paul doesn't "want" women to have "elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes..." so, what is the ruling on that from you, Marshal? No gold marriage bands? Who decides what is and isn't an "elaborate hairstyle" in Marshal's church (if Marshal were actually in a church)? Do you have a hairstyle committee to issue a ruling on that?"
I hesitate to even address this churlish childishness given it's just another distraction from the issue at hand. But the intensity of your desperation I find fascinating! You want to pretend you're making some point which mitigates the truth of Paul's (and thus God's) universal prohibition against women pastors. But that issue is amongst several points of instruction Paul renders (according to God's Will) regarding proper behaviors in Christian churches and how they should be run. Thus, my "ruling" is that it behooves every Christian church to, as best as is possible, reflect those instructions as closely as they can.
Gold wedding bands aren't "elaborate" simply because they're gold or are plated gold. I don't even know if they used wedding rings back then. But one would be hardpressed to suggest that a simple gold wedding band...such as the one I wear...is "elaborate" in this day and age. And therein lies your answer. What's "elaborate" by today's standards. I recall once asserting we who revere God and respect what it means to enter into His presence in His House (one's church building) should reflect that by wearing our "Sunday best", such as a suit and tie. This Louisville lunkhead scolded me by suggesting doing such would have a negative impact on the poor in the congregation. A good suit is apparently "elaborate". A nice dress with a nice head covering is somehow elaborate.
As to "who decides", it seems that is what a pastor is for, if the people can't figure it out for themselves. Indeed, a committee (likely the Board of Elders) could be tasked with pointing out when anyone dresses to impress when they should have their focus on God. (This is not to say that a well off person is trying to impress when dressing better than the rest in the congregation. They could simply be seeking to show respect to the Lord in His House...like a good Christian ought.)
"And the problem with Paul's encouragement for people who have been enslaved to be obedient and respectful, because Paul utters those words, does that mean that GOD wants the enslaved to be respectful to their owners?"
Because you like to posture as a champion of the black community while continuing to demonstrate hatred for those who speak truthfully about their issues, you again pretend that this instruction is something it isn't. It's simply encouraging slaves/masters who are Christian to act in a Christian manner toward their masters or slaves. You want to pretend he's not opposed to the concept of one person owning another, but it isn't at all reflected in these types of teachings simply because he's not lamenting the horrors of antebellum souther slavery like some dishonest modern progressive. So yeah...God wants Christian slave and masters to treat each other in a Christian manner. Happy I could explain that obvious truth to you.
"THAT is what you need to prove and prove objectively - NOT with a subjective opinion, but objectively, demonstrably, authoritatively. YOU literally have not done this, NOR have you admitted the reality that you can't prove it."
Everything regarding the prohibition of women pastors I've supported...if not outright proven...as true and universal with all manner of evidence from Scripture far beyond your ability to counter with anything more than petulant foot stomping and holding your breath until you turn blue. You lie in pouting that I haven't done so. Throwing unrelated issues at me as if they mitigate the truth I've related doesn't get it done. It does expose your desperation, though, and quite well.
"We do not give one single damn about your opinions about enslaved people and oppressed women."
And yet you continue to inquire. However, the prohibition against women pastors is not in the least oppression against women. But women insisting they should be allowed are in error and in rebellion against the clear Will of God on the issue as I've demonstrated comprehensively.
Getting back to "enslaved people", if you insist on grouping together all those labled "slave" in Scripture, even when that word is liberally (by a proper definition of the word) applied to various people in positions of servitude, you prove your concern for actual slaves is a sham and your only purpose is to find..."invent", rather...fault in better people with a better understanding. That is, you're "embracing grace" is a fraud.
"Short of actual, OBJECTIVE PROOF or an admission that you can't prove it objectively and an apology for being so obtuse on this point, you're done, Marshal. I've been more than patient."
I've provided and you've been more than merely dishonest. You're "done" because you've lost the debate and haven't the honestly, integrity and Christian character to concede to the truth you find so inconvient but indisputable.
July 24, 2023 at 6:09 AM
More desperation is blatant in this comment. Here, you're simply demanding that I regard Scripture as you do when you need it to be understood in that way. By your "logic"...and I cannot use the word more loosely here....nothing in any Epistle...or for that matter anywhere in Scripture...can be trusted as "speaking for God". That's very convenient for the modern progressive who exploits this self-serving position at the drop of a social justice warrior hat.
But in doing so, you willfully ignore various acknowledgments of the Holy Spirit's guidance in the lives of the Apostles to faithfully relate to those being evangelized what Christ/God expects of followers. Christ Himself assured His Apostles of the Spirit's guidance for this very purpose. Thus, there's very little difference between a direct command from God (and you need to believe they are routinely receiving direct instruction from God, as in a direct dictation of His Will) versus their being inspired to make judgements which haven't been directly addressed by God or Christ. That's what an Apostle is...Christ's/God's Word relayed through them to us.
What's more evident in your pathetic objection is the reality that you can't explain how any of Paul's instructions...even those such as your 1 Corinthian examples...in any way conflict with God's Will or what we know about It. You simply say "God didn't say it so we don't have to abide it" without any true effort to back that whiny crap up in any way beyond "Nyuh uh".
The only problem with the concept of Biblical innerrancy is that is doesn't work for the modern progressive who wants to do that which is in conflict with Biblical teaching. And that wouldn't be so bad if the modern progressive actually made compelling arguments for rejecting the Will of God.
July 24, 2023 at 8:41 AM
"The words on the page do NOT in any direct way "imply" that Paul is speaking for God. We CAN see that this is what PAUL thinks, as he abundantly makes clear."
No. What we see is Paul acknowledging that he doesn't have any direct instruction from God on that particular point. That's not the same as saying he's not speaking for God. What you fail to acknowledge despite your laughable claims of having "seriously and prayerfully" studied Scripture...as I've stated factually already...is Paul acknolwedging the influence of the Spirit in his work as an Apostle. I would need to research it again, but I'm pretty sure he at least alludes to this fact every time he speaks of not having a direct command from God. And given he rarely speaks of having been given a direct command on anything specifically beyond spreading the Gospel, everything you abide from him can be rejected on that premise. You've cited him often and I don't think any of those citations come with a statement confirming he's speaking for God. Thus, there's no reason for anyone not a modern progressive exploiting that which can best be exploited to further the nefarious modern progressive agenda of presuming any of that which you cite is in any way binding on actual Christians.
"Do you understand the difference between infer and imply?"
Absolutely. It's a mere matter of direction....given versus received. It matters not to the truth I've related. And as regards whether or not he was speaking only to the church at Ephesus or speaking of how all churches should behave, I addressed that with his own words from 1 Timothy above.
"I don't need any evidence for what is NOT THERE. YOU are the one reading something into the text which is not there. You want to objectively prove that GOD thinks that women shouldn't preach, then objectively prove it."
I did. Comprehensively and you fail to provide any reason to suspect that what I've said is in any way untrue aside from your typical "Nyuh uh" response. You're making a truth claim that one needn't regard Paul's words as coming from or influenced by the Spirit of God...in either case speaking for Him. You provide no reason or logic or even lame argument to support that claim except to insist that I'm wrong. Not good enough.
"You. Can't."
I. Did. Comprehensively and from every angle possible. Every throw-like-a-girl pitch you underhanded my way, I hit out of the park. You've got nothing but to now accuse me of bigotry:
"That's why you haven't proved your bigotry yet, because you can't."
That's rich. Devoid of any actual argument, even less evidence to support an actual argument, you default to typical modern progressive tactics. Bigotry against whom? Women? So to abide God's Will regarding the proper roles of men and women, that makes me a bigot? Are you that dishonest and corrupt you'd try to run that crap? Amazing! There's nothing so low to which the modern progressive will stoop in order to cast aspersions!
"All that remains now, if you were a reasonable adult engaging in good faith discussion, is for you to ADMIT you can't prove it, that you ARE reading into the text something that literally isn't there and apologize for being so belligerent."
Well that would make me a modern progressive...I mean, a liar. Between the two of us there is only one who is engaging like a reasonable adult in good faith discussion and that person is not named Dan Trabue. Between the two of us there is only one obliged to apologize for being so belligerent and his name is Dan Trabue.
You've lost again. Man up and concede unless you intend to mount an actual argument.
So in conclusion, because my victory is complete and beyond refuting and you'll need something actually substantive in response for me to continue:
1. Apostles speak for God, even without any direct command from Him.
2. It takes the one who denies this to explain on what basis anyone ought not to accept this fact.
3. The Apostles were given power to heal, yet somehow no power to discern God's Will on minutia? How is that so? I good son or daughter can easily determine how their mother or father might feel about a given behavior son or daughter might decide to perpetrate. Paul's supposedly totally without any understanding despite being handpicked by Christ and endowed with the same attributes bestowed upon the other Apostles. Yeah...right.
4. Every instruction Paul gives about what the quality of a pastor should be specifically refers to the pastor being a man. For example, he never says anything remotely like, "as for women pastors, they must be the wife of but one husband" or "the same goes for women pastors".
5. Only a modern progressive would insist that Paul's instructions for worship were specific to Ephesus and then give similar instructions to Titus in Crete. And note, he speaks of leaving Titus to "straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you." He then goes on to speak of an elder being a husband of one wife. No talk of an elder being a wife of one husband. Nothing remotely close to that. And again, he spoke of "every town". Do we now regard every town as the church of Crete, or are they individual congregations taught in the same way as Paul instructed every church he established?
6. Nowhere, anywhere in Scripture, is there an example of an Apostle establishing a church led by a woman. No where, and yet you want to pretend that isn't universal for all time. But you don't give a basis for that assertion. You only assert because you like your "pastor" and don't care her position is fraudulent by Christian standards.
7. It is absurd to insist that anyone of Paul's stature, with Christ's endowment of gifts of an Apostle, would teach that which is not from God, even if making a judgement on something not specifically commanded. To the modern progressive, without an absolute and direct command, the Apostle is prone to personal prejudices in giving instruction. Nevermind the influence of the Holy Spirit, sent by Christ, guiding the Apostle in all understanding. The modern progressive has no confidence in any Christian teaching in conflict with modern progressive desires.
8. It's commonplace for the modern progressive to object to the clear understanding of any part of Scripture in conflict with what the modern progressive wants or is already doing, while the actual Christian abstains for anything which so much as hints as being in conflict with Scripture.
Once again, the difference between objective proof and subjective opinion:
OBJECTIVE PROOF:
Person 1: It's freezing outside!
Person 2: How do you know?
Person 1: There's ice on the sidewalk, snow on the ground and the thermometer outside in the front yard says it's 30 degrees Farenheit. It's literally freezing outside.
Person 2: Well, that is proof and there is nothing I can say to disprove it. You've proven it objectively with observable, measurable data.
SUBJECTIVE OPINION:
Person 1: God doesn't want women to be preachers!
Person 2: How do you know?
Person 1: I found one line in the Bible that records Paul saying in a letter to Timothy that he (Paul) doesn't allow women to be pastors.
Person 2: THIS verse where Paul ONE TIME says the following..?
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man;
rather, she is to remain quiet
Person 1: Yup.
Person 2: Well, how do you know Paul is speaking for God there? How do you know that Paul is speaking of women being pastors? Do you think Paul really thought that God thought that "women should remain quiet..."? For how long and in what circumstances? And EVEN IF Paul thought he was speaking for God there and that Paul was speaking about women pastors, and that Paul was trying to issue a universal rule, how do we objectively know Paul was right?
Literally NONE of that is spelled out there. That's literally YOUR interpretation and YOUR subjective opinion of what that line in that book means.
Person 1: Nope. It's objective fact.
Person 2: HOW? Where is the observable, measurable proof of that interpretation being correct?
Person 1: Because it's obvious.
Person 2: To whom?
Person 1: To all honest readers.
Person 2: Prove it.
Person 1: The proof is that if they disagree with my tradition, then they're not being honest.
And on it goes. YOUR OPINION is literally a subjective personal opinion UNLESS you can provide measurable, observable facts to support your opinion. Lacking any objective, measurable proof, it remains a subjective opinion.
Now, it COULD turn out you're correct. That one day, we can ask God directly, "What did Paul mean in that verse" and God can tell us and THEN we could know objectively what God thinks. But you or your human tradition or even Paul himself making clear what PAUL meant there is not objective proof of what GOD thinks. You literally have only offered subjective opinion that you have not proven objectively. THAT is an observable fact.
I think you need to take some classes on basic reasoning and understand better the distinction between objective fact and subjective opinion.
In your example of your gold wedding band, you explain away why that's okay, even though the passage says that women should not wear gold. That's LITERALLY what the passage says.
I also want the women to dress modestly...
not with elaborate hairstyles
or gold or pearls or expensive clothes...
But you INTERPRET that to mean, "Well, but gold wedding bands are not elaborate..." and in so doing OFFER A SUBJECTIVE OPINION, not an objective fact and you THEN use that subjective opinion to explain why women CAN wear gold, IF it's a gold wedding band. IN YOUR OPINION and in spite of the literal clear command from the text.
And of course, I'm not arguing that women (or anyone) can't wear gold or pearls. I'm just pointing out the reality that this is a subjective interpretation of Paul's words... that is the difference between subjective opinion and objectively proven fact.
I just don't know how you can be an adult and not get the distinction.
YOU were the one relating that passage to today, where gold wedding bands are so incredibly common no honest person would regard them as "elaborate" simply because they are made of or plated with gold. The context of the passage speaks to elaborate dress, which includes jewelry and such. There's no description over what constitutes "elaborate" with any specificity, but honest and sensible people would rightly presume Paul is speaking to those who dress to impress others, when the purpose of such gatherings is to worship God, not one's self.
When you wear whatever you pull out of the hamper on the wacky premise the poor in your congregation are so emotionally destitute as to be negatively impacted by anyone in a suit and tie, I submit you're dressing to impress in the same spirit against which Paul's passage instructs, but in another manner.
However, you want to pretend that my opinion on a point not laden with specificity means something significant in support of your rejection of that which is very much specific...the prohibition against women pastoring over men. If you wish to launch a debate about jewelry, give it a shot. I'll be sure to take a nap instead. My alignment with Paul's instruction regarding the roles of men and women...and that they're not identical...is not subjective at all. You just need it to be so as to carve out your loophole through which you can continue to reject his clear instruction, which ultimately is God-breathed at the very least.
I'm not complaining about your opinion on the gold ring point. I'm simply pointing out the reality that it IS literally a subjective human opinion.
Do you understand that?
The text has Paul telling women point blank, "Don't wear gold." YOU interpret that to mean that Paul is NOT issuing a universal order that would preclude wearing gold rings.
I'm not the one who believes in the magic rule book bible, where we go to find "objective rules from God," so none of this applies to me. I'm just noting that YOUR subjective interpretation and opinion about gold bands IS a subjective opinion. YOUR claim that a gold band is not "elaborate" IS a subjective opinion.
And as an aside, the text does not have Paul telling women not to wear elaborate gold, just not to wear gold, or pearls. Period. That's the line from Paul. YOU are reading into it perhaps a notion that Paul WOULD object to ELABORATE gold, but not a simple gold band... and that's fine as an opinion. I'm just trying to get you to understand and admit the difference between subjective opinion and objectively proven facts.
There's no description over what constitutes "elaborate" with any specificity
No, there's not. Very good. I agree that his is PRECISELY correct, as far as what the text says and doesn't say.
but honest and sensible people would rightly presume Paul is speaking to those who dress to impress others,
Well, that IS literally an opinion. But people famously don't always agree with one another. Your elaborate hairstyle may include a wig or it may not. Others might have another opinion. YOUR opinion may be that a gold wedding band is not forbidden by Paul and others might agree or disagree, but it would remain a subjective opinion.
And just like you can recognize that there is LITERALLY NO SPECIFICITY on the topic of Paul's opinion about "elaborate hairstyles" or when one can and can't wear gold, OTHER people recognize no specificity to Paul's ONE LINE where he wants women to "remain silent." In what context? Always? It literally isn't specific. YOU may think that those lines forbid women preaching in front of men, but the text isn't specific that way. YOU may think that this is the equivalent to a command from God forbidding women pastors but the text is literally not specific that way.
People can and do have opinions about how best to understand that. YOUR opinion is ONE of those subjective opinions and it's literally not an objectively proven fact.
Are you starting to understand what I'm asking?
My alignment with Paul's instruction regarding the roles of men and women...and that they're not identical...is not subjective at all.
Don't know what to tell you, sweetheart. You're just factually wrong, little buddy. Good luck making it through the day, though.
Maybe it would help you if you could say HOW you think you've "objectively proven" that God doesn't want women to be pastors/preachers?
Because there's a line in the Bible or a cookbook or on a roll of toilet paper that YOU THINK means God doesn't want that is not objective proof.
IF you're saying, "There is literally a line in the Bible where Paul is speaking and Paul says in that one line that he doesn't "permit" women to "have authority over men" and that Paul wants women to "remain silent..." THAT is factually, demonstrably correct. That line DOES exist. That the line exists is not in question. The questions are:
What is the intent of the author?
What is God's opinion?
That there is a line in the Bible that SOME humans think means God doesn't approve of women pastors, does that mean the those humans are correct?
IF so, how does one prove that objectively?
The line from Paul says he (Paul) wants women to remain silent... is the ONLY way to interpret that is that Paul thinks that God thinks women should always be quiet, never say anything, never gasp or sneeze? Where is the objective proof for that?
Does the line mean that, "well, of course women can talk and sneeze! They have our permission to do that and God's permission as well..." where is the objective proof of that?
ALL of textual reading is interpretation and ALL interpretation is subjective opinion, at least in the case of unproven and unprovable points. Dickens famously said, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." Did that mean he literally thought the year in question was literally both the best year AND the worst year? Was he creatively making a point?
Just because a line exists written down in the world does not mean we need to presume it's a literal fact, adults use their reasoning skills to interpret and humans famously don't always agree on interpretations and on unproven/unprovable points, well, what we are left with are subjective opinions.
That's the starting point of recognizing reality. From there, we can discuss whether a given subjective interpretation is reasonable, given the text and source or whether it is unreasonable and to what degree of "reasonable" or "unreasonable" is it.
But FIRST you have to acknowledge the reality that your subjective opinions ARE subjective opinions. They don't become facts simply by declaration.
Marshal: “So in conclusion, because my victory is complete and beyond refuting and you'll need something actually substantive in response for me to continue:
1. Apostles speak for God, even without any direct command from Him.
___
Apostle Paul about Apostle Peter: “I told him to his face he was wrong.”
Well, either Peter or Paul is wrong.
And Marshal is clearly a fool.
July 27, 2023 at 6:42 AM
This little dialogue you present is an incredibly dishonest misrepresentation of what's transpired in this discussion. I've provide far more evidence than you have for determining freezing weather. You're a liar of a degree which would impress the Father of Lies. Kudos.
"I think you need to take some classes on basic reasoning and understand better the distinction between objective fact and subjective opinion."
I think you need to take stock of your dishonest character and seek the One True God's help in resolving that vile character flaw. (I'm speaking again of the One True God, not the god you invented to replace Him) You need to acknowledge when your demands have been met even when not as far beyond your expectations as my case has been made and should you still refuse to accept the only conclusions my case allows, borrow a spine and get to work on mounting a counter argument that at least appears as if you actually have evidence to support it. Barring that, you're just doing the "Nyuh uh" dance and pretending you're "winning". Childish, but oh so you.
July 27, 2023 at 7:54 AM
"I'm not complaining about your opinion on the gold ring point. I'm simply pointing out the reality that it IS literally a subjective human opinion.
Do you understand that?"
Perfectly. I also understand that you think the fact that I render a subjective opinion on this point means that what I've said about women pastors...especially with the mountain of evidences and arguments I've presented...is merely subjective opinion as well. You ignore the fact that Paul's instruction about how a woman dresses is about modesty, not the precise things she wears....that is, it's about not being ostentatious as if the point of attending is to impress others with how kickin' one is. Indeed, my study Bible, which I hadn't referenced on the subject until just now, says of verse 9 in Chapter 3: "Not a total ban on the wearing of jewelry or braided hair. Rather, Paul was expressing caution in a society where such things were signs of extravagant luxury and proud personal display." (Crazy how the passage led me to that conclusion all by itself) A simple gold band worn by most today is a sign of neither.
And again, with regard to gold wedding bands of today, I would suggest that it is unlikely that such was anywhere near as common in the time of Paul and you're intentionally injecting into his instruction what you can't prove is intended just to force your position in favor of women pastors. Said another way, you aren't concerned with the details of the instruction of how women present themselves, except to exploit the passage to defend your rebellious rejection of God's Will regarding women in authority over men.
But let's pretend I'm totally wrong about Paul's intruction regarding how women present themselves in a Christian church, (though you couldn't make THAT case, either). How does that have anything to do with my accurate understanding of Paul's prohibition on your women pastor? Answer: It doesn't. Not even a little. The dress code is nowhere near as specific as the prohibition against pastoring. Forty women can dress for church, walk up to Paul as ask "is this OK?" and not get exactly the same response because each woman dresses according to how she considers what's appropriate. This could be true if all forty were outside the bounds of Paul's opinion of appropriate.
But forty women approaching Paul for ordination would all be rejected simply because they're women and they're seeking a role for which they are not suited according to God's Will for all the same reasons Paul listed.
You lose again.
July 27, 2023 at 7:59 AM
This comment touches on that which I covered in my last above. Let's see if there's anything unique:
"Well, that IS literally an opinion."
One shared by the scholars who published my study Bible. I'd wager it's a widely held position and has been for centuries, because it seems so obvious.
But then you go on to make wild category errors. The entire passage refers to women in worship. But within that instruction are differences of significance. Some points are open to debate, as is the notion of exactly what constitutes "elaborate" in how a woman dresses. Being silent and not pastoring over men is really quite specific. But you falsely and dishonestly want to suggest there's no distinction between these various instructions and that's lying.
"YOU may think that those lines forbid women preaching in front of men, but the text isn't specific that way. YOU may think that this is the equivalent to a command from God forbidding women pastors but the text is literally not specific that way."
Yet it's consistent with the entirety of Scripture where it concens selecting spiritual leaders and more to the point, Paul's instructions to Timothy and Titus in setting up churches in his stead. He's instructing them according to how (Paul) would establish a church according to God's Will as the Spirit did guide him.
"People can and do have opinions about how best to understand that. YOUR opinion is ONE of those subjective opinions and it's literally not an objectively proven fact.
Are you starting to understand what I'm asking?"
I understand what you demand I believe, which is that when I take a position you don't like, it's automatically a subjective opinion as opposed to an objective fact, and it will remain so in your insistence regardless of the quantity and quality of the many proofs and evidences I present. Indeed, what you're asking reflects the reality those like Craig and myself well know, that you don't give a flying rat's ass about proofs and evidence, but only that we not bring any which forces you to rethink a position you prefer...in this case, the legitimacy of your woman pastor. I've "understood" you for many years now, Dan. Quite well in fact.
July 27, 2023 at 8:01 AM
"Don't know what to tell you, sweetheart. You're just factually wrong, little buddy. Good luck making it through the day, though."
As always, I get a great kick out of hearing the morally bankrupt dare to condescend. Makes my day, which I get through very well even without such jocularity. But I ain't your sweetheart, sister, nor your little buddy. And despite your false claim to the contrary, you know well what to tell me, and that's to thank you for enlightening you with all the info I've provided clarifying why woman are prohibited from pastoring over men. It's info of which you were well aware if you actually ever in your life engaged in "serious and prayerful" study of Scripture. But given your Biden-like propensity for lies and dishonesty, one never knows if that ever took place at all.
July 27, 2023 at 8:24 AM
Wow! Maybe Biden's more honest that YOU are! Not good, girl!
"Maybe it would help you if you could say HOW you think you've "objectively proven" that God doesn't want women to be pastors/preachers?"
Incredible!! How about by having providing a veritable cornucopia of passages, verses, logic and reason which all stands unopposed by anything remotely resembling a legitimate counter by you. In having done so, I have no cause to merely "think" I've objectively proven my case. I've actually objectively proven my case...your professional "Nyuh uh" notwithstanding.
"Because there's a line in the Bible or a cookbook or on a roll of toilet paper that YOU THINK means God doesn't want that is not objective proof."
I was not in the least bit interested in what for you constitutes a bible. I use a real one...more than one, in fact. And again, being the liar you are, I say once more that there is not simply "ONE LINE" in Scripture which confirms the truth of my accurate understanding of the Will of God on this subject....as my cornucopia of passage, verses, etc., clearly confirms. It's a lie to ignore it all so that you can pretend there's only "one line". Typical modern progressive!
"IF you're saying, "There is literally a line in the Bible where Paul is speaking and Paul says in that one line that he doesn't "permit" women to "have authority over men" and that Paul wants women to "remain silent..." THAT is factually, demonstrably correct. That line DOES exist. That the line exists is not in question. The questions are: "
I'd say I can't believe you're actually doing this, but that wouldn't be true. I do believe it's something you'd do because there is nothing you won't do to avoid defending your heresies while attacking truthful and accurate presentations of God's Will you regard as inconvenient an unworthy of your respect. And ignoring the lie there is only one line which advocates for the prohibition of women as pastors...
"What is the intent of the author?"
To instruct against allowing women to be placed in positions of authority, pastoring over men in Christian churches. This point is not even in doubt by honest people not beholden to a feminist agenda.
"What is God's opinion?"
That women are not to be placed in positions of authority over men in Christian churches. It could not be more clear given the entirety of Scripture where the issue is even peripherally referenced.
"That there is a line in the Bible that SOME humans think means God doesn't approve of women pastors, does that mean the those humans are correct?"
If such "humans" merely "think" God prohibits women as pastors, I'm far more interested in why they "think" so and if what they "think" aligns with the positions of those who "know" the obvious truth Scripture reveals on this topic. The counter to this lame question is how those who reject what is obvious defend taht rejection. Given what's transpired here, it seems we'll never know. Such an argument seems never forthcoming by the modern progressive.
"IF so, how does one prove that objectively?"
The very same way I proved it objectively, though the feminist modern progressive will reject any proof regardless of quality or quantity because they don't like the truth of it. It conflicts with their feminist agenda.
"The line from Paul says he (Paul) wants women to remain silent... is the ONLY way to interpret that is that Paul thinks that God thinks women should always be quiet, never say anything, never gasp or sneeze? Where is the objective proof for that?"
No, and honest people don't insist that women can't, say, pray aloud with the congregation. That's not what it means and the radical feminist modern progressive damn well knows it. At the same time, the radical feminist modern progressive thinks this point somehow mitigates the prohibition against women pastors if it can't be explained to their satisfaction. That's an example of how they lie.
"Does the line mean that, "well, of course women can talk and sneeze! They have our permission to do that and God's permission as well..." where is the objective proof of that?"
The modern progressive radical feminist thinks this is an argument. That's funny.
"ALL of textual reading is interpretation and ALL interpretation is subjective opinion, at least in the case of unproven and unprovable points."
Good thing the points I've made are proven beyond any honest person's legitimate questioning. That leaves you out.
"Dickens famously said, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." Did that mean he literally thought the year in question was literally both the best year AND the worst year? "
Why would he have said it if he didn't mean it?
"Just because a line exists written down in the world does not mean we need to presume it's a literal fact, adults use their reasoning skills to interpret and humans famously don't always agree on interpretations and on unproven/unprovable points, well, what we are left with are subjective opinions."
What a sad and pathetic attempt to rationalize your rejection of the clear Will of God on the issue at hand!
"But FIRST you have to acknowledge the reality that your subjective opinions ARE subjective opinions. They don't become facts simply by declaration."
I've rendered no subjective opinion on the subject of women pastors. I presented the clear and unequivocal truth of Scripture on the subject. It remains the truth until someone who agrees with radical feminst modern progressives like you but with a distinct degree of intelligence and honesty can log an actual evidence based argument to the contrary. YOU clearly can't do it, so I've no reason to doubt what I see as crystal clear and beyond reproach.
If you even want to actually mount a counter argument, with the same quality and quantity of evidence and proofs you demand me, let me know at my blog on the most recent posting there. I won't be returning to see you continue to pretend I'm wrong without proving it.
Oh....one more thing:
Your troll thinks he's made a point with his poor understanding of the issue between Paul and Peter. He either knows he's misrepresenting that story, or he's a moron. Well...both are true of him, but....
So many words to say nothing at all.
"I did. Comprehensively and you fail to provide any reason to suspect that what I've said is in any way untrue aside from your typical "Nyuh uh" response."
The Claims: God does not want women to be preachers.
God wants slaves to be submiss I've and respectful to their enslaved.
God wants women to remain silent, not have elaborate hairstyles and not wear gold or jewels.
PROVE IT.
CITE SOME AUTHORITATIVE, ESTABLISHED QUOTE FROM AN ALMIGHTY GOD WHERE GOD YOLD YOU THESE JUICY, OPPRESSIVE LITTLE NUGGETS.
You have not done this.
Period.
Now, ANYTHING you cite that is not a direct quote or objectively proven - evident to all who look at the data - WILL be deleted.
Your inability to support this nonsense claim will be proof that you can't prove it.
Dan
Also, define objective as you are using it. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Dan
Marshal: “ But forty women approaching Paul for ordination would all be rejected simply because they're women and they're seeking a role for which they are not suited according to God's Will for all the same reasons Paul listed.”
St Paul would say the same thing about school principal, psychologist, police, Secretary of Sate, CEO, doctor, lawyer, accountant… So, Marshal attempts an empty argument.
If Marshal’s faith was ever in anything substance - which seems implausible - he’s full in now on believing absurd and obscene brutality.
And he still! can’t answer to Galatians.
St Paul refutes you. As does your gutless inability to acknowledge that when he writes, in Galatians, that he told St Peter - “to his face” - that he was wrong, your claim that the apostles unerringly spoke for God… crumbles to dust.
Marshal vulgarly posted (in a post that is now deleted, since he didn't answer the questions put to him and because of his empty vulgarity...)
you haven't done jack **** to either refute my position or to support whatever the **** yours is.
My position is quite simple to understand:
As a point of fact in the real world, God has NEVER told women they can't be pastors or to "remain silent." That's an undisputed reality. MAYBE some people could imagine God THINKS this, but God literally hasn't told us this and I see no reason to go along with delusional misogynists who might think otherwise.
YOU don't GET to tell women they can't be pastors. It's not your place and if you and other misogynists want to try, well, to hell with those efforts.
WOMEN are, as I have seen first hand, entirely capable of being magnificent pastors and, in my experience, have been the best preachers, pastors, prophets and role models in my life.
You haven't disputed any of this. You CAN'T dispute any of this. YOUR OPINION on these topics is less than meaningless.
NOW do you understand?
Marshall claims, Dan, that you are "defending a practice prohibited by God's Apostle, through whom God speaks and thus speaks for God."
You're in good company, beacase the Apostle Paul defended eating with Gentiles even though the Apostle Peter led people astray, including Barnabas, for teaching that it was wrong.
In Galations 2, the Apostle Paul claims something in oppostiton to the Apostle Peter: that eating meat in freedom had no impact on one's faith.
In fact, Paul further says in Galatians 2, that the only thing that can added to faith in Jesus Christ as a requirment had nothing to do with any behaviors... EXCEPT!...
"to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along."
Just another think Marshal and the thugs don't agree with scripture on.
"Marshal vulgarly posted..."
No I didn't, unless you're going to regard words you've used liberally at the blogs of others "vulgar" when it serves you to do it. But then, you are an inveterate liar like your choice of presidents are, so more lying by you is taken for granted at this point.
"My position is quite simple to understand"
Not so much a lie, but a complete error. Your position is simple-minded at best and it's a lie whether you believe it to be true or not.
"As a point of fact in the real world, God has NEVER told women they can't be pastors or to "remain silent.""
Yes He did, through the instructions and teachings of His Apostle, Paul. It was their purpose of being so ordained to spread God's Word and to convert the masses to the Christian Way. So if you think that Paul is teaching something God would not have told him, either directly or through inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit, then you need to provide some substantive evidence to support this premise. As an Apostle of God, who, aside from a modern progressive, would suppose any instruction wasn't so inspired? Answer: no one. Thus, actual Christians who truly study Scripture, and subordinate themselves to His Word therein, abide.
"That's an undisputed reality."
Clearly it's not. Even my study Bible speaks of there being two sides to this issue among scholars. But who has the evidence to support their position? Answer: not yours.
"MAYBE some people could imagine God THINKS this, but God literally hasn't told us this and I see no reason to go along with delusional misogynists who might think otherwise."
Problems with the unjustified arrogant condescension here:
1. Along with those people who "imagine God THINKS this" are all those who are convicted in the knowledge God regards the two sexes as equal but with different roles to play due to all the evidence I've just presented myself, which alone is quite enough to prove it's true. YOU, on the other hand, have nothing but "Nyuh uh" and maybe your troll's false nonsense.
2. What do you mean by "God literally hasn't told us this"? Are you suggesting that for every instruction by an Apostle, by the brothers of Christ, by interpretations and analysis by early church fathers (note: all "fathers") that anything which isn't the recorded Words of God/Christ can be rejected for matters of convenience, personal preference or any other self-serving reason?
3. The question ending point 2 is obviously the case given your grace embracing response that you "see no reason to go along with delusional misogynists who might think otherwise." Where's your evidence for the claim that "those who think otherwise" are either "delusional" or "misogynists"?? Really there are only two ways to answer truthfully:
a) Such are "delusional" only because they think otherwise. Not because of any failure to so completely support doing so in ways you haven't begun to employ on behalf of your false position, and
b) Such are "misogynists" simply because they abide Paul's Holy Spirit guided instructions which align with God's clearly expressed rolls for men and women. This comes as a big surprise to all the women who also reject your position as false. It's not at all hard to find commentaries on this issue from women who are actual Christians.
"YOU don't GET to tell women they can't be pastors."
Sure I do, if I'm on the Board of Elders of a congregation! Paul gives us that authority as he states clearly who should be selected as a pastor. He did so because women can't be pastors.
"It's not your place and if you and other misogynists want to try, well, to hell with those efforts."
As I said, the truth is anyone with the task of selecting a pastor has that authority, that instruction and to follow such is not "misogynistic" no matter how desperately you accuse those so tasked of such a thing simply because you believe those who abide the Word of God as spoken through His Apostles should go to hell rather than deny your substandard woman pastor a position for which her sex makes her unsuitable.
"WOMEN are, as I have seen first hand, entirely capable of being magnificent pastors and, in my experience, have been the best preachers, pastors, prophets and role models in my life."
"Capability" has nothing to do with it. God's Will does. And God's plan includes specific roles for men and women which guides actual Christians. Modern progressives worship themselves, so they do things differently without regard for God's Will.
What someone of your level of moral corruption and idolatry believes is best has even less to do with it. God's Will is of far less importance for the likes of you, as nothing God desires can ever take precedence over what Dan wants, believes or likes.
Good luck with that.
"Yes He did..."
PROVE IT.
Your constant claims about what YOU THINK God thinks are meaningless.
No more comments til you prove it objectively or admit you can't.
Dan
"...through the instructions and teachings of His Apostle, Paul."
PROVE IT.
If I say God has objectively told us God doesn't want Christians to have savings accounts (literally "storing up treasures," which Jesus literally forbade) - and those were the words of Jesus who we believe is literally God, unlike Paul who was literally NOT God - do you think I've objectively proven the point, OR do you say that this is a subjective interpretation and not an objective fact?
If so, what is your objective proof of your choice to not take Jesus' clear command literally?
What criteria that is objective, rational and consistent do you have whereby you can declare authoritatively THIS line should be taken (sort of) literally and THAT line should NOT be taken literally?
Prove it.
Dan
When you worship the Bible, Marshal, but you avoid at all costs, Galatians 2:11, the cost is your credibility and dignity. And your imitation of faith shows.
Same for Stan bin Laden who cannot deal with Galatians 2:10.
Two verses, just 2, right next to each, refute what you both push out to brutalize the world.
Marshal had a simple task: Prove his claims (he can't) or admit he can't and apologize for his hubris (he won't). Instead he said...
When you ****** address every point I've made in favor of the truth you deny, then you can pretend I've failed to prove the truth of God's Will on this issue
No, that's not how adult reason works. That's not how proof works. IF you are making a positive authoritative definitive claim that YOU, mortal, objectively KNOW as an objective fact what God thinks about women being pastors and that (you think) God doesn't want it to happen, then YOU must support that claim.
You won't, because you can't.
It's not up to me to say why your reasoning is failing or why I disagree with your opinions. IF I say, "it's 32 degrees out" (and this, in the middle of the summer and a heatwave and someone doubts me, then the onus is on ME to provide the thermometer SHOWING that it's 32 degrees out AND that anyone else with a thermometer can verify it. THAT is objective proof.
You, mere mortal man, SAYING that you THINK those verses mean that God doesn't want women to be pastors does NOT objectively prove it, any more than someone else pointing to slaves in the Bible objectively proves that God approves of slavery.
You're done. You've demonstrated beyond all doubt that you can NOT prove your mortal hunch, in its banal, antiquated bigotry and oppression.
Really, all that's left for you to do is to apologize for your banal support of oppression and misogyny and your pathetic arrogance in defending that oppression.
Repent, son.
Marshal commented without supporting his opinions or acknowledging that they are subjective opinions, not objective facts. One of the things he said...
That's exactly what adult discourse entails... But I'm pretending you're an adult and have provided tons of evidence and logic
which cannot result in any other conclusion
but that women are not to be in positions of authority over men in a Christian church. You don't say where it says differently in Scripture
THAT ^ is your problem, Marshal. CLEARLY and objectively, people of good will and reasonable intellect HAVE had other conclusions than the opinions and interpretations you and other mortals like you have reached. It is DEMONSTRABLE that people DO and CAN reach other conclusions and thus, that your claim ("cannot result in any other conclusion") is objectively false.
Do you understand that much?
It's like you think if YOU read it and YOU think it's the "only" reasonable conclusion to reach, that the matter is settled. It's NOT. YOU are not the sole arbiter of what is and isn't reasonable, of what is and isn't Godly, of what is and isn't a good understanding of the Bible. I think you can understand that much, right (That YOU are not the sole arbiter of what is reasonable)?
If so, then on WHAT RATIONAL, DEMONSTRABLE, OBJECTIVE basis is anyone obliged to bow to your hunch?
We're not.
Marshal, some questions for you to consider to help you understand where your logic is breaking down:
1. We agree that a thermometer is the right tool to objectively measure the temperature.
What is your objective tool to objectively get the objectively factual "right" understanding of any given text?
2. Is it the case that you personally (and those like you) can objectively and authoritatively "know" the "right" interpretation of EVERY text in the Bible and EVERY question about morality?
(I don't think you would say yes, but you tell me.)
3. IF you can't objectively know the objectively "right" understanding of every text in the Bible and every moral/theological question, WHAT is the difference between the ones you think you "objectively" "know" the "right" answer to and the ones you can't say for sure?
4. If your answer is something like, "We lack the clarity and assured-ness for some passages but not others..." then ON WHAT BASIS do you know objectively and NOT know objectively? What is the "thermometer," the measuring tool, the criteria, the rubric for knowing with what you think is objective certainty and not? A gut feeling? What you TELL us is what is obvious?
5. If your answer is, "When I think it's obvious, then we can KNOW it is obvious and objectively correct..." who made you the decider?
6. Presumably you wouldn't say you're the decider, but then who is? People who agree with you? On what basis? That YOU ALL think a passage's intent is objectively right? Well, who put you all in charge?
7. Do you not see the problem with your clearly subjective hunches and insisting that people bow to your hunches?
Once again, something is objectively demonstrable as a fact when it is measurable and clearly seen to ALL people anywhere and everywhere regardless of their belief system. Your responses (not answers) do not address the problem of those who don't believe in the Bible or those who don't think the Bible is a magic rule book where we go to get moral answers to questions. YOUR people's hunches is not objective if we don't even begin with your subjective assumptions and presumptions. WHO SAYS that "the Bible" is where we go to get answers to moral questions about the place of women, slaves, humans, LGBTQ folks and others in society?
"Do you understand that much?"
I understand that your last two comments represent no more than lots of keystrokes which demonstrate more dodging and tap-dancing rather than addressing the issue and the ton of evidence provided to prove the truth of my position. It's pretty much all you've had the whole time.
"It's like you think if YOU read it and YOU think it's the "only" reasonable conclusion to reach, that the matter is settled."
No. It's "like" I presented what Scripture said and what it means and you disagree without any evidence which contradicts mine. If what I present does NOT mean what the text clearly indicates it does, why would I suppose it means something different? You don't like what it means but do nothing to support the possibility that whatever alternative you prefer is in any way a reasonable alternative conclusion.
"YOU are not the sole arbiter of what is and isn't reasonable, of what is and isn't Godly, of what is and isn't a good understanding of the Bible."
Fortunately, I never claimed I was. You seem to need to believe I have in order to have something you regard as easier to contradict than the clear meaning of the text, for which you provide no coherent counter argument.
"If so, then on WHAT RATIONAL, DEMONSTRABLE, OBJECTIVE basis is anyone obliged to bow to your hunch?"
Beyond what a clear understanding of the plainly stated text indicates, only honesty and an openness to the teachings therein.
-------------------------------------------
"1. We agree that a thermometer is the right tool to objectively measure the temperature.
What is your objective tool to objectively get the objectively factual "right" understanding of any given text?"
All the other verses and passages from Scripture which affirm my position regarding the prohibition against women pastors in a Christian church (the only "given text" of any concern in this discussion...I can support all my positions in the same way, but try to focus on the issue at hand), as well as the many commentaries which confirm it in greater detail. Weighed against the great dearth of evidence for any counter argument, it stands as the right understanding.
And by the way, it's not of any value to suggest how many others might come to a "good faith" conclusion different from mine. What is of value is any evidence they might offer to that end, without which I could be the sole defender of the position I hold and still have the correct understanding. Truth isn't defined by how many believe a proposition, nor is an objection defined by simply disagreeing. Bring evidence or concede...or at least defer until evidence can be found. You simply disagree and then attack me for standing firm.
And by the way further, there was no debate on the thermometer as the tool of choice to determine the temperature. The issue was using it as evidence to support your hypothetical claim of 32 degrees when it's hot outside. You're basically doing the same thing by suggesting it's not hot outside (the proper analogous parallel to my position). Yet, just as you would be compelled to use a thermometer to prove it's 32 when it's obviously not, I would also use that tool to prove it against you. The thermometer stands as evidence of one point or the other. I've brought thermometers, barometers, satellite images and scholarly input to prove it's not 32 degrees...or rather that women aren't to be ordained as pastors over men. YOU insist it's July but it's cold as Christmas. (H/T: Elton John)
A pure acolyte of Trump, Marshal is a pathological liar. He won’t deal with facts.
Marshal: “So in conclusion, because my victory is complete and beyond refuting and you'll need something actually substantive in response for me to continue: 1. Apostles speak for God, even without any direct command from Him.”
Apostle Paul about Apostle Peter: “I told him to his face he was wrong.” Galatians 2:11
To more completely repeat (yet again) my argument:
1. The Bible is NOT a magic rule book.
2. That is, just because there is a line in the Bible (or ten lines or whatever) explaining a moral preference or command given to the people in that time DOES NOT MEAN that the line in question is a moral rule for everywhere and everyone.
3. The Bible never says that. God never says that.
4. Thus, that there is a line where God commands slavery doesn't mean that it is universally moral to enslave people. That there is a line where Paul says that he, Paul, doesn't permit women to "have authority" over men and he, Paul, wants women to "remain silent," does NOT perforce mean that this is a universal rule.
5. Thus, to understand moral questions, we look to human rights and the measure of love and respect of humanity and human rights for understanding moral questions.
6. Thus, for those who value self-determination and the right of beloved children of God making their own choices about their callings and careers, we have NO rational reason to think that women shouldn't be pastors. Why shouldn't they? They are free moral agents. Who am I or who are you to say they shouldn't be?
7. That SOME humans believe that God is opposed to women pastors is not, in and of itself, ANY kind of reason to believe that women shouldn't be pastors. SOME humans look at the Bible and defend slavery as a moral option. I'm not obliged to support them enslaving people either. THAT would be a crime, NOT because it's in the Bible, Thou shalt not enslave, but because it is an affront to humanity and human rights and the humans created in the image of an almighty God (if you believe in such, as I do).
In short, I affirm women making their own decisions about callings and careers just like I affirm anyone else making their own decisions: Because human liberty is a good, wonderful thing that we should support, not oppose.
8. What are the limits, then, to human liberty? Do I ever oppose humans making their own decisions about what to do? Yes, WHEN those decisions cause harm to others. Thus, I oppose a human abusing liberty to drink and drive through a school zone because of the potential for harm to others and I do NOT oppose women being pastors because no harm is done.
I don't NEED the Bible to recognize the innate human rights problems with drunken driving nor to honor women's self-determination. The Bible is not a rule book in that way. It's not where we go and find lines to tell us what is and isn't moral, because there is a line in the Bible that supports it (or APPEARS to support it).
Whether you agree with this reasoning is irrelevant. It IS a rational viewpoint insofar as it goes. There is zero objective data arguing against it and much good moral common sense arguing in favor of it.
THAT is the argument. Now, what "thermometer" do you have to objectively prove it's wrong?
The answer is that you just don't. You have your opinions and that's fine, you're welcome to them. But don't pretend like if you just shout your opinion in a rude-enough manner that you can bluster your way into making your opinion anything other than your subjective opinion.
"My case, explanation is, briefly:"
"1. The Bible is NOT a magic rule book."
This insulting statement you think is a clever rebuke has no meaning. I've never referred to the Bible in this manner. Nothing I've ever said about Scripture suggests I regard it in such a way. This is just an attack in lieu of an actual argument explaining the flaw you unjustly insist is present in my opinions, positions and understandings of the clear Will of God as described in Scripture.
"2. That is, just because there is a line in the Bible (or ten lines or whatever) explaining a moral preference or command given to the people in that time DOES NOT MEAN that the line in question is a moral rule for everywhere and everyone."
That might be true, but it requires more than just saying that in order for it to be true about whatever it is you refuse to abide. You provide nothing to that end.
"3. The Bible never says that. God never says that."
Neither are required to express anything is a manner satisfying to you personally, nor does the lack of such language absolve you from providing an intelligent argument to rebut a position or to hide behind that to defend a position of yours for which there is no Scriptural basis whatsoever, as is so sinfully common with you.
"4. Thus, that there is a line where God commands slavery doesn't mean that it is universally moral to enslave people. That there is a line where Paul says that he, Paul, doesn't permit women to "have authority" over men and he, Paul, wants women to "remain silent," does NOT perforce mean that this is a universal rule."
Again with the slavery reference as if your corruption of that issue has any relevance to the issue on the table, or stands as a legitimate tool to object to Paul's instruction on men only as pastors. What's more, Paul isn't required to state every instruction of his is or isn't universal. For the true Christian, without such statement of affirmation, an instruction of his is to be taken as such. Furthermore, as I've shown either in comments you've allowed to remain or in those you've unjustly deleted, Paul goes on to imply (at the very least) that the instruction is indeed universal. You choose to ignore that plainly stated fact because it would force you to step away from your support for you female pastor and abide the Lord.
"THAT is the argument."
No. The argument is women as pastors and which of us has defended his position. Between the two of us, it ain't been you.
"There are, of course, arguments internal to the Bible that have been made..."
None that you've presented.
"(Feodor noting that of course apostles are literally fallible humans who make mistakes, that there were women who had authority over men and who did not remain silent... thus disproving the "it's a universal rule," nonsense)"
feo failed to prove anything more than that he's just as likely as you to post anything which even remotely hints at being favorable to your position without actually coming close to actually proving it in any way.
None of the examples of women in Scripture mitigate in the least Paul's instruction regarding who can be pastor in a Christian church. None of the examples depict a woman ordained for that purpose. One of the most cited passages used by the rebellious modern progressive is the story of Deborah. But your kind fails miserably in pushing that false narrative. (I always provide links knowing that you're more likely to delete them than not rather than to confront and address them as if truly concerned with acting in good faith. Nonetheless:)
https://the-end-time.org/2021/10/25/deborah-does-not-prove-women-can-rule-women-cannot-be-pastors-period/
https://strivingforeternity.org/deborah-and-huldah-destroy-interpretations-against-women-pastors/
https://thetransformedwife.com/does-deborah-give-women-the-right-to-lead/
https://becomingchristians.com/deborah-and-female-pastors/
The previous are just a sampling of that which provides the reality regarding Deborah, and as her story is the most cited by your kind in defense of women pastors, the other options are far weaker for that purpose given how wrong modern progressives are to cite Deborah.
" but for starters, because I think it's the more important point, I've offered my four points above. These ARE arguments against trying to enforce a universal rule against bans on women pastors (which, once again, is NEVER commanded in the Bible as a universal rule)."
You confuse "arguments" with "assertions" which is all you've provided. And again, despite your petulant objection to the contrary, Scripture is not obliged to constantly label any rule as universal or not. The "God-given reason" you claim to possess should be enought to determine when a teaching is or isn't universal, but since you don't really have a functioning...or honest...ability to reason, I'm happy to step up and point out when and why any given rule, teaching, instruction is to be embraced by Christians the world over. I mean, it's not like it's difficult.
"But I, too, have read "all" the other handful of passages and verses. I don't agree with YOUR personal interpretation of them, NOR the personal human interpretations of the boys in your commentaries (I assume they're boys because women aren't allowed to have authority over men in your opinion)"
Now you're just getting cheeky again because you're quite aware you've lost this debate. Fortunately, I've just presented citations from women who don't put their desires above the Will of God as your pastor does. As to your disagreement, that's a moot point and by itself now means absolutely nothing. That is to say, you can express your disagreement ten thousand more times and it won't serve as a true counter argument. You refuse to offer an explanation for why any of it is untrue or a poor understanding of the subject, because you have no true argument which can do so....OR YOU WOULD HAVE PROVIDED IT BY NOW!!!!!
"So, GIVEN that you and I and the people on my side and the people on your side have ALL looked at the scriptures in question and reached different conclusions, WHAT IS YOUR OBJECTIVE THERMOMETER to prove one side over the other?"
"My" side has all the passages and verses which support the truth I've presented. Your side simply objects without any evidence at all. I don't really care that you and those mystery other people object and oppose the truth I present, and I've no reason to care absent any evidence which compels me to reconsider. And that's your main problem. You don't offer squat to provoke any serious reconsideration of what is so plain and obvious by a simple reading of that which isn't convoluted, mysterious or otherwise hard to grasp. You can object all you like. But until you provide evidence...and I'm not even insisting on a level of evidence you constantly demand of your opponents...just something!....then we're dealing with a situation in which you simply reject the Word of God because you find it personally inconvenient and objectionable. Good luck with that.
"5. Thus, to understand moral questions, we look to human rights and the measure of love and respect of humanity and human rights for understanding moral questions."
Wow! I have no other choice but to regard this as modern progressive meaningless nonsense. Actual Christians look to Scripture to understand moral questions. We certainly don't look to modern progressives, who make personal desire and preference the overriding priority and determination of morality. What idolatry!!
"6. Thus, for those who value self-determination and the right of beloved children of God making their own choices about their callings and careers, we have NO rational reason to think that women shouldn't be pastors. Why shouldn't they? They are free moral agents. Who am I or who are you to say they shouldn't be?"
Once again, you put personal desire above the Will of God. If I put my personal desires and choices above the Will of God as so clearly revealed in Scripture, then I'm clearly not a "beloved child of God". I'm a self-worshiping buffoon...like most modern progressives. Sorry people like you believe that being free moral agents means you can do what you like...that you can use any weak rationalization you are willing to expend the effort to devise to allow you to abuse the liberty God gave you. God provides me the liberty to slap the crap out of you should we ever meet face to face. Should I? As one who seeks to please God above my own desires, I insist I shouldn't. By your logic, I need only the courage to face civil repercussions should I value "self-determination" above God's Will. But who are you to say I shouldn't?
"7. That SOME humans believe that God is opposed to women pastors is not, in and of itself, ANY kind of reason to believe that women shouldn't be pastors."
Fortunately, the issue isn't what "some" humans believe, but what Scripture actually says. You haven't provided squat to legitimize the premise that there's some way to read Scripture in order to rationalize the premise that women can be pastors. You simply assert that it is so because you personally like the notion. I like pleasing God. His Will...as revealed in Scripture through His Apostle Paul... confirms only men are to be pastors.
"SOME humans look at the Bible and defend slavery as a moral option."
This discussion isn't about what some modern progressives believe about enslaving other people. It's about the prohibition against women pastors. Slavery has no relevance of any kind to this issue. Such dodging and tap-dancing doesn't serve your position in the least. Nor does pretending your opposition to slavery makes you morally superior in some way, as if I've ever supported the notion of slavery. It does, however, expose just how desperate you are given your inability to defend the concept of women as pastors.
"In short, I affirm women making their own decisions about callings and careers just like I affirm anyone else making their own decisions: Because human liberty is a good, wonderful thing that we should support, not oppose."
Yeah, this sounds good to the modern progressive who only pretends to abide the Will of God. The modern progressive abuses the human liberty provided by God to serve the modern progressive's own desires. Actual Christians carry their crosses if necessary to abide God's Will above their own desires and "human liberty". "Human liberty" doesn't mean doing whatever pleases you. It doesn't mean that by Christian teaching nor does it mean that by the concepts provided by America's founding fathers. Regardless of one's sex, one's "calling" must align with Scripture. Modern progressives reject this truth because "Christianity" is just something they exploit so as to appear moral.
"8. What are the limits, then, to human liberty?"
God's Will as clearly described in Scripture. Modern progressives reject this when it's more convenient to do so. Modern progressives don't care about God's Will. They care only about their "human liberty" and pleasing themselves. It's really rather maturbatory.
"Do I ever oppose humans making their own decisions about what to do? Yes, WHEN those decisions cause harm to others."
Not very compelling when "harm" is what Dan Trabue says it is. The true Christian doesn't oppose anyone doing anything, but only hopes to persuade them to seek out and abide God's Will. "Harm" according to the modern progressive is fluid. Truth and morality according to Scripture is fixed...as intended by God.
"I do NOT oppose women being pastors because no harm is done."
Opposing the Will of God isn't harmful? That's funny.
"I don't NEED the Bible to recognize the innate human rights problems with drunken driving nor to honor women's self-determination. The Bible is not a rule book in that way. It's not where we go and find lines to tell us what is and isn't moral, because there is a line in the Bible that supports it (or APPEARS to support it)."
This is just you saying you reject Scripture and the Will of God presented therein as subordinate to whatever it is you prefer to do or believe. Good luck with that. But Scripture is indeed where actual Christians go to determine right and wrong, moral and immoral. The modern progressive is more often than not (if at all) on the wrong side of that equation because Scripture opposes what appeals to the modern progressive. Again...good luck with that.
Worse, all this is another dodge to allow you to ignore your obligation in defending your position regarding women in the pastorate. You can't do that with anyting akin to Scriptural backing, so you run this nonsense about "human liberty" and things unrelated to the issue on the table. You need to defend your position with evidence related to the affirmation of your position...not with nonsense which has no relevance to the issue. "Adult", "good faith" discourse and debate demands it.
"Whether you agree with this reasoning is irrelevant. It IS a rational viewpoint insofar as it goes. There is zero objective data arguing against it and much good moral common sense arguing in favor of it. "
There's nothing the least bit rational about such a petulant objection to that which I've presented. The objective data supporting my position is Scripture itself, as well as the commentaries I've provvided in support of that position. There's no "good moral common sense arguing in favor" of your position simply because you demand it be regarded as such. There must be actual evidence provided in order to even hope of defending your self-serving position as the least bit aligned with God's Will...which doesn't seem at all important to you and yours.
"THAT is the argument. Now, what "thermometer" do you have to objectively prove it's wrong?
The answer is that you just don't. You have your opinions and that's fine, you're welcome to them. But don't pretend like if you just shout your opinion in a rude-enough manner that you can bluster your way into making your opinion anything other than your subjective opinion."
You're a liar. I haven't merely stated an opinion. I've backed up my position with a plethora of passages, verses and commentaries from people far more knowledgeable and honest than you and the few sources you felt like scraping a trash can to provide could offer.
Even if we both concede that opinion is always subjective...a stretch in this case to be sure...one still needs evidence to back it up in order to have that opinion respected. I've provided mountains of stuff to support the truth I defend. You've provide less than shit. Now if you want to point to this last sentence as evidence that I'm being rude, then you're lying once again given how long I've gone without speaking that way. Cut the crap. Bring some evidence or man up and admit that you're entirely wrong as Scripture clearly says you are.
Marshal quoting you, Dan: "(Feodor noting that of course apostles are literally fallible humans who make mistakes, that there were women who had authority over men and who did not remain silent... thus disproving the "it's a universal rule," nonsense)"
Marshal's asshole "rebuttal": "feo failed to prove anything more than that he's just as likely as you to post anything which even remotely hints at being favorable to your position without actually coming close to actually proving it in any way.
None of the examples of women in Scripture mitigate in the least Paul's instruction regarding who can be pastor in a Christian church. None of the examples depict a woman ordained for that purpose."
___
1. Marshal, thinking for the fourth time that we wont notice, ignored Galatians 2:11 which demonstrates that at least the Apostles believed and behaved as if "of course apostles are literally fallible humans who make mistakes...." [The Apostle Paul about the Apostle Peter: "I told him to his face he was wrong."]
2. When Marshal says "none of the examples depict a woman ordained", he is either so ignorant or such a committed liar that he ignores the fact that no man was ordained for anything except the six deacons in Acts 6:6.
These six, of course, were ordained to make sure that poor widows of the Hebrew Church were getting food. The disaporic, Greek speaking Jewish Christians were complaining that the palestinian Hebrew speaking Jewish Christians WEREN'T TAKING CARE OF THE POOR... WHICH IS CENTRAL TO THE CHURCH.
But, of course, Marshal denies this.
The only other time any act of ordination is described is when Barnabas and Saul/Paul are ordained for what Paul considers a mission to Jews and Gentiles in the diaspora.
This, of course, is the same Apostle Paul that Marshal thinks absolutely speaks for God without mistake.
The same Apostle Paul who writes, "I commend to you OUR SISTER Phoebe, A DEACON (ΔΙΆΚΟΝΟΝ) OF THE CHURCH AT CENCHREAE, so that you may welcome her in the Lord, as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well."
Marshal either has to admit that Phoebe has been ordained a deacon by Paul... or claim Paul was wrong to do so.
___
If he's unable to deal with these two matters, Marshal again chooses to steep himself in lies and deviance.
"My" side has all the passages and verses which support the truth I've presented. Your side simply objects without any evidence at all.
So, your side has all the passages you cite and your reasoning you use and MY side has all the passages you cite and the reasoning we use.
I repeat:
What is your OBJECTIVE thermometer to assess which side is interpreting the passages and understanding the Bible and using the right reasoning correctly?
You merely saying "We are looking at these verses" is not objective proof. It is literally YOUR subjective interpretation. That's not me saying "nuh uh," it's just an objective fact. THE INTERPRETATION you assign any given text IS your subjective opinion UNLESS you have some objective way of determining objectively what the meaning is. UNTIL you have done that, you are only citing your subjective opinion, literally, that's all you're doing. HOW is it anything BUT your subjective opinion?
One other point, while waiting for you STILL to address this main point (ie, what is your objective thermometer?), one more thing...
This is just you saying you reject Scripture and the Will of God presented therein as subordinate to whatever it is you prefer to do or believe.
I said NOTHING about rejecting Scripture. I literally didn't say it nor did I do it.
I merely am noting, for instance:
I (you, any reasonable person) DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO REJECT THE OWNING OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS AS SLAVES OUT OF HAND AS IMMORAL.
It is an obvious affront to human rights.
Do you disagree? Do you think WITHOUT the Bible we would have no way of knowing slavery was wrong?
What about people the world over who don't have/don't believe the Bible and reject slavery out of hand as wrong? What about the Bible itself coming closer to supporting slavery than condemning it?
"My" side has all the passages and verses which support the truth I've presented. Your side simply objects without any evidence at all.
1. What I'm rejecting is the notion that we need the Bible to understand morality. The evidence for that is the reality that ALL of us recognize basic moral questions on some level or another, that's true for those who believe the Bible, those who don't believe the Bible and those who've never seen or heard of the Bible.
2. That IS evidence, do you recognize that? That is, in cultures with no connections with the Bible, that some things such as killing or raping are considered wrong. The existence of moral behavior outside of the Bible is evidence (whether you consider it conclusive or not) that we don't HAVE to have the Bible to make moral decisions.
Agreed?
3. I'm further stating that, as things stand now, we humans CAN'T understand morality perfectly, none of us. I'm not even sure that's the right question to ask (as if perfect morality is something we can potentially understand, given the extreme and vague waves of nuance as to whether or not any given behavior is potentially wrong or immoral).
I'm guessing you agree to this?
4. I'm further stating that, as things stand now, we humans CAN'T understand God or God's Word perfectly, none of us.
I'm guessing you agree with this?
5. I'm finally stating as a reasonable conclusion, given these observable facts, that understanding any ONE given moral behavior or any ONE set of texts in the Bible, given our inability to understand morality and God and God's Word perfectly, would require SOME objective measure/criteria/"thermometer" to say, "YES, that particular understanding is observably, objectively correct." So far as I know, NO ONE has ever presented such a rubric or "thermometer." You haven't.
Do you understand/are you following the point, now?
I haven't merely stated an opinion.
As a matter of observable fact, you have merely stated your opinion.
I've backed up my position with a plethora of
passages,
...and YOUR OPINIONS about them, unproven subjective opinions.
verses
...and YOUR OPINIONS about them, unproven subjective opinions.
and commentaries from people far more knowledgeable and honest than you
...and THEIR OPINIONS about them, unproven subjective opinions. Not ONE SINGLE ONE of your human commentators have ever proven as objective fact that their human subjective interpretations are objectively, authoritatively proven. HOW COULD THEY? If you think they did, WHERE did they?
and the few sources you felt like scraping a trash can to provide could offer.
I've offered objective, observable facts and if you can point to ANYTHING that I said was an observable fact that isn't, by all means, point it out.
Even if we both concede that opinion is always subjective
I, of course, do NOT concede that all opinion is subjective. The man with a thermometer who offers the opinion that it is freezing outside when he is holding a thermometer that says 32 degrees farenheit, THAT opinion is an objective fact. Some opinions are based on objective fact, others on subjective, unproven opinions. The thermometer man has objective facts supporting his opinion. You have subjective opinions backing up your subjective opinions.
See the difference.
However, I LIKE the fact that you're at least humbling yourself a bit to say "Even if we are willing to conceded that opinions can be subjective..." (but not always, as I correctly point out.
...a stretch in this case to be sure...one still needs evidence to back it up in order to have that opinion respected.
I've provided mountains of stuff to support the truth I defend.
You've literally provided a few bible verses and YOUR subjective, unproven opinions about them and what they mean TO YOU, in YOUR unproven opinion AND you've offered the subjective and unproven opinions of others who agree with your subjective opinions. I'm certain that you can provide "mountains" of other subjective opinions but NONE of that will ever make it an objective fact.
Understand? I feel like it might be starting to sink in on you that you've been missing the point of me saying you do not have objective proof and what I mean by Objective (ie, just, you know, Objective). Look, it's not too late to back down and admit you can't prove these opinions and they are subjective opinions, as a matter of fact. It's what a good man would do, swallow his pride and admit the mistake and THEN, if you want, you can start defending why you think YOUR subjective opinion makes more sense than my subjective opinion on the topic. But you have to begin with the realization that your subjective opinion is just that.
Humble yourself, brother.
"So, your side has all the passages you cite and your reasoning you use and MY side has all the passages you cite and the reasoning we use."
You say this as if we're both doing the same things. That isn't the least bit so. You're NOT providing any explanation or evidence for why the passages we cite are saying something different than what I insist the passages themselves clearly say. You're simply rejecting my "interpretation" (which is never so much "interpretation" as it is simply presenting the passage and letting it speak for itself). Never do you provide any support to suppose it's wrong or in error. You simply say it is. Not good enough in an "adult/good faith" discussion or debate.
"I repeat:
What is your OBJECTIVE thermometer to assess which side is interpreting the passages and understanding the Bible and using the right reasoning correctly?"
You've altered what you now claim to be repeating. That lie aside, it's as I've said: the principle taken in complete context, along with commentaries by scholars and early church fathers, my position is correct. You don't do that, otherwise you couldn't say, for example, that Paul's instruction isn't universal.
" You merely saying "We are looking at these verses" is not objective proof."
But it is indeed proof when the verses affirm my position, which they clearly do. Not providing any verses which contradict my position serves to further affirm the truth of my position. You've provided nothing like that, instead trying to make your case with these weak claims of my citations somehow falling short. It's you who's devoid of objective proof. And since the issue regards what Scripture says, Scripture IS "objective" proof.
The problem is that what Scripture clearly says doesn't work for you. It's inconvenient to your pastoral preference. As such, it's up to YOU to provide objective proof that Scripture doesn't say what my offerings of verses and passages blatantly teach.
"THE INTERPRETATION you assign any given text IS your subjective opinion UNLESS you have some objective way of determining objectively what the meaning is."
This is rote gainsaying...something you claimed you're not doing. Indeed, it's ALL you're doing. You continue to use the word "interpretation" when I'm not interpreting anything. I'm simply presenting what Scripture clearly says. What I've presented requires no "interpretation" as if it's convoluted, imprecise, mysterious, ambiguous (as you'd like it to be) or in any way difficult to understand. It's YOU who is "interpreting" the text to suggest it means something different than what the words on the page assert according to their arrangements in the sentences we find them. More specifically, you're claiming the verses don't mean what they say. This demands evidence. "NO! The sign doesn't mean 'STOP' every time you come to the intersection where it's posted! That's just your 'interpretation'!" It's absurd. If the verses don't mean what they say, then you have to explain just how that's so. I'm not required to prove "STOP" means "STOP".
Thus, my "OBJECTIVE thermometer to assess which side is interpreting the passages and understanding the Bible and using the right reasoning correctly" is still so obviosly the fact that I'm citing exactly what Scripture says, using Scripture to confirm the meaning by citing a wider context which you've ignored to reject the clear meaning of what it says when the wider context makes that far less reasonable, and then on top of that, citing scholars and others more knowledgeable on the subject than either one of us. You've provided nothing which allows you to legitimately reject any of it. You simply reject it. And you again do so with your typical rejection of any evidence regardless of quality or quantity. You simply refuse to accept the truth because you prefer an alternative to it.
"I said NOTHING about rejecting Scripture. I literally didn't say it nor did I do it."
I present exactly what Scripture says and you insist it doesn't mean what it says. That's rejecting Scripture unless you can provide evidence...FROM SCRIPTURE or a compelling commentary from a theological scholar, for example...which disctinctly contradicts it. I'm still waiting for anything remotely like that from you.
"I merely am noting, for instance:
I (you, any reasonable person) DO NOT NEED THE BIBLE TO REJECT THE OWNING OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS AS SLAVES OUT OF HAND AS IMMORAL."
What does that have to do with whether or not it is proper for women to be pastors over men? Answer: Not a thing. It's just a distraction, and an incredibly meaningless one at that. Besides, I'm well aware you oppose slavery. Constantly bringing it up doesn't serve you in the slightest, even when we're discussing that subject. To reassure you, I'll proclaim right now that henceforth your opposition to slavery as a great evil is a given.
With that in mind, I dismiss any questioning related to slavery and insist you focus on proving your position against Scripture's clear prohibition against women pastors. The two issues have nothing in common and no relevance to each other in any way.
"1. What I'm rejecting is the notion that we need the Bible to understand morality."
A convenient position to take for one who is supportive of so much which is immoral.
"The evidence for that is the reality that ALL of us recognize basic moral questions on some level or another, that's true for those who believe the Bible, those who don't believe the Bible and those who've never seen or heard of the Bible."
You're rejecting the objective Truth of Scripture for the subjective opinions of mankind. What's more, this discussion is about what Scripture says, so I don't see how anyone might "recognize" what's moral matters. Indeed, it's wholly irrelevant.
"2. That IS evidence, do you recognize that?"
No. It's not. It's only evidence that many unaware of or disinterested in Scripture might also oppose behaviors God says is immoral. But that doesn't validate what God says, it doesn't prove God's Holiness just because some atheist also hates murder and it certainly doesn't mean we don't need Scripture to learn of morality...basic or otherwise. Without God/Scripture, there is no morality. There's only favorable behaviors to which people label "moral" by consensus or majority rule.
So again, rather than focus on the issue at hand, you've now decided to bore me with this already proven nonsensical opinion that morality does not flow from God. Again, I point out that what YOU are stating is moral agreement by non-Biblical inspired people are behaviors you regard as moral due to your Christian upbringing within a generally Christian culture developed over centuries of Christian influence.
"3. I'm further stating that, as things stand now, we humans CAN'T understand morality perfectly, none of us."
Of course we can. What exactly are you having trouble understanding? Name it.
"I'm not even sure that's the right question to ask"
It's certainly not in a discussion about women pastors!!
"(as if perfect morality is something we can potentially understand, given the extreme and vague waves of nuance as to whether or not any given behavior is potentially wrong or immoral)."
Perhaps one day we can discuss what a complete fiction this is. It's totally irrelevant to the discussion about women pastors.
"4. I'm further stating that, as things stand now, we humans CAN'T understand God or God's Word perfectly, none of us.
I'm guessing you agree with this?"
I know you need to believe this, but I can't think of anything in Scripture about which I have any trouble understanding. As regards the issue on the table, it's crystal clear. Women are prohibited from pastoring over men. I know YOU understand this clear instruction. You just don't like it.
I'm tackling this next one individually because it might get wordy give the many self-serving presumptions and assertions contained therein:
"5. I'm finally stating as a reasonable conclusion, given these observable facts, that understanding any ONE given moral behavior or any ONE set of texts in the Bible, given our inability to understand morality and God and God's Word perfectly, would require SOME objective measure/criteria/"thermometer" to say, "YES, that particular understanding is observably, objectively correct." So far as I know, NO ONE has ever presented such a rubric or "thermometer." You haven't.
Do you understand/are you following the point, now?"
There's nothing reasonable about your conclusion. It's just something you need to believe in order to allow you the liberty to do things your way in contradiction to what is clear and easy to understand about what God wants. Thus, you've provided no "facts", but only your opinion which you demand others regard as facts.
I have absolutely no problem understanding morality or God's Will. That is to say, I can't think of any aspect of morality or God's Will which ever makes me think, "what does this mean?" Which exactly do you have trouble understanding? In order for any of that crap to make sense, you'll have to provide an example of some Biblical teaching regarding moral behavior confuses you so much that you think some "objective measure" is required to clear things up for you.
The fact of the matter is, you need as much ambiguity as possible. I need only God's Word. This talk of "perfect knowledge" is a scam. Do what you want. Believe it's OK if you need to in order to do it. Good luck with that. Seems to me that if there's any question as to whether a desire is moral or not, devotion to God would dictate that you not do it. It's likely immoral.
But again, none of this is relevant to the issue on the table.
Well...that wasn't as wordy as I thought it might be.
"As a matter of observable fact, you have merely stated your opinion."
As a matter of observable and proven fact, known to many for so many years now, "observable fact" is an opinion of yours which you insist other regard as fact. Indeed, it is merely your stated opinion, and an opinion with absolutey no supporting evidence. I haven't stated opinion. I've stated what Scripture says. I support it with other verses and passages and Scriptural references which are irrefutably confirming of the obvious conclusion at which honest people have arrived for centuries. The only "opinion" is that yours in saying all I've presented dosen't say what it says.
"...and YOUR OPINIONS about them, unproven subjective opinions."
I haven't rendered any opinion about what I've presented other than that you've no legitimacy in objecting to what those verses and passages mean. You haven't any evidence. You've only your desire that no one abides them as the binding instructions they are.
"...and THEIR OPINIONS about them, unproven subjective opinions."
Which are backed by scholarship of a degree you've not countered in an adult manner. Again, all you're doing is gainsaying. You can use this bullshit angle for any truth expressed by anybody on any topic of any kind because you haven't the honesty and integrity to provide a firm criteria for satisfying your demands. That makes your objections wholly childish.
"Not ONE SINGLE ONE of your human commentators have ever proven as objective fact that their human subjective interpretations are objectively, authoritatively proven."
They did all they needed to do. They cited Scripture, which to honest people is all that's necessary to prove objectively what Scripture says. Scripture is not "subjective interpretations" of other Scriptural verses/passages. It's evidence...all of which leads to the same factual conclusion. But again, as is your dishonest way, you insist nothing they do or can do is enough to state the plain truth, because the plain truth doesn't work for you.
"I've offered objective, observable facts and if you can point to ANYTHING that I said was an observable fact that isn't, by all means, point it out."
No you haven't. So here's a far better idea. If you believe you've offered "objective, 'observable' facts", cite the date and time of the comment in which it can be found and quote the exact comment(s) which you regard as "objective, 'observable' fact" and we can discuss whether or not it is. Indeed, that should've been your first response to my charge against you, instead of "Yes I have" (the converse of "Nyuh uh").
"I, of course, do NOT concede that all opinion is subjective. The man with a thermometer who offers the opinion that it is freezing outside when he is holding a thermometer that says 32 degrees farenheit, THAT opinion is an objective fact."
An opinion is not a fact. An opinion can suggest a fact, might be informed by other facts, but it is not itself a fact. And by the way, a thermometer is not required to confirm "it's freezing outside" if there's ice formed, if one is standing outside shivering like mad, etc. If one is indoors, away from the effects of the weather outside, unable to see out a window, then to say "it's freezing outside" can be regarded as opinion. What's more, unless "it's freezing outside" is intended to convey the temperature is at that degree where freezing takes place, then a thermometer will confirm that claim as a fact. Thus, you now have a clearer and more accurate understanding of the difference between fact and opinion. Once a belief is proven to be true (such as with a thermometer) then the belief is no longer either mere belief or opinion. It is now a fact.
You're welcome.
"You have subjective opinions backing up your subjective opinions."
Verses from Scripture are not subjective opinions. They're facts or evidence of a point of fact. If you insist on pretend the verse means something the words used to form the verse means something else, THAT is a subjective opinion requiring evidence to support. You've brought none for your subjective opinion that Paul's instruction is either specific to one church or not universal. I've provided evidence from Scripture which supports the truth I've repeated.
Nope. You're done, Marshal. IF you can't prove it objectively, IF you can't provide the objectively demonstrable "thermometer" by which you can prove your subjective opinions, IF you won't admit that these are your subjective opinions and nothing like an objective and proven fact, you're done.
Grow up, brother.
“Not providing any verses which contradict my position serves to further affirm the truth of my position.”
The plain sense of Galatians 2:11 and Romans 16:2 contradict your position.
And you’ve tried to elude and erase these verses half a dozen times. So your hypocrisy destroys your credibility.
Indeed.
Thank you, Dan. And let's add something that is obvious - except to the thugs who, with their bibliolatry, cannot accept the obvious because their Bible house is built on sand.
By appealing in this case to scripture is not a rejection of Dan's persistent argument. We are not implying that Paul was always right, either, or, that ordaining Phoebe was one of the things he did wrong. What we are acknowledging is that scripture has its own contradictions. It's just that Marshal only recognizes the One Way streets that point in his preferred direction. There are verses that do not support my biblical theology. But they almost always tend to be heavily contextualized as sociological oppressive toward modern notions of rights and freedom.
So, if Scripture is not perfect, is there a more perfect appeal for living Christians seeking faith in deeper understanding? Of course there is.
The living god.
Scripture only endures as an authoritative source because Christ lives and reigns in heaven and the Spirit moves as it will to teach us everything that the limits of the written word - inspired as it is but nonetheless captured by fallible scribes and teachers - and the limits of Jesus' own ministry could not. This is as Jesus promised when he was saying goodbye to the Apostles in the gospel of John: the Spirit was coming to dwell within us and would lead us beyond even what scripture and Jesus had taught.
Further, Jesus said we ourselves would do more than he himself had done: precisely because he was going to reign in heaven and the Paraclete was going to guide us!
One can see this in the fact that post-Ascension, without the Messiah, the early church was stunned by the Spirit to learn that Gentiles were included in the promise of salvation through faith and nothing else... except that the poor should always be served (Galatians 2:10 - contra all the thugs and most especially Stan bin Laden recently).
Further, Romans 16 shows that women did, in fact, lead in ministry. The church has had to re-realize this by the Spirit's persistent insistence.
Further, the modern church was stunned to realize that the Spirit has demonstrated that the children of African slaves are fully and powerfully equal, and in some things better qualified, to lead the body of Christ - the WHOLE body of Christ. The white church has had to re-realize this by the Spirit's persistent insistence.
And still further, the modern church has been stunned to realize that the Spirit has demonstrated that identity - like the identity of the Gentiles - is no barrier to faith and Christian witness. In fact, exclusion of all women and non-white AND non-straight and non-binary AND non-abled folks from ministry and leadership in Christian faith is...
Anathema.
Therefore, is becomes obvious to faithful followers of Jesus, that Scripture is always and ever has been... even *within Hebrew Scriptures and *within Jesus' ministry and *within the NT's witness to the developing early church and *within the early church councils of the first six centuries and *within the life of the Church every since...
... it becomes obvious that Scripture is always and ever has been interpreted by a process of living under the Spirit and continually reflecting on scripture as a Christian community via the 3 dimensional framework of interpretation: 1. we are the body of Christ, corporately, communally, reasoning by faith together; 2. the experience of our worshipful lives informs our theological reflections in the process of communal discussion; 3. the living Spirit is faithful and will guide us if we all stick together, reject oppression, and follow the love of Christ.
We are all like the Apostle Peter: he was stunned that the Spirit was demonstrating to him that the Gentiles were not vile, despised, or wicked in god’s eyes, just by identity. The Jews believed that the Gentiles were vile, despised, and wicked just by culture and identity. And so did all the Jewish Christians.
But Peter believed the Spirit: Gentiles, too, were heirs by faith of the promises of Jesus. But he relapsed and needed his brother, Paul, to be steered back to the path of full and liberatory love.
And so it goes.
___
There were, though, many Jewish Christians in the first century who could not accept Gentiles until they changed their spots and observed Jewish law in addition to believing in and worshipping the living Christ. They followed Paul in the cities and towns where he had preached freedom in Christ and they insisted that purity laws had to be kept also. They were the Judaizers of whom Paul wished would castrate themselves.
Stan bin Laden and the rest of the thugs carry the same oppressive hate that the Judaizers did; and demand that others carry burdens of faith that they themselves will not. Can they give up white supremacy in the liberation brought by faith in Jesus? Nope.
And they stand condemned.
if Scripture is not perfect, is there a more perfect appeal for living Christians seeking faith in deeper understanding? Of course there is.
The living god.
Absolutely true. The same was true for Abraham and Moses and our ancient OT heroes (and sometimes villains - let's just call them People) who had no "Bible," but they had God, the same being true for all of us.
And for my part, I'm just not even sure if asking if Scripture or ANY text is perfect or not is the question. It's TEXT. Text is only as good as the readers doing the reading and understanding. IF there were a "perfect" text or Scripture somewhere (something that we have no data to support), even that would be useless against bad interpretation.
Which, to me, gets back to the problem that Marshal, et al (including my formerly conservative/evangelical self, once upon a time) are having a problem even admitting.
They freely and gladly admit that THEY are imperfect. They freely and gladly admit that every human being in their tradition's timeline WERE imperfect.
They will almost certainly admit that NONE of them perfectly understands God's "Word," however they and we might define that.
With those agreements (on their part, as well as ours) in place, then the question remains unanswered:
IF your human understanding is imperfect to completely and correctly understand God's Word, then on what basis and by what DEMONSTRABLE, OBJECTIVE and AUTHORITATIVE basis do they think they can't be mistaken on the parts that they think they DO understand "perfectly..."?
It's not like they try to answer and fail or succeed, they don't even try to answer and if they THINK they're answering, well, it's literally not an answer to the question being asked.
Those CLOSEST I've seen from anyone trying to give an actual and honest answer to that question is when they've said, "Well, it's what the church (ie, the church in their tradition) has believed for hundreds or maybe over 1000 years have believed." That is, when they HAVE answered, they've just appealed to more imperfect people, as if having an historic line of mortal and imperfect humans somehow makes the given opinion "objectively proven as factual" is anything but an appeal to more imperfect subjective human opinions.
"So, if scripture is not perfect" carries the sense of, having proven a fact, therefore.... You dropped the "so".
___
"on what basis and by what DEMONSTRABLE, OBJECTIVE and AUTHORITATIVE basis do they think they can't be mistaken on the parts that they think they DO understand "perfectly..."?
Their process is the same as our process: scripture is interpreted by the reasoning deliberations of the gathered faithful.
The difference is that we modern protestants have jettisoned the commitment to ostracize and segregate ourselves from other Christians who bring different experiences and therefore different reasoning reflections on the nature of god, christ, salvation, and redemptive love. Specifically, we have rejected, somewhat, the white supremacy that evangelical conservatives have placed at the center of their faith along with centuries old debates about baptism, eucharist, and ministry.
If one's community of reasoning faith has excluded all those who differ from it - the very history of sectarian radical protestantism - when one is left with a happy few who mutually confirm each other in their interpretation of scripture and the horizon of new interpretation is closed off.
As we have rejected sectarianism, and in our faith experience find ourselves growing in faith via the reasoning reflections of those who are not like us - not white, not male, not straight, not binary - we must always contextualize our faith as partial in its reach, more perfect in diversity, and always dependent on the activity of the Spirit and our discipline in paying attention to it.
This difference is decisive. All the distance created between loving Christendom and brutalizing Christendom is created thereby.
Agreed.
More perfect in diversity, amen and amen.
Jesus said we'd do greater things than he did. I believe him and think that embrace of diversity and our clumsy, often failing efforts to include the poor and marginalized is one of them. But still a work in progress, very much so.
Nope. I'm not "done", Dan. But you were done long ago when you failed to support your position, to rebut mine or to show how any of the evidence I provided failed to meet your demand for evidence that Paul's instruction was universal. I'll be addressing even your troll over the next day or so. He, like you, has failed as well...in as epic a manner, which is his way. You're both works in progressive ideology, but it's not working for either of you or any who abide it.
Wait 'till you see what I have next! More stuff you won't be able to overcome!
He sounds exactly like Trump: all hat no cattle. And empty lies of manufactured defamation.
Marshal thinks the plain sense of Galatians 2 and Romans 16 is progressive. I agree. No burdens on changing how god made anyone: faith alone. Oh, but Christians must take care of the poor. (Gal 2:12b)
And what degree of narcissistically anxious self-importance does it take to announce that you’re going to blather with pre-blather? Lol!
It's a very Trumpian move. I wonder if Trump's malignant narcissism is contagious, or is it just a matter of following patterns established by your heroes, even when the "hero" is a rather imbecilic pervert?
Malignant narcissists all sound and behave alike. It's a describable pathology for that reason. As for following Trump, I find it best to frame Trump as an avatar of the last development of whiteness. He is not its source or mode; though he is its illegitimate leader - illegitimate becasue he does not believe what Marshal believes. He uses all the Marshals and Craigs and Stan bin Ladens of our society. Trump's narcissism has the intuitive awareness that he is an avatar of whiteness. That plus the fact that he developed into an adult brutalizer and, like any authoritarian, he knows he has to sound and act big and to attract the crowd of personality dysfunction types.
The timing is just such that now is the time that the 500 year corruption of white supremacy - which we all internalized - has come to the impossibility of legitimizing itself. US demography is being increasingly expressed - as it is supposed to be - in our democracy and the still creaking values of our Constitutional institutions.
Despite the tearing and burning of our national fabric by the raging right, neither time nor degenerate myths of history - nor global economy much less climate change - will save them.
So, I've decided to begin by addressing feo's desperate attempts to be regarded as intellectually superior and theologically more knowledgeable:
August 5, 2023 at 12:17 AM
He begins with an insult of the type which Dan would use as an excuse to delete me:
<(BTW, "he" is one of your pronouns, right? I don't want to get deleted for using the wrong ones.)
"Marshal's asshole "rebuttal":"
But know that I'm not the least bit bothered. I don't get the vapors over crude language unless the point is merely to be crude. That could be the case here, with feo's attendant weak attempts to dominate merely the means to do so without deletion. He then quotes me:
"feo failed to prove anything more than that he's just as likely as you to post anything which even remotely hints at being favorable to your position without actually coming close to actually proving it in any way.
None of the examples of women in Scripture mitigate in the least Paul's instruction regarding who can be pastor in a Christian church. None of the examples depict a woman ordained for that purpose."
Clearly to feo, truth equates to an "asshole rebuttal". Again, the quote reflects the truth. He failed to prove me wrong in the least by his references to Galatians. And it was to that reference which compelled my link to the St. Jerome commentary Dan deleted twice....make that three times, because I went up to comments as far back as July 22 and couldn't find the third attempt I was sure I submitted. Thus, here it is again. Try reading it this time instead of deleting it. Read it to feo to make sure he understands it before he tries to pretend it holds no weight against his lame claim:
https://www.defendingthebride.com/ch/pa/gatatians.html
This commentary:
https://bsullivan.org/pauls-rebuke-of-peter/
...speaks of "the difference between infallibility and impeccability. The Church has never taught that the Pope is beyond correction (impeccable). Each Pope, beginning with Peter had the charism of infallibility which is the ability to declare and teach on issues of faith and morals without error (Jn 16:13; Jn 14:26; Lk 10:16; Mt 28:20; 1 Tim 3:15). But each Pope, beginning with Peter, still has all the typical human frailties, so they all sin, commit mathematical errors, say things incorrectly and commit other mistakes."
Peter wasn't "rebuked" by Paul for teaching something untrue and not from God, but for an action he took as a result of outside pressures. As Jerome states, Paul did similar on more than one occasion and his "rebuke" was to distinguish betwen Pete's actions and his teachings, which Paul affirms. Thus, feo's continued reference to Gal 2 is a epic failure in attacking my factually accurate position, which is that the Apostles speak for God and do so infallibly.
" 1. Marshal, thinking for the fourth time that we wont notice, ignored Galatians 2:11 which demonstrates that at least the Apostles believed and behaved as if "of course apostles are literally fallible humans who make mistakes...." [The Apostle Paul about the Apostle Peter: "I told him to his face he was wrong."]"
This is funny. Not only is it rebuked by the facts presented in my most previous comment, but I haven't "ignored" anything and that would be proved had not Dan deleted my comments which presented the St. Jerome commentary the first three times. And again, as stated in the previous comment, feo mistakes infallible for impeccable. But then, he's mistaken all the time, so...
"2. When Marshal says "none of the examples depict a woman ordained", he is either so ignorant or such a committed liar that he ignores the fact that no man was ordained for anything except the six deacons in Acts 6:6."
feo errs here is preferring to assume I use the word "ordain" as it is used today, the same way the intellectually challenged uses the words "deacon" or "slavery" as those words are understood today. I simply intended to use the word in reference to whom Paul asserts and instructs should be pastors. That would be men only. But in feo's point #2, he affirms on my behalf that only men are ordained, even though these guys were not ordained to preach the Gospel, but to "wait on tables".
But kidding aside, women served in many ways without being given the authority over men pastors were given. That only happened among heretical groups. Thus, when feo tries to offer up those like Phoebe, the label "deacon" applied to her refers to the word when used as "servant". Even "minister" can be used in the same way. But those who reject the Word of God choose these times to "take the Bible literally", but only based on contemporary understandings of the words in English translations, even when the wider context of the abused verses affirm the truth I re-present.
"These six, of course, were ordained to make sure that poor widows of the Hebrew Church were getting food. The disaporic, Greek speaking Jewish Christians were complaining that the palestinian Hebrew speaking Jewish Christians WEREN'T TAKING CARE OF THE POOR... WHICH IS CENTRAL TO THE CHURCH.
But, of course, Marshal denies this."
Why feo chooses to add this bit is likely to exploit it solely to attack me. I don't know any reason to suspect I deny anything, particularly that which hasn't been addressed until he brought it up for this purpose.
In any case, the passage merely describes the church growing beyond the abilities of those in charge to keep up, and thus they began to delegate tasks. Why feo would think I'd deny this is simply because attacking his betters is what he does.
"This, of course, is the same Apostle Paul that Marshal thinks absolutely speaks for God without mistake."
Where had he made a mistake? Be specific. I'll wait here while you don't.
"Marshal either has to admit that Phoebe has been ordained a deacon by Paul... or claim Paul was wrong to do so."
No I don't, since he didn't ordain her in the same way he commissioned men to be pastors with authority over men. Paul speaks of women teaching women and children. But even where a woman might speak to a newbie about the Lord isn't the same as someone with the authority to lead a congregation. So feo commits yet another epic fail. It's his greatest talent!
August 6, 2023 at 7:20 PM
"The plain sense of Galatians 2:11 and Romans 16:2 contradict your position."
That's funny. "The plain sense!" As if feo understands either, neither of whch contradicts the truth I've presented in the slightest!
"And you’ve tried to elude and erase these verses half a dozen times."
Not even superficially possible, much less distinctly so! Clearly you continue to need to believe the worst of me so as to posture as the better of us. That's so precious! My credibility remains wholly intact.
August 7, 2023 at 6:21 AM
Wow! This comment is filled with Gregory Hines-level tap-dancing and typical feo fake intellectualism!
"By appealing in this case to scripture is not a rejection of Dan's persistent argument."
You're right. It's the total annihilation of it.
"We are not implying that Paul was always right, either,..."
No. You're insisting that wasn't so that you can take the unChristian liberties you take. If you can convince yourself that Paul is sometimes wrong in his instructions, teachings and preaching...despite doing nothing to back up the assertion...then anything goes. Anything, that is, that modern progressives find personally satisfying and convenient and to hell with what Scripture says.
"...or, that ordaining Phoebe was one of the things he did wrong."
Paul didn't "ordain" her simply by accepting her help, regardless of what that help looked like. And she certainly wasn't commissioned to have authority over men or to lead a congregation. Thus, you're wrong about Paul "ordaining" her, or that he was wrong to allow her assistance in the running of a congregation.
"What we are acknowledging is that scripture has its own contradictions"
You "ackowledge" that which isn't true. That you can't find a way to resolve what you perceive to be "contradictions" is an indictment only of yourself, and one which has been apparent since you first came on the scene.
"It's just that Marshal only recognizes the One Way streets that point in his preferred direction."
Oh...you're clearly referring to the plain Truth which is clear to actual Christians and those of us who strive to be regarded as one. In that case, you're correct (though not on purpose, clearly) as Truth is indeed my preferred direction. Why it isn't yours I don't even care to know.
"There are verses that do not support my biblical theology."
Then clearly your theology is crap. I know it doesn't serve you to give up the fraudulent claim of being a Christian, but you should do it anyway...just to throw people off.
"But they almost always tend to be heavily contextualized as sociological oppressive toward modern notions of rights and freedom."
Ah..."modern notions"! That give your game away. What modern progressives assert as moral is not Christian and only occasionally bears a completely superficial resemblance at best. Fools are fooled by it. Actual Christians are not. Most certainly Christ isn't.
Here's where it gets really twisted:
"So, if Scripture is not perfect, is there a more perfect appeal for living Christians seeking faith in deeper understanding? Of course there is.
The living god."
Scripture IS perfect. Your inability to undestand it is, again, and indictment of your own vast dearth of perfection, not any imperfection of the Word of God.
What's more, pretending that "the living god" will impart to you anything inconsistent with Scripture should demonstrate to you that you are most definitely led by evil. And dude...it shows!
"This is as Jesus promised when he was saying goodbye to the Apostles in the gospel of John: the Spirit was coming to dwell within us and would lead us beyond even what scripture and Jesus had taught."
This is a perversion, and it's factually a lie that Christ suggested in any way the Apostles would speak contrary to Scripture after He ascended.
"Further, Jesus said we ourselves would do more than he himself had done: precisely because he was going to reign in heaven and the Paraclete was going to guide us!"
Here's an example of you failing to understand due to your incredible and obvious lack of perfection. Here's some clarity on the point which I fully doubt you meant:
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/greater-works
https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/what-did-jesus-mean-by-doing-greater-things-than-these/
https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-76-doing-greater-works-jesus-john-1412-14
https://preachitteachit.org/articles/detail/what-did-jesus-mean-when-he-said-we-will-do-greater-works-than-he/
I could add more, but you won't read these or understand them if you do. Nonetheless, you're welcome. But I agree with Sproul that He was speaking specifically to His Apostles, as there is no word than anyone's done more or greater things than they did back then, either through miracles or conversions. You haven't done jack.
"Further, Romans 16 shows that women did, in fact, lead in ministry."
No it doesn't. You who corrupt to rationalize your heresies simply choose to assert it does. And again, some of those women may have led other women and/or children, but none had authority over men, and nothing in the Chapter so much as hints that they did. I'd say "nice try", but that would be lying.
"Further, the modern church was stunned to realize that the Spirit has demonstrated that the children of African slaves are fully and powerfully equal, and in some things better qualified, to lead the body of Christ - the WHOLE body of Christ. The white church has had to re-realize this by the Spirit's persistent insistence."
The truth is there has always been Christians who opposed the enslavement of Africans, initially enslaved by other Africans, and recognized their value as fellow humans and people, fully endowed by their Creator with the same unalienable rights to which you are so richly undeserving. Those were white Christians...that era's conservative fighting the leftists of that time to free the slaves. Your kind hasn't changed a bit.
"And still further, the modern church has been stunned to realize that the Spirit has demonstrated that identity - like the identity of the Gentiles - is no barrier to faith and Christian witness."
That would be the modern progressive church, which isn't Christian at all, nor honest in asserting what "identity" means, and like they did in generations past, focus still on identity rather than on the humanity of any individual.
"In fact, exclusion of all women and non-white AND non-straight and non-binary AND non-abled folks from ministry and leadership in Christian faith is..."
I don't attend any church who excludes any from ministry who meets Paul's instruction for who and what a pastor should be. But they won't be women or homosexuals. The first, clearly, isn't a man, and the second lacks the character required. Thus, no true Christian church would install one from either group as pastor. However, it's not the selection committee who is excluding them from that post. It's Paul, God's Apostle who due to that status speaks for God and has the authority and duty to do so. The selection committee has the duty to follow Paul's instructions.
I don't have the slightest idea what you mean by "non-abled folks", and I'm fully confident you don't, either. But I'll make a presumption on that score and simply respond that no selection committee is doing their job by hiring as a pastor a man who is physically or mentally (or emotionally) unable to fulfill the duties of a pastor. Indeed, that goes without saying.
"Anathema". The Will of God and teachings of His Apostles are clearly anathema to you.
So it's become more than merely obvious that you'll dress up your rejection of the Will of God in favor of your personal preferences as some twisted notion of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In reality and truth, you're spewing blasphemy to suppose you can do that and still pretend to be Christian. I don't know why you guys even bother, except as a means to garner favorable response from those easily conned.
August 7, 2023 at 10:46 AM
" The same was true for Abraham and Moses and our ancient OT heroes (and sometimes villains - let's just call them People) who had no "Bible," but they had God, the same being true for all of us."
What was true was the OT characteres had either direct contact with God, as with Abe and Moses, or less direct but through His prophets. We have Scripture and, if we're lucky, a Holy Spirit who guides us in a manner perfectly consistent with it. The ordaining and placing of women in the role of pastor with authority over men is not an example of that.
"And for my part, I'm just not even sure if asking if Scripture or ANY text is perfect or not is the question. It's TEXT. Text is only as good as the readers doing the reading and understanding. IF there were a "perfect" text or Scripture somewhere (something that we have no data to support), even that would be useless against bad interpretation."
This is your wild card dodge...your self-crafted loophole to avoid abiding Scripture where you find it inconvenient and personally problematic. If you question the interpretation of others, you have to have a legit, evidence backed reason for doing so, and the willingness and courage to test your theory in debate. I'm still waiting for anything that even slightly resembles that. Instead, I continue to get personal attacks and baseless rejection of all I provide for my accurate rendering. I remain open to a contrary argument. I'm bored with "Nyuh uh".
"It's not like they try to answer and fail or succeed, they don't even try to answer and if they THINK they're answering, well, it's literally not an answer to the question being asked."
How convenient. You can literally blow off Christ Himself with this tactic. You do as much given our positions are solid reflections of God's Will. But again, it's a stupid question posed in lieu of an actual defense for your positions or for objections by you of ours. That is, it's a dodge. Worse, it allows you to continually reject everything and anything presented in an attempt to satisfy your ever scampering goal posts and criteria.
That's really the main reason so many have opted to block you from discussions. You play these games instead of doing what you demand of others.
"Those CLOSEST I've seen from anyone trying to give an actual and honest answer to that question is when they've said, "Well, it's what the church (ie, the church in their tradition) has believed for hundreds or maybe over 1000 years have believed.""
Ah...I see...only YOU can appeal to authority. Only YOU can appeal to numbers. But that's not why we say that. We do so as a result of the reality that your position is not just the outlier, but in stark contrast to an understanding which goes back to the earliest days of the Christian church, when those who walked with Christ still walked the earth to attest to that which we continue to defend. My citation of St. Jerome is an example. And just like the translations of Scripture itself, it's remained consistent throughout history...until the dark times of the modern progressive perverted and/or rejected the teachings of God and His Apostles.
"Objective proof/evidence" is Scripture itself, as it has remained unchanged for millenia. If you question the meaning of a given verse or passage, the words of which are clear and unambiguous, it is you who needs to provide evidence to support a perspective which is more compelling than the clear words of the text. YOU. NEVER. PROVIDE. instead favoring belaboring this moot point about perfection in understanding. It's never a matter if I'm perfect, or if I have perfect understanding. It's a matter of whether or not my position is correct. If it isn't, bring the heat. Bring the evidence which compels me to reconsider. YOU. NEVER. PROVIDE.
Or what you provide is as lame and intellectually lazy as that which feo has provided above.
And that's no way to bring enlightenment.
August 8, 2023 at 6:19 AM
More feo nonsense:
"Their process is the same as our process:"
As the Duke would say, "Not hardly".
"The difference is that we modern protestants have jettisoned the commitment to ostracize and segregate ourselves from other Christians who bring different experiences and therefore different reasoning reflections on the nature of god, christ, salvation, and redemptive love."
Good gosh, this guy just makes shit up as he goes. The "difference" is that we true Christians don't pretend what's obvious isn't simply because we find it inconvenient, unappealing or "hard". We actually take up our crosses and put God first. We are well aware that others don't perfectly align with our takes. We jettison those who arguments which haven't been offered with any reason to buy into them. The position on the table is pushed without regard for the actual reasoning of the guy whose instructions for worship and the selection of pastors comes from God. You just like your women pastors. End of story. Not very compelling to those who seek truth.
"Specifically, we have rejected, somewhat, the white supremacy that evangelical conservatives have placed at the center of their faith along with centuries old debates about baptism, eucharist, and ministry."
This is just a lie from a self-loathing guy who wishes he was black for some twisted, psychologically defective compulsion. Evangelical conservatives place Christ crucified at the center of or faith along with centuries old understandings of God's Will as so clearly revealed and presented to all of us in Scripture. What the hell is wrong with you???
"If one's community of reasoning faith has excluded all those who differ from it - the very history of sectarian radical protestantism - when one is left with a happy few who mutually confirm each other in their interpretation of scripture and the horizon of new interpretation is closed off."
Wow! Does this in any way sound the least bit familiar to you?:
"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
As I've told Dan a billion times. If you have what you believe is a more accurate understanding, make your case with evidence which is compelling and irrefutable. Attacking others who hold firmly to the clear teachings of Scripture has no value and compels no one to change their minds about what they believe is true. Neither of you provides in that manner, preferring instead to indulge in personal attacks and false charges of discrimination. From God's perspective, it's perfectly fine to discriminate against those who reject His Will.
"As we have rejected sectarianism, and in our faith experience find ourselves growing in faith via the reasoning reflections of those who are not like us - not white, not male, not straight, not binary - we must always contextualize our faith as partial in its reach, more perfect in diversity, and always dependent on the activity of the Spirit and our discipline in paying attention to it."
This is the cheapest of cheap rationalizations. And again, in typical reprobate fashion, you equate behaviors with immutable characteristics. God is not "diverse". His Will and Plan makes no allowance for "diverse" perspectives on morality. You cling to your sinful nature rather than to die for Christ, and you will be on the outside looking in.
" This difference is decisive. All the distance created between loving Christendom and brutalizing Christendom is created thereby."
Again we see the abiding of God's clearly revealed Will as "brutalizing Christendom". The irony is this comes from another defender of the most brutal practice devised by natural man: abortion. You're no Christian. Stop pretending. No one is fooled, least of whom is my Lord.
August 9, 2023 at 5:08 PM
"More perfect in diversity, amen and amen."
This is modern progressive perversion. God is not "inclusive" and Scripture plainly attests to that fact from page 1 to the end. True, there's no Jew or Gentile, male or female. There is moral and immoral and your position...your constant appeal to "the marginalized" is intended to include those who are of the latter category, though you refuse to acknowledge the clear prohibition against certain behaviors which will result in the destruction to which that path leads. And it's here where you play your game about "perfect" interpretations, as Scripture is ambiguous about the behaviors of the "marginalized" you defend. The most heinous aspect of this vile position is how many are led astray as a result...how many will fail to receive their eternal inheritance because false prophets like you assure them there's no need for them to repent of their ways. How you must hate those people!
Who knew I'd be arguing with Marshal about papal infallibility?
1. Marshal, you have have attempted to spin a denying web regarding the Apostle Paul's clear words by using extra-biblical arguments that go all the way back to the Counter-Reformation: arguments made by the Roman church in order to establish the Magisterium - the doctrine forming body of the Vatican - as an authoritative body in delivering the Church's interpretation of scripture and doctrine. As head of the magisterium, the Pope's infallible representation of the Will of God gives the magisterium its legitimacy insofar as the Pope participates in and signs off on the council's dictates.
Remarkably, a radical evangelical, SOLA SCRIPTURA protestant like yourself, likes this idea.
I'm glad, Marshal, that you are taking such strong lessons from Roman Catholic doctrine, the very beginning of which - A THOUSAND YEARS PRIOR TO THE REFORMATION - is that scripture isn't the only authoritative source of theological reflection. The Apostles teaching of The Tradition of Christian faith is prior to the NT and does not stoop to address all the local issues Paul did in his letters which do not apply to the center of faith. Roman Catholic doctrine also approves of the early Church fathers to whom the Apostles passed on their authority, just as Peter passed his authority to Saint Linus, the second Pope who succeeded Peter. Those new Apostles of Christ who then gathered in holy councils over the next 500 years also spoke with teaching authority about scripture and Christian Faith until the institutional magisterium serving the Bishop of Rome was underway.
So you have arrived at point where we agree. Sola scriptura is nonsense as the life of faith began in all Truth before it in the Apostles' teaching of The Tradition (a phrase used frequently by Paul, since he did not know the earthly Jesus) and continued over generations ever since even when there was no book made or no book to hold in a language that the gathered church could understand, all guided by the Bishops of the Church, especially when gathered in the divine authority of deliberative council.
Thanks for that.
However, I cannot put as much trust as you do solely in the seat (cathedra) of the Bishop of Rome. You're still too much a brutalizing authoritarian for 21st century Christian faith.
2. It's a lie that you believe that behavior does not teach anything and only words do, since you wont accept the profession of faith by all kinds of people who don't behave in ways you demand. You consign people to hell all the time, people who believe in Jesus as the Christ, just like Dan and me, because we do not demand people behave just like we do.
You brazen, filthy liar.
3. Sadly for you, Paul DOES believe behavior teaches the Christian faith just as much as words. In Galatians, he is writing with white-hot anger about those who demand behavioral requirements of the law from Gentile Christians and Paul says that is anathema to Christian faith. But you do it, too, you Judaizer, you and your gang of thugs, adding legalistic conformity to salvation by faith alone. This is why Paul opposes (ἀντέστην) to his face (κατὰ πρόσωπον) AND writes down this confrontation in his letter to the Galatians! He's teaching them! AND he's teaching them about the bad teaching of Peter's denial of what he had learned in Cornelius' house. Peter failed! NOT infallible. Even though your Roman Catholicism needs to keep up this 500 year old canard.
Where else does Paul use such strong language as "opposes" (ἀντέστην)?
"Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will pay him back for his deeds. You also must beware of him, for he strongly opposed our message."
For his deeds. Indeed.
DO NOT ADD ANYTHING TO THE GOOD NEWS THAT WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH ALONE. IDENTITY IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE: JEWISH LAWS DO NOT APPPLY.
Peter dropped the ball. He failed. He made a mistake. Not infallible.
Your own words commit Peter to his failure.
"All from God, whether delivered directly by Him, or through His prophets or apostles...like Paul...are literal rules for all times and places..."
Peter didn't forget that. He acted badly, in opposition to what he knew. He failed. Not infallible.
Paul told his he was wrong to his face. The sense is plain.
3. "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord, as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever SHE MAY REQUIRE FROM YOU, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well. Greet Prisca and Aquila, MY COWORKERS in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, TO WHOM NOT ONLY I GIVE THANKS BUT ALSO ALL THE CHURCHES OF THE GENTILES. Greet also the church IN THEIR HOUSE. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert in Asia for Christ. Greet Mary, who has worked very hard for you. Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Israelites who were in prison with me; they are prominent AMONG THE APOSTLES…”
You've not risen off the mat to deal with Romans 16. Of course you cannot. The plain sense of "deacon," "she may require of you," "my coworkers," "to whom... all the churches of the gentiles owe," and "apostles... is obvious.
Deal with it.
4. Me: "TAKING CARE OF THE POOR... WHICH IS CENTRAL TO THE CHURCH. But, of course, Marshal denies this."
You: "Why feo chooses to add this bit is likely to exploit it solely to attack me. I don't know any reason to suspect I deny anything, particularly that which hasn't been addressed until he brought it up for this purpose.
Are you experiencing other symptoms of memory loss?
It's either your feeble mind or your pathological lying.
How long have you denied that taking care of the poor is not at the center of Christian behavior?
So much so that in Paul's most extended, most heated treaty on the principle of salvation by faith alone where identity or culture have noting do with it, he says that he and Barnabas found agreement with Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and the other Apostles of the Jerusalem church that faith alone is the message to the Gentiles. Nothing added.
Except to take car of the poor.
___
You've failed.
Often, too. In thought, word, and deed. Repent brother.
Given Paul's rebuke of Peter, we as faithful Christians - believing in the living Christ and not a book - take comfort in the fact that scripture encodes its own doubtfulness, it's own experiences of changing one's mind. For both the good and the worse.
God does not give up on people who can change their minds. God even changed decisions. Scripture says so.
- I will destroy the world because it is wicked! (Well, let me put a rainbow in the sky as a promise that I will never do that again.)
- Israel is my chosen people to testify to the world. (Well, Gentiles - meaning everyone - are now heirs to the promise)
- [Jesus to the disciples:] The Paraclete is coming who will teach you more than I did. By the power of the Spirit, you will do more than I did. And the Spirit blows where it wills: it will always take a surprising direction. So watch for the Spirit.
___
If Scripture can draw the character of god as being able to change directions in order to teach us that love will always surprise... who are we to oppose (ἀντέστην)?
So, good news on 2 fronts, Dan!
1. Marshal no longer believes in sola scriptura!! Sure, he’s using extra biblical arguments from papal infallibility, but… he’s using extra biblical arguments as authoritative! He can keep growing and reach the 20th century I think.
2. Marshal is no longer opposed to putting care for the poor at the center of Christian faith. Good man! He’s finally agreed with Paul, Barnabas, James, Peter, and others that non-Jewish Christians do not need to add anything to faith in Jesus Christ except taking care of the poor! Just like Paul writes in Gal 2:12.
The Spirit moves in mysterious ways.
1. Great. Except he won't agree. But details, shmetails.
2. Truly great. Except he won't agree.
A foolish inconsistency is the hobgoblin of little inconsistent minds,
Marshal: I'm leaving all of your conversation with Feodor because he well demonstrates the holes in your reasoning.
But for ME, you still have ONE task to do:
Show me your thermometer, your Rosetta Stone, that objectively consistent and proven measuring rubric by which you KNOW OBJECTIVELY and can PROVE OBJECTIVELY that your interpretations are objectively factual.
If you can't do that (and you absolutely can't), admit as much and apologize for being obtuse and not saying so to begin with.
And to be clear: That objective measure that objectively PROVES your position should not be something that only conservatives or people who agree with your interpretations can see/measure. To be objective, ANYONE can pick up the thermometer and measure the temperature, whether they're left, right or other. The results will be the same. And if someone has another thermometer, THAT thermometer would also show the same results.
Objectively provable.
What is YOUR measure by which you objectively can "prove" (you can't) your interpretations are the correct ones?
I had said:
"They will almost certainly admit that NONE of them perfectly understands God's "Word," however they and we might define that."
Marshal responded:
But that's never an issue.
Indeed, it's not an issue. NO ONE PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDS God or God's Word. We appear to agree upon that much, as I said you would.
It only comes up when you can't defend your heresies. On every Scriptural issue we've ever debated, I've never had any problem understanding God's Word on the subject.
And on every Scriptural and moral and reasonable issue we've talked, I haven't had any problem understanding the Bible and reason on that point.
But two things:
1. Are you saying you PERFECTLY AND OBJECTIVELY PROVABLY understand God's Word on that point?
1a. If so, where is the proof of that?
2. If you and I both agree we understand God's Word on some issue AND YET, we have come to different conclusions, do you think we are both perfectly correct? If not, WHAT IS YOUR MEASURE, your "thermometer" for proving that you are objectively correct?
Do you have ANYTHING beyond your human understanding to offer as objective proof?
Also, I'd ask you to think about the complexity of what you need to prove.
Normally, if you want to prove the author's intent on a piece of writing, we would ASK the author their intent. We can't do that.
Secondly, we might review other writings of the author. We can do that to some degree, but Paul has written on both sides of women's leadership roles, as Feodor has rightly pointed out. Which would tend to cause one to think it's not a universal rule.
Thirdly, you have the question of whether or not Paul is speaking for himself or for God. In God's case, we absolutely can't ask God for clarification in any objective manner.
We can't even prove there IS a God objectively.
So what POSSIBLE objectively provable rubric would you appeal to?
You've got nothing.
Dan
Liar. You lie, Stan bin Laden.
I commend to you our sister PHOEBE, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae.
Greet Priscilla and AQUILA, my co-workers in Christ Jesus.
Greet Andronicus and JULIA, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles.
Uh oh, Stan bin Laden! It seems you’re still refusing to read and teach the whole of the NT. Here you are again, cutting and pasting - leaving out the bits you can’t stand.
___
John 17
“Now they know that everything you have given me is from you, for the words that you gave to me I have given to them, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from you, and they have believed that you sent me….
I have given them your word.”
Past tense, Stan bin Laden. Can’t be the NT.
But wait! There is one who will teach us more than Jesus gave us! It turns out, doofus, that revelation is still open. Probably because any gif worth believing in doesn’t die or go away or shut up. God is not static. Not confined to your 16th century stasis.
Observe:
John 16
Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate[b] will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you….
“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me because he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
John 15
“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.
John 14
“I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all that I have said to you.”
___
Jesus didn’t send us a book, Stan.
Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, one person of the triune god, to teach us more than Jesus did. Jesus didn’t get to everything.
Namely, Greek speaking Gentiles would be included in the promises of faith. And then barbarians in the German forests; gauls in the French fields; Zoroastrians; Egyptians; South Asians; the Aksum Empire; Normans; and eventually New Yorkers!
And women would lead and LGBTQ believers would, too!
Because the Spirit is living and blows where it will. It is not bound up in a book. The book is holy because it testified to the Spirit, not the other way around. Idiot.
Marshal today: "What I never get...especially from modern progressive "Christians" is an actual, fact-based argument rebutting my position"
In weeks past:
1. Marshal: "The apostles were given great power by God through Christ and the Holy Spirit. How can any teaching or instruction by any of the Epistle writers, particularly Paul and Peter, for example, NOT be as Christ or God speaking through them"
I gave him scripture, which, unlike this progressive Christian, he ignores: "When Cephas [the Apostle Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned."
2. Marshal: "That is not the only verse which prohibits women leading congregations. But, as is always the case with real Christians, one verse is enough"
I gave him scripture; more than one verse. Which he ignores: "Romans 16: I commend to you our sister PHOEBE, a DEACON of the church at Cenchrea, so that you may welcome her in the Lord, as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well. Greet PRISCA and Aquila, MY COWORKERS in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but also all the churches of the gentiles. Greet also the CHURCH IN THEIR HOUSE…
Greet Andronicus and JUNIA, my fellow Israelites who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the APOSTLES…”
___
Also, Dan, fact-based argument rebutting Marshal's anachronistic "position": "Women in ancient societies and in biblical times - as well as children and slaves and the poor and oppressed - had very few rights and their worth was too often devalued. I don't look to the Bible to find a reason to oppose slavery, or forced marriages and I don't look to the Bible to find a reason to support women preaching and women pastors.
My God is not caged.
___
Marshal, and all those who reject the work of the Holy Spirit in women is equal to that in men cannot deal with the the book they worship because their "position" is an anachronistic fetish with the 16th century.
Marshal thinks his contemporary radical, anachronistic "commentaries" are objective. While there are a preponderant number of far better educated and observant commentaries that oppose "to their face" these condemned Judaizers.
You provide zero answers, Marshal. Because you live in a brutalizing phantasy of bibliolatry.
Galatians 2:10
Faith is the only thing non-Jews need to have to be saved. Oh, wait, AND take care of the poor.
Galatians 2:11
Apostles were fallible in their teaching. One Apostle opposes another as condemned in his teaching. Acts and words both teach. So one of them is wrong.
Romans 16
One woman is recognized by the Apostle Paul as a deacon. Another woman as a leader of her church. And a third woman as an Apostle herself.
These facts in the New Testament are indisputable. They can be opposed. But one cannot lie about what these verses say.
Post a Comment