Forums118
Topics9,117
Posts194,602
Members1,320
|
Most Online5,850 Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
41 minutes ago
Wednesday 12:53 God pronounced curses on all three involved including the serpent. I've never quite understood the curse upon the serpent as it goes far beyond how we see animals today. It implies the understanding of right and wrong and the power of choice....
So, should we ignore this sanction of God upon women? If so, why? Men had a sanction upon them too. We are all suffering from sin and what got us into this mess was the ignoring of something that seems very insignificant to humanity. I just don't see how we can say relations between men and women are the same as before sin. It just isn't true. As far as I can see you did say, God cursed Adam and Eve and sanctioned what you refer to as the curse placed upon them. (Sanction=official permission or approval for an action. Sanctify = to make holy). I disagree, God neither cursed nor sanctioned as in commanded and approved the consequences of sin on Adam and Eve. The verse says the serpent (which includes both the snake and the one who used the most brilliant and flashy creature as his symbol and medium) was cursed. It says the ground was cursed. It does not say Adam and Eve were cursed. In fact Eve was promised God would give her enmity against the serpent -- (give her protection from his deceptions) Nor does it say God sanctioned or approved the consequences of sin. He would allow it to show what sin does to human nature and existence, but never commanded and approved it, His mission is to save and to lift people out of sin and restore them into His ways. The consequences of sin are the result of sin. Once sin takes hold the physically stronger takes advantage of the physically weaker. That was not sanctioned or approved by God! It was a prediction that men, given superior physical strength to protect and provide for his family, would use that physical strength to rule and abuse those who are physically weaker. The Bible is pretty clear that men (and women) are NOT to rule over others but to be submissive TO EACH OTHER. Mark 10:42-45 Jesus called them together and said, ?You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.?
Eph. 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your OWN husbands, as UNTO THE LORD. 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it,
Mark 5:5-9?It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,? Jesus replied. ?But at the beginning of creation God ?made them male and female.?For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.?So when we read this from Christ's point view. -- The hardness of sin in the heart has caused the true relationship between husband and wife to be distorted and abused, with the stronger thinking they could subject or reject their wives according to their inclinations. In the beginning it was not so, and when the heart is in tune with Christ the original can be restored. And Christ came to restore the true not to sanction the distortions. Ruling over and subjecting others is a result of sin. Not a virtue of Christianity. interestingly God's command was for a man to leave his father and mother and cling to his wife! What do we see in history? Did the man leave father and mother and cling to his wife? No, they developed the patriarchal system where the eldest man ruled over sons and grandsons, and the sons brought their wives to basically be servants in their father's household. That was not God's command. God didn't even want kings to rule over the people. It was a sad day when God, out of the hardness of Israel's hearts allowed them to have a king (to be like the nations around them). See 1 Samuel 8. So God over rode His own word and contradicted Himself.
73
3,078
more...
|
|
1 hour ago
Wednesday 12:53 God pronounced curses on all three involved including the serpent. I've never quite understood the curse upon the serpent as it goes far beyond how we see animals today. It implies the understanding of right and wrong and the power of choice....
So, should we ignore this sanction of God upon women? If so, why? Men had a sanction upon them too. We are all suffering from sin and what got us into this mess was the ignoring of something that seems very insignificant to humanity. I just don't see how we can say relations between men and women are the same as before sin. It just isn't true. As far as I can see you did say, God cursed Adam and Eve and sanctioned what you refer to as the curse placed upon them. (Sanction=official permission or approval for an action. Sanctify = to make holy). I disagree, God neither cursed nor sanctioned as in commanded and approved the consequences of sin on Adam and Eve. The verse says the serpent (which includes both the snake and the one who used the most brilliant and flashy creature as his symbol and medium) was cursed. It says the ground was cursed. It does not say Adam and Eve were cursed. In fact Eve was promised God would give her enmity against the serpent -- (give her protection from his deceptions) Nor does it say God sanctioned or approved the consequences of sin. He would allow it to show what sin does to human nature and existence, but never commanded and approved it, His mission is to save and to lift people out of sin and restore them into His ways. The consequences of sin are the result of sin. Once sin takes hold the physically stronger takes advantage of the physically weaker. That was not sanctioned or approved by God! It was a prediction that men, given superior physical strength to protect and provide for his family, would use that physical strength to rule and abuse those who are physically weaker. The Bible is pretty clear that men (and women) are NOT to rule over others but to be submissive TO EACH OTHER. Mark 10:42-45 Jesus called them together and said, ?You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.?
Eph. 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your OWN husbands, as UNTO THE LORD. 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it,
Mark 5:5-9?It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,? Jesus replied. ?But at the beginning of creation God ?made them male and female.?For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.?So when we read this from Christ's point view. -- The hardness of sin in the heart has caused the true relationship between husband and wife to be distorted and abused, with the stronger thinking they could subject or reject their wives according to their inclinations. In the beginning it was not so, and when the heart is in tune with Christ the original can be restored. And Christ came to restore the true not to sanction the distortions. Ruling over and subjecting others is a result of sin. Not a virtue of Christianity. interestingly God's command was for a man to leave his father and mother and cling to his wife! What do we see in history? Did the man leave father and mother and cling to his wife? No, they developed the patriarchal system where the eldest man ruled over sons and grandsons, and the sons brought their wives to basically be servants in their father's household. That was not God's command. God didn't even want kings to rule over the people. It was a sad day when God, out of the hardness of Israel's hearts allowed them to have a king (to be like the nations around them). See 1 Samuel 8.
73
3,078
more...
|
|
5 hours ago
I was just temp banned on Christian forums for defending Ellen White and the SDA church.
There is a user there who goes by Adventist Heretic who starts thread after thread attacking Ellen White and the church. He flat out lies about our church pioneers and the church, I've been defending her by posting from her writings about love for God and how we are to love our fellow man. I got warnings before but then they moved to closing a thread I started defending her. I offered to defend any statement she made. I was doing it too, and then the thread was closed.
Then another ex SDA started another thread attacking her. I was defending her the same was by showing fr4om her writings that she was governed by love for God and the devil never has his agents defend God and his character so Ellen White was not who he was claiming her to be when the original guy showed up on the thread and again attacked and said she was the sole reason for any problems in the church. I responded to that by calling him a liar and showed the evidence from Thoughts from the Mount Blessings. That was all it took to get me banned. I PMed the mod that contacted me about the warning, and he wouldn't respond to my defense of myself as to the constant goading and lying by the AH guy.
0
4
more...
|
|
7 hours ago
Satan's best offer of his throne:
Rev. 13:2 "...and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat [throne], and great authority"
Jesus' best offer of His throne:
Rev. 3:21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne"
The four beasts are closest to the throne of God and positioned in higher rank than the angels. However, they do not sit on the throne, neither the angels.
The unfallen beings of heaven gathered around the concentric place of the throne, but they also do not sit on the throne. See Rev. 5:13 and Job 38:32.
We find no thrones for these three groups: the four beasts, the angels and unfallen beings (= sons of God. See Job.1:6, 38:7 and Rev. 5:13).
24 Elders sit on the throne of God, which clearly indicate that they are the redeemed saints from the earth.
1 Pet. 2:9 "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood [kingly priesthood], an holy nation [throne], a peculiar people..."
The heaven's ranks have seven teams:
1) the throne of God (Trinity of Godheads) 2) the four beasts 3) the 24 Elders------------------------------- 4) 144,000 l - these 3 teams are the redeemed saints (#3, 4, 5). 5) the Great Multitude----------------------- 6) the angels 7) the unfallen beings
Jesus' shedding of His blood made the throne possible for the saints to occupy and rule with Christ Jesus in the eternity kingdom of God (See Rev. 1:5-6 and Rev. 5:9-10). The redeemed shall learn and be equipped to be kings and priests during the millennium (See Rev 20:4-6). Then, the saints shall inherit the kingdoms as rewards and shall reign for ever and ever (See Rev. 22:5).
929
409,137
more...
|
|
19 hours ago
The only thing that was cursed in those verses was the ground and the serpent.
Adam and Eve were not cursed. Consequences of their failed trust in God, and yielding to Satan however were predicted. Indeed people are suffering from sin, but perpetuating the consequences is not going to make it better. [b]I don't believe God "sanctioned" (made holy) a painful and terrible existence for women[.b].
There are actually people who say it's wrong to give women medication to relieve child birth pain because God sanction that. No --
The relationship God ordained between husband and wife of love and respect -- one to protect, love and care for his family, the other to work with him as his companion to make home a happy, peaceful place, does NOT mean only men can be leaders in church and nor does it mean that it is sin for women to be recognized as leaders in sharing the gospel as well.
\ Nobody has said that. God did tell Eve her husband would rule over her though. It's a consequence of sin. It seems to me you reject the clear, plain reading of scripture when it crosses your inclinations.
73
3,078
more...
|
|
Yesterday at 09:00 PM
The only thing that was cursed in those verses was the ground and the serpent.
Adam and Eve were not cursed. Consequences of their failed trust in God, and yielding to Satan however were predicted. Indeed people are suffering from sin, but perpetuating the consequences is not going to make it better. I don't believe God "sanctioned" (made holy) a painful and terrible existence for women.
There are actually people who say it's wrong to give women medication to relieve child birth pain because God sanction that. No --
The relationship God ordained between husband and wife of love and respect -- one to protect, love and care for his family, the other to work with him as his companion to make home a happy, peaceful place, does NOT mean only men can be leaders in church and nor does it mean that it is sin for women to be recognized as leaders in sharing the gospel as well.
73
3,078
more...
|
|
Yesterday at 12:53 PM
1. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is not taken literally as it reads, by you or the Adventist church pioneers. Woman don't have to be silent in church, they can talk, and share verbally.
2. 1 Corinthians 11:3 -- that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman the man; and the head of Christ God. Christ is the head of the church. The man is NOT the head of the church. Men need to realize this, they are not the boss of the church. The man is to be the head of their own family, provide and care for their family, but NOT as an overlord either, but to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it.
If ordination means being "the head" of the church, then ordination has lost it's meaning, and man (male or female) have usurped Christ's position.
3. Gary wrote: "Paul points out that woman comes from man, not the other way around."
Eve came from Adam to stand by his side and help (work with) him, but every male after Adam received their life through a woman. Paul says that as well. 1 Cor. 11:11-12 Nevertheless neither is the man independent of the woman, nor is the woman independent of the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
4. 1 Tim. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression... she shall be saved in childbearing Adam was not deceived, he sinned willfully, knowing he was in direct violation to God's command, he had the greater sin. Woman would be honored by giving birth to the Savior. Through woman salvation would be brought into the world. And the first to proclaim the risen Savior were women.
None of the above say the church can't officially recognize and set women apart for ministry.
Yes, Eve came from Adam and was to be his equal, but sin changed the relationship. God said it did. God pronounced curses on all three involved including the serpent. I've never quite understood the curse upon the serpent as it goes far beyond how we see animals today. It implies the understanding of right and wrong and the power of choice. Gen 3:13? And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.? Gen 3:14? And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:? Gen 3:15? And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.? Gen 3:16? Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee Gen 3:17? And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;? Gen 3:18? Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;? Gen 3:19? In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.?
.? So, should we ignore this sanction of God upon women? If so, why? Men had a sanction upon them too. We are all suffering from sin and what got us into this mess was the ignoring of something that seems very insignificant to humanity. I just don't see how we can say relations between men and women are the same as before sin. It just isn't true.
73
3,078
more...
|
|
Yesterday at 07:44 AM
We have talked about this in the long past: Is ordination Biblical? Why ordain anyone?
I don't remember discussing this with you. You'll have to refresh my memory. That is a good question! Why ordain anyone since the important thing is that God is the one who calls, qualifies and anoints His workers? Christ calls and spiritually ordains every Christian for ministry. I think there are two legitimate reasons for the church to ordain (officially recognize people in leadership): 1. Recognition that the person represents the church Adventists basically began ordaining ministers to bring some order into confusion. Back in those early days all kinds of people were preaching and teaching claiming to belong to the movement, but they were off on different theological roads. There was a need to verify who actually was a recognized Seventh-day Adventist preacher. 2. Government legalities Secondly, the government sort of demands a person to be legally set in place by ordination before they can perform marriage and act in other legal capacities representing the church. WHAT IT SHOULD NOT BE 1. It is not to be a sacramental view of ordination. Investing the person with some holy power. Convey some change in the character and innate abilities of the person. 2. Nor a clericalization (i.e., separation between clergy and members, instead of facilitators to get everyone working together to further God's work. If we went back to the original reasons for ordinations there won't be all this conflict over ordaining women to ministries -- to designate, officially recognize and bless people to ministries which they feel called to do, instead of having just one "ordination" which covers basically ALL ministries and simply elevates the initiates to a higher status of holy power, --
73
3,078
more...
|
|
Yesterday at 06:59 AM
1. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is not taken literally as it reads, by you or the Adventist church pioneers. Woman don't have to be silent in church, they can talk, and share verbally.
2. 1 Corinthians 11:3 -- that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman the man; and the head of Christ God. Christ is the head of the church. The man is NOT the head of the church. Men need to realize this, they are not the boss of the church. The man is to be the head of their own family, provide and care for their family, but NOT as an overlord either, but to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it.
If ordination means being "the head" of the church, then ordination has lost it's meaning, and man (male or female) have usurped Christ's position.
3. Gary wrote: "Paul points out that woman comes from man, not the other way around."
Eve came from Adam to stand by his side and help (work with) him, but every male after Adam received their life through a woman. Paul says that as well. 1 Cor. 11:11-12 Nevertheless neither is the man independent of the woman, nor is the woman independent of the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
4. 1 Tim. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression... she shall be saved in childbearing Adam was not deceived, he sinned willfully, knowing he was in direct violation to God's command, he had the greater sin. Woman would be honored by giving birth to the Savior. Through woman salvation would be brought into the world. And the first to proclaim the risen Savior were women.
None of the above say the church can't officially recognize and set women apart for ministry.
73
3,078
more...
|
|
09/19/23 10:51 PM
Interesting --
1. I agree the verse "women should be silent in church" (1 Cor. 14:34-35) has to be interpreted according to it's cultural/situation and broader context. -- which the Adventist pioneers did.
3. If people can see the rational for interpreting 1 Cor. 14:34-35 in it's cultural/situational broader context, thus dismissing it's very plain and direct words, why can't they see the same in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:6, where there are NO PLAIN words that women aren't included? ! So, we should interpret the Bible according to the culture of the time. I disagree. It means anything in the Bible is open for reinterpretation according to cultural issues. We could say the same with Ellen White's writings and just say times have changed so she's out of date. This is exactly what Sunday keepers do with the fourth commandment. There's a new covenant because the old was outdated. No, thanks. You want to do that and use that excuse, you're welcome to it, but I will never agree with you. So why do you do it with 1 Cor. 14:34-35 ???? In fact 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:6 can easily be explained WITHOUT changing anything. But 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is the one you as well as the pioneers push aside. How do you explain that inconsistancy? I put it into the context of Ephesians 2 about loving our wives and 1 Corinthians. 1Co_11:3? But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 11 has quite a bit to say about men and women in church and Paul points out that woman comes from man, not the other way around. It seems very important to him so I think it should be taken into consideration in all church offices. Also in 1 Titus 2 Paul points out that it is the woman who first sinned and then was the cause of Adam's fall. It is for that reason he e says women are not to usurp authority over a man. His words not mine, but scripture is the authority.
73
3,078
more...
|
|
09/19/23 10:24 PM
You're conflating two separate issues. Speaking in church is not the same thing as being a minister ordained by the church.
We have talked about this in the long past: Is ordination Biblical? Why ordain anyone? I don't remember discussing this with you. You'll have to refresh my memory.
73
3,078
more...
|
|
09/19/23 08:22 PM
Interesting --
1. I agree the verse "women should be silent in church" (1 Cor. 14:34-35) has to be interpreted according to it's cultural/situation and broader context. -- which the Adventist pioneers did.
3. If people can see the rational for interpreting 1 Cor. 14:34-35 in it's cultural/situational broader context, thus dismissing it's very plain and direct words, why can't they see the same in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:6, where there are NO PLAIN words that women aren't included? ! So, we should interpret the Bible according to the culture of the time. I disagree. It means anything in the Bible is open for reinterpretation according to cultural issues. We could say the same with Ellen White's writings and just say times have changed so she's out of date. This is exactly what Sunday keepers do with the fourth commandment. There's a new covenant because the old was outdated. No, thanks. You want to do that and use that excuse, you're welcome to it, but I will never agree with you. So why do you do it with 1 Cor. 14:34-35 ???? In fact 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:6 can easily be explained WITHOUT changing anything. But 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is the one you as well as the pioneers push aside. How do you explain that inconsistancy?
73
3,078
more...
|
|
09/19/23 08:14 PM
You're conflating two separate issues. Speaking in church is not the same thing as being a minister ordained by the church.
We have talked about this in the long past: Is ordination Biblical? Why ordain anyone?
73
3,078
more...
|
|
09/19/23 12:03 AM
Interesting --
1. I agree the verse "women should be silent in church" (1 Cor. 14:34-35) has to be interpreted according to it's cultural/situation and broader context. -- which the Adventist pioneers did.
2. But 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is by it's very nature, being linked to 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:6. Thinking, well, we will let women speak in church, but cut it short with our interpretation of Paul's counsel to Timothy and Titus, and restrict women from any formal recognition. BUT those texts to Timothy and Titus aren't even addressing women. They are saying a church leader should not be a polygamist. We know those texts are not saying a church leader must have a wife, for we find singles in ministry in the Bible, That wasn't the problem. Paul himself didn't have a wife at this point. (1 Cor.7:8) The problem being addressed was polygamy. A moral issue of multiple spouses; moral issues listed should keep one out of leadership.
3. If people can see the rational for interpreting 1 Cor. 14:34-35 in it's cultural/situational broader context, thus dismissing it's very plain and direct words, why can't they see the same in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:6, where there are NO PLAIN words that women aren't included?
4. Bible has examples of women in leadership positions. Romans 16:1 identifies Phoebe as a deacon of the church. The original word here used is "deacon" and refers to a Christian designated to serve with the overseers of a church in various ways. This same word is used in Phil 1:1 and in 1 Tim 3:8,12 to identify leaders of the church.
Priscilla is also identified, along with her husband, Aquila in Romans 16:3, as a leader of a house church and "my co-worker in Christ Jesus". The wife, Priscilla, is here named before the husband (as in Acts 18:18 and in 2 Timothy 4:19 ), signify she is probably the more prominent and helpful to the Church.
5. There are plenty of male pastors promoting objectional things. We could quickly disqualify the whole male species from the ministry if we focus on some who misuse their positions to take sexual advantage of their parishioners. Women pastors for the most part, do not agree with ordaining practicing homosexuals. Again there's the attempt to LINK the ministry with the objectional in order to denounce it.
6. Another attempted link is thinking women seeking to be treated fairly and not as inferiors, is bad. Yes, I agree that women's lib has overstepped, especially on their attacks on family life, but we sure appreciate some of the victories that have been won by brave women willing to stand up to current restrictions. We now have women doctors!!!!! We can own our property even if our husband has died. We can be paid for equal work, not get half the wage just because we are women. It's not all bad. And though not a women's lib -- EGW did fight for some of these rights for women! So, we should interpret the Bible according to the culture of the time. I disagree. It means anything in the Bible is open for reinterpretation according to cultural issues. We could say the same with Ellen White's writings and just say times have changed so she's out of date. This is exactly what Sunday keepers do with the fourth commandment. There's a new covenant because the old was outdated. No, thanks. You want to do that and use that excuse, you're welcome to it, but I will never agree with you.
73
3,078
more...
|
|
09/18/23 08:00 PM
Interesting --
1. I agree the verse "women should be silent in church" (1 Cor. 14:34-35) has to be interpreted according to it's cultural/situation and broader context. -- which the Adventist pioneers did.
2. But 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is by it's very nature, being linked to 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:6. Thinking, well, we will let women speak in church, but cut it short with our interpretation of Paul's counsel to Timothy and Titus, and restrict women from any formal recognition. BUT those texts to Timothy and Titus aren't even addressing women. They are saying a church leader should not be a polygamist. We know those texts are not saying a church leader must have a wife, for we find singles in ministry in the Bible, That wasn't the problem. Paul himself didn't have a wife at this point. (1 Cor.7:8) The problem being addressed was polygamy. A moral issue of multiple spouses; moral issues listed should keep one out of leadership.
3. If people can see the rational for interpreting 1 Cor. 14:34-35 in it's cultural/situational broader context, thus dismissing it's very plain and direct words, why can't they see the same in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:6, where there are NO PLAIN words that women aren't included?
4. Bible has examples of women in leadership positions. Romans 16:1 identifies Phoebe as a deacon of the church. The original word here used is "deacon" and refers to a Christian designated to serve with the overseers of a church in various ways. This same word is used in Phil 1:1 and in 1 Tim 3:8,12 to identify leaders of the church.
Priscilla is also identified, along with her husband, Aquila in Romans 16:3, as a leader of a house church and "my co-worker in Christ Jesus". The wife, Priscilla, is here named before the husband (as in Acts 18:18 and in 2 Timothy 4:19 ), signify she is probably the more prominent and helpful to the Church.
5. There are plenty of male pastors promoting objectional things. We could quickly disqualify the whole male species from the ministry if we focus on some who misuse their positions to take sexual advantage of their parishioners. Women pastors for the most part, do not agree with ordaining practicing homosexuals. Again there's the attempt to LINK the ministry with the objectional in order to denounce it.
6. Another attempted link is thinking women seeking to be treated fairly and not as inferiors, is bad. Yes, I agree that women's lib has overstepped, especially on their attacks on family life, but we sure appreciate some of the victories that have been won by brave women willing to stand up to current restrictions. We now have women doctors!!!!! We can own our property even if our husband has died. We can be paid for equal work, not get half the wage just because we are women. It's not all bad. And though not a women's lib -- EGW did fight for some of these rights for women!
73
3,078
more...
|
|
09/17/23 01:33 PM
Ellen White understood that the work of the church was to spread the gospel message. She was cautious of anything that would excite unnecessary prejudice. Encouraging women to engage in the work was a step by step process. I found the full copy of Denis Foutin's paper. Ellen White, Women in Ministry and OrdinationHis study is quite comprehensive. He gives a history of her own "battles" against people who felt women had no place in preaching and doing the things she was doing. Many times she was denounced as being out of place, for women were to be silent in church 1 Cor. 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.The general understanding of that Bible text was enough for her to deal with. Ordination for women at that point in time was simply not a practical idea, they had a battle simply to get people to believe women could speak in church. In both anecdotes, Ellen White refers to the opposition against having a woman speak and suggests that this opposition was at times biblically based. At the California meeting, she referred to a note being circulated in the congregation from a ?Cambelite,? that is a member from the Church of Christ of the restorationist Stone-Campbell movement, who quoted a certain text of scripture about women being prohibited from speaking in public. We are not told what that text was but we can guess that it was either 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 or 1 Timothy 2:12. Christians in the Stone-Campbell movement viewed these two texts as straightforward facts about women, without any need to interpret or understand Paul?s context. They viewed Paul?s admonition ?let your women be silent? as a fact to be obeyed at all times and in all places.
We find men like J,N,Andrews, James White and Stephen Haskell writing articles in the Review and Herald and Signs of the Times, on women speaking in church. These articles seek to explain the two main texts used to prohibit women from speaking in church. Their purpose was to show that a careful study of these texts cannot support this conclusion. J. N. Andrews, ?May Women Speak in Meeting?? Review and Herald, January 2, 1879, p. 324 (emphasis added). J. N. Andrews, ?Women in the Bible,? Signs of the Times, October 30, 1879, p. 324. James White, ?Women in the Church,? Review and Herald, May 29, 1879, p. 172. \ You're conflating two separate issues. Speaking in church is not the same thing as being a minister ordained by the church. That is not scriptural, but the leadership of women is. God has never shied away from woman leaders. Ellen White was not the first woman prophet by a long shot. We also see the fruits of women being ordained today as many of the women pastors are leading out in putting homosexuals in leadership positions in the church. This is an extension of the women's lib movement and we know what that has brought about in the world. Nothing good. Jesus said by their fruits ye shall know them, and the fruit of ordaining women as ministers movement is becoming very clear as is its source.
73
3,078
more...
|
|
09/17/23 09:30 AM
John 5:11 He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up your bed, and walk. 5:12 So they asked him, ?Who is this man who told you to pick up your bed and walk?? 5:13 The man who was healed had no idea who it was, for Jesus had slipped away into the crowd that was there. 5:14 Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, ?See, you are made whole. Sin no more or something worse may happen to you.? 5:15 The man went away and told the Jewish leaders that it was Jesus who had made him whole.
The man who was made whole, fully healed, had no idea who had healed him. Jesus had simply disappeared in the crowd.
Why did Jesus disappear? Why did He tell the man to take up his bed?
This was one time when Jesus wanted to draw attention to the miracle. He chose the Sabbath for performing this sign. On His first trip to Judea He cleansed the temple (John 2:13-16) of its commercial trafficking. Now, on His second trip, He seeks to cleanse them of their false security in their traditions and laws, by awakening in them the realization of their need for a Savior to cleanse them in order to stand in the day of judgment.
Jesus withdrew as the newly healed man walked through the crowds carrying the very bed that had so long been the symbol of his infirmities. The bed drew the attention of the Jewish leaders. How would they respond to this miracle? Did they desire to know who the healer was? But for these leaders they did not see a healed man upon whom Divine mercy had been bestowed. They did not desire the Healer. They saw only a man who broke their traditions and encouraged people to disregard those traditions, and this needed to be punished. Notice their question; "Who is this man who told you to pick up your bed and walk?" They did not ask, "Who made you whole?"
Later Jesus finds the healed man in the temple. The man evidently had gone to the temple to thank God for the great mercy. Jesus says, "See you are made whole." Given a new lease on life, the old deformities stripped away. And now he admonishes the man, "don't go back to your old life of sin", it will only make you sick again, probably worse than before. This is what grace is all about! Pardon! The guilt of sin is wiped away, and the person is raised to newness of life in Christ; to no longer serve sin, but in Christ to walk in the paths of righteousness.
183
88,412
more...
|
|
09/17/23 05:06 AM
Ellen White understood that the work of the church was to spread the gospel message. She was cautious of anything that would excite unnecessary prejudice. Encouraging women to engage in the work was a step by step process. I found the full copy of Denis Foutin's paper. Ellen White, Women in Ministry and OrdinationHis study is quite comprehensive. He gives a history of her own "battles" against people who felt women had no place in preaching and doing the things she was doing. Many times she was denounced as being out of place, for women were to be silent in church 1 Cor. 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.The general understanding of that Bible text was enough for her to deal with. Ordination for women at that point in time was simply not a practical idea, they had a battle simply to get people to believe women could speak in church. In both anecdotes, Ellen White refers to the opposition against having a woman speak and suggests that this opposition was at times biblically based. At the California meeting, she referred to a note being circulated in the congregation from a ?Cambelite,? that is a member from the Church of Christ of the restorationist Stone-Campbell movement, who quoted a certain text of scripture about women being prohibited from speaking in public. We are not told what that text was but we can guess that it was either 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 or 1 Timothy 2:12. Christians in the Stone-Campbell movement viewed these two texts as straightforward facts about women, without any need to interpret or understand Paul?s context. They viewed Paul?s admonition ?let your women be silent? as a fact to be obeyed at all times and in all places.
We find men like J,N,Andrews, James White and Stephen Haskell writing articles in the Review and Herald and Signs of the Times, on women speaking in church. These articles seek to explain the two main texts used to prohibit women from speaking in church. Their purpose was to show that a careful study of these texts cannot support this conclusion. J. N. Andrews, ?May Women Speak in Meeting?? Review and Herald, January 2, 1879, p. 324 (emphasis added). J. N. Andrews, ?Women in the Bible,? Signs of the Times, October 30, 1879, p. 324. James White, ?Women in the Church,? Review and Herald, May 29, 1879, p. 172.
73
3,078
more...
|
|
09/16/23 11:25 AM
So instead of answering questions and discussing the topic you turn to accusation.
You imply I do not accept the Bible as God's Word???
he Bible is the authority! But people interpret the Bible and impose their interpretation. That's what the Jews did and came up with all sorts of rules as to God's requirements. Are you so sure you are not doing the same? May the anti-ordination for women be like the Pharisees at the pool of Bethsada -- all they could see was a man carrying his bed. They had their proof text from the book of Nehemiah, and they stepped right up to vindicate the authority of the law. They couldn't see that God had empowered this man, and that they only vindicating their own interpretations and rules.
So women can't be pastors you say, they are just females to be paid but not blessed and the church dare not set them apart and bless them and officially recognized them as workers for the Lord? Why? Sorry, but according to Ellen White they are to be paid and blessed by the laying on of hands (which means ordained for the task). Go back and read Fortin's paper.
When the Bible says "man" or "men" 90% of the time it does NOT mean the male.
People will point to texts and EGW quotes and say -- it says "man" here, and here and here and here. Man means male.
Wait a minute, for years I have read the bible and when reading "man" I understood "human". The word man has that generic meaning. Oh, some will say, but the context will tell you.
See, some people say, The Bible says, a bishop must be the husband of one wife, therefore we know all those qualifications for a bishop are only pointing to a male.
Really?
I guess the ten commandments are pointing only for males as well. It says, "thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife". See it's the male that has the wife, so these commandments are addressed to males. Do we therefore know all those commandments are only pointing to a male?
Of course not, but why would it be ridiculous to say the commandments are only for males, but its considered defending biblical authority to take the qualifications for a church leader and say they are only for males? Or is the Word just saying any man selected must not be a polygamist. First off, Ellen White never called herself a pastor nor did she do the everyday duties of a pastor.. She was never ordained by anyone but God. No laying on of human hands could have had any effect on her ministry. Neither will the laying on of human hands have any effect on anyone else's ministry, male of female. I've preached and brought people to Jesus, but my ministry was of purely divine blessing. I've never had human hands laid on me for any church office. The only ordination required for successful ministry is God's ordination and that comes from a sincere love for God. That is not of human origin.
73
3,078
more...
|
|
09/16/23 07:06 AM
So instead of answering questions and discussing the topic you turn to accusation.
You imply I do not accept the Bible as God's Word???
he Bible is the authority! But people interpret the Bible and impose their interpretation. That's what the Jews did and came up with all sorts of rules as to God's requirements. Are you so sure you are not doing the same? May the anti-ordination for women be like the Pharisees at the pool of Bethsada -- all they could see was a man carrying his bed. They had their proof text from the book of Nehemiah, and they stepped right up to vindicate the authority of the law. They couldn't see that God had empowered this man, and that they only vindicating their own interpretations and rules.
So women can't be pastors you say, they are just females to be paid but not blessed and the church dare not set them apart and bless them and officially recognized them as workers for the Lord? Why? Sorry, but according to Ellen White they are to be paid and blessed by the laying on of hands (which means ordained for the task). Go back and read Fortin's paper.
When the Bible says "man" or "men" 90% of the time it does NOT mean the male.
People will point to texts and EGW quotes and say -- it says "man" here, and here and here and here. Man means male.
Wait a minute, for years I have read the bible and when reading "man" I understood "human". The word man has that generic meaning. Oh, some will say, but the context will tell you.
See, some people say, The Bible says, a bishop must be the husband of one wife, therefore we know all those qualifications for a bishop are only pointing to a male.
Really?
I guess the ten commandments are pointing only for males as well. It says, "thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife". See it's the male that has the wife, so these commandments are addressed to males. Do we therefore know all those commandments are only pointing to a male?
Of course not, but why would it be ridiculous to say the commandments are only for males, but its considered defending biblical authority to take the qualifications for a church leader and say they are only for males? Or is the Word just saying any man selected must not be a polygamist.
73
3,078
more...
|
|
09/16/23 04:56 AM
THE GREAT BATTLE! From the lesson (Tues Sept. 12) with the texts written Having conquered the ?rulers and authorities? at the cross (Colossians 2:15, Christ having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them . ), the exalted Christ now works out the results of that victory from His position as exalted Lord over the powers (Philippians 2:9-11 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, all in heaven, and all in earth, and all under the earth; And every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. ). Recruiting His followers as combatants in the cosmic war, Christ leads the armies of light toward a grand day of victory (1 Corinthians 15:54-58, 2 Thessalonians 2:8, Romans 16:20).
2 Thess 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Romans 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.
1 Cor 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 15:55 O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory? 15:56 The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law. 15:57 But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord. That gives us the assurance that Christ has won the deciding battle against Satan and his hosts. And we have the promise that death and the grave will be vanquished forever. But again we find ourselves still in the battle being urged once more to STAND, stedfast, unmoveable implying there are strong forces still doing their utmost to knock us down. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12). But thanks be to God Who gives us victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. A battle unseen by human eyes is being waged. The army of the Lord is here, seeking to save souls. Satan and his host are also at work, trying in every possible way to deceive and destroy. The Lord bids us: "Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. Day by day the battle goes on. If our eyes could be opened to see the good and evil agencies at work, we would be spending much more time in prayer, seeking His help, His shelter, His will for us. Our victory depends on the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. For the outpouring of the Spirit every child of God and of truth should pray. "We are not left to struggle alone against the mighty opposing forces of evil. Were our eyes opened, we should see heavenly angels about us, to protect us from the influence of the hosts of evil. Jesus watches over every one. He will not suffer us to be tempted above that which, with his help, we are able to bear. He desires us to have faith and confidence in him, that he may fill us with peace and happiness. {RH, August 1, 1907 par. 12} Its happening, but because people cant see it with their eyes, they just dont believe it.
21
716
more...
|
|
09/16/23 02:24 AM
I knew it -- you responded just as I thought you would!!!!! It's the narrow view of ordination that blinds you to what I'm trying to share. Its just as I've been trying to explain --The narrow view (which is the one now enforced) has just one ordination, thus everyone is pigeon holed into being either for or against women receiving that ONE ordination. You've swung me into the "for" camp, then into the against camp, and now full force shoved me into the "for" camp.[/] All the while ignoring, or not understanding that there is another view in between that I've been trying to share. Sure go ahead and post my previous posts. I tried very hard to convey my thought, but it obviously was not understood. I believe women should be ordained to their ministry. I suggested there should be different levels of ordination. To have a pastoral ordination (ordained to be a shepherd to members) Women as well as men can be pastors. The pastoral ordination should not be the same as the "overseer" ordination. (ordained to oversee the churches, regional). A head minister in a college would be male -- an ordained overseer, while there would be male and female ordained pastors ministering to male and female students. In the Bible we see the ordination of the apostles (overseers) and the ordination for deacons (which originally in the Bible was basically the role of a pastor, preaching, evangelizing, taking care of the poor, being there for the church etc etc. not what we understand deacons doing today) Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. that means ordained In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister, There should be an "overseer" that she can get counsel from if needed but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church.if connected God will direct them
This is another means of strengthening and building up the church. this ordaining women to pastoral work is a means of strengthening and building up the church We need to branch out more in our methods of labor. Expand the ministry
Not a hand should be bound, not a soul discouraged, not a voice should be hushed; let every individual labor, privately or publicly, to help forward this grand work.so why are people, in God's name, trying to bind, discourage women from public ministry???
Place the burdens upon men and women of the church, that they may grow by reason of the exercise, and thus become effective agents in the hand of the Lord for the enlightenment of those who sit in darkness.--RH, July 9, 1895. Do you have any idea why I disagreed with your stance? Because the push comes from those who do not accept the Bible as the word of authority. And you just confirmed what I said. You think there should be women pastors, not female Bible workers who are paid.
73
3,078
more...
|
|
09/16/23 01:57 AM
I knew it -- you responded just as I thought you would!!!!! No answers to my questions. No explanations. It's just voicing the narrow view of ordination that blinds you to what I'm trying to share. Its just as I've been trying to explain --The narrow view (which is the one now enforced) has just one ordination, thus everyone is pigeon holed into being either for or against women receiving that ONE ordination. You've swung me into the "for" camp, then into the against camp, and now full force shoved me into the "for" camp. All the while ignoring, or not understanding that there is another view in between that I've been trying to share. Sure go ahead and post my previous posts. I tried very hard to convey my thought, but it obviously was not understood. I believe women should be ordained to their ministry. I suggested there should be different levels of ordination. A more general pastoral ordination -- a pastoral ordination (ordained to be a shepherd to members) Women as well as men can be pastors. The pastoral ordination should not be the same as the "overseer" ordination. (ordained to oversee the churches, regional overseers). A head minister in a college would be male -- an ordained overseer, while there would be male and female ordained pastors ministering to male and female students. In the Bible we see the ordination of the apostles (overseers) and the ordination for deacons (which originally in the Bible was basically the role of a pastor, preaching, evangelizing, taking care of the poor, being there for the church etc etc. not what we understand deacons doing today) Let's look at this quote by EGW again: Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. ( that means ordained) In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister, ( There should be an "overseer" that she can get counsel from if needed ) but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church.(if connected God will direct them)
This is another means of strengthening and building up the church. ( this ordaining women to pastoral work is a means of strengthening and building up the church ) We need to branch out more in our methods of labor.( Expand the ministry)
Not a hand should be bound, not a soul discouraged, not a voice should be hushed; let every individual labor, privately or publicly, to help forward this grand work.(so why are people, in God's name, trying to bind, discourage women from public ministry???)
Place the burdens upon men and women of the church, that they may grow by reason of the exercise, and thus become effective agents in the hand of the Lord for the enlightenment of those who sit in darkness.--RH, July 9, 1895.
73
3,078
more...
|
|
09/16/23 01:02 AM
I'm not castrating anyone (why such strong language????) I still do not think you understand what I'm saying. Nothing you write indicates that you do.
Why not simply explain yourself, and at least try to understand. Yes, I don't understand you and you don't understand me, and it makes conversation very trying.
So let's look at this:
1. You said in your post, three up from this one, -- that you consider that the signet of God is far more valuable than man's, thus you can't understand the big brouhaha over women's ordination.
What do you mean by that? You said I've never addressed that, yet, I fully agreed several times, that the first and most important step is the call of God. I don't have any question with that -- it's vitally important.
But what I see is you obviously do have a big brouhaha over women's ordination. Why? Yet you say you don't understand the big brouhaha? Doesn't make sense. If they have the signet of God, why can't the church officially confirm it?
2. You wrote in the "IS THERE A CONNECTION BETWEEN WO AND LGBTQ" thread, That you disagree with Kevin and myself that the two are two DIFFERENT issues that need to be addressed separately and not linked together. You linked them together saying, both originate from the same unrighteous source.
That is pretty strong to put women being recognized by the church for pastoral work in the same class as something like that. If that isn't a big bouhaha statement concerning ordination, what is. Linking them together is basically denying that there are godly women with the signet of God to do ministry.
3. So how do you reconcile your two seemingly contradicting statements?
Another question:
If women wishing to be appointed and recognized by the church as doing a ministry for the church is not important (even though God has called them and they have the signet of God) WHY should men be ordained? Won't God's call and his signet to them (which I agree is the most important) be sufficient for them? Why should they be ordained or why not???
I guess you don't know what castigating is. You might want to look it up in a dictionary. And now you're for church ordaining women as ministers. First you deny it, and say it's the same idea as Catholic ordination, and now you're full on for it. Would you like me to quote your posts from the other threads?
73
3,078
more...
|
|
09/15/23 11:04 PM
I'm not castrating anyone (why such strong language????) I still do not think you understand what I'm saying. Nothing you write indicates that you do.
Why not simply explain yourself, and at least try to understand. Yes, I don't understand you and you don't understand me, and it makes conversation very trying.
So let's look at this:
1. You said in your post, three up from this one, -- that you consider that the signet of God is far more valuable than man's, thus you can't understand the big brouhaha over women's ordination.
What do you mean by that? You said I've never addressed that, yet, I fully agreed several times, that the first and most important step is the call of God. I don't have any question with that -- it's vitally important.
But what I see is you obviously do have a big brouhaha over women's ordination. Why? Yet you say you don't understand the big brouhaha? Doesn't make sense. If they have the signet of God, why can't the church officially confirm it?
2. You wrote in the "IS THERE A CONNECTION BETWEEN WO AND LGBTQ" thread, That you disagree with Kevin and myself that the two are two DIFFERENT issues that need to be addressed separately and not linked together. You linked them together saying, both originate from the same unrighteous source.
That is pretty strong to put women being recognized by the church for pastoral work in the same class as something like that. If that isn't a big bouhaha statement concerning ordination, what is. Linking them together is basically denying that there are godly women with the signet of God to do ministry.
3. So how do you reconcile your two seemingly contradicting statements?
Another question:
If women wishing to be appointed and recognized by the church as doing a ministry for the church is not important (even though God has called them and they have the signet of God) WHY should men be ordained? Won't God's call and his signet to them (which I agree is the most important) be sufficient for them? Why should they be ordained or why not???
73
3,078
more...
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maui
by Garywk. 09/11/23 06:45 PM
|
|
3ABN
by Garywk. 09/09/23 11:37 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|