|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bible Literalist Church | |||||||||||||||||||||||
David O Inactive Member |
Is there a Bible Literalist denomination that follows 1 Tim 2:12 to the letter? I can't find any and that seems odd to me. I can barely find any websites featuring people who think this- tons who argue against this or decry it, though. I'm not trying to start an argument about this verse, I just want to find a church that has silent women.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
David O Inactive Member |
Here is the verse;
1 Timothy 2 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
drummachine Inactive Member |
I believe He is saying women should not be pastors. Not because men are at a higher level. Women have many other ways to help others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7826 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote:Why? Are you having a problem with talkative ones? I would suggest joining a monastery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2419 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
But being a pastor IS, in actuality, a very prestigious thing to be if you are a Christian, correct?
Considering that there were no "pastors", per se back then, only Rabbis/learned men/clerics who basically made the laws and told everybody under them what to do. Second in line behind Rabbis were men, and third in line behind men were their sons, and fourth in line behind the sons were imortant posessions like houses and cattle, and fifth in line behind houses and cattle were women/wives, and sixth in line behind women/wives were daughters. Why is it so very difficult for some "modern" Christians to accept that this was simply the way women were treated back then, and that is why the Bible reads like it does. That is why the Bible says that a woman must subnit herself to her husband in all things. It doesn't say "some things", or ""at certain times". It says she must submit in ALL things. ------------------"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 984 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Schraf, aren't you female? Then hush!!!
(Satire! Joke! Really! I'm kiddi......urk!)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
funkmasterfreaky Inactive Member |
But being a pastor IS, in actuality, a very prestigious thing to be if you are a Christian, correct? Something you just don't seem to get about the Christian church schraf, is that no-one is in a prestigious position. We all have roles that we fill with the gifts God has graciously made us stewarts of. No one role is greater than the other.
Considering that there were no "pastors", per se back then, only Rabbis/learned men/clerics who basically made the laws and told everybody under them what to do. The Levitical priests were in a very prestigious position much more so than the present day pastor.
Why is it so very difficult for some "modern" Christians to accept that this was simply the way women were treated back then, and that is why the Bible reads like it does. Yes women at that time were treated much differently than they are now. Why is it so difficult for critics of the bible to understand that cultures were much different at the time and that is why the bible reads the way it does?
That is why the Bible says that a woman must subnit herself to her husband in all things. Yes this is how it is, I made a very big mistake in somehow trying to reconcile this with human ways in my discussion with you. A Christian wife should submit to her husband in all things. As to this discussion with women in the church, I sure wish more churches would follow the biblical doctrine that is very clearly layed out. If women have a problem in the church they should bring it to their husbands, and their husbands can bring it before the church. Women should only teach women and children, in the church. And you say; Why? BECAUSE IT'S BIBLICAL This forum has really shown me that Christians are not following biblical doctrine, and they are making these changes in order to conform to beliefs of this world. That in and of itself is exactly what the scripture warns us of. I know I have probably been one of the worst, trying to reconcile God's ways with the ways of the world. ------------------Saved by an incredible Grace.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7826 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote:It is well to remember, however, that this is mutual submission. Ephesians 5:21-2421: Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. 22: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23: For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24: Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. The first thing to note is that the Greek alla which begins verse 24 is a strong disconnective, perhaps more like "nevertheless" than "therefore." There is no semantic or figurative connection between the husband as head, and the exhorted submission, that is to say the woman does not submit because the man is her head. Remember that there is no sense of "authority" in the use fo the Greek "head." In other words, there is really nothing to be made of this that would suggest that women should submit to their husbands in any way that is less than reciprocal to the husbands' required submission to them. In fact, the really interesting thing about this passage in a first century social context is the very strong emphasis placed upon male submission and the duties of husbands to their wives. In fact the Gospels and Epistles rip apart the 1st centrury social and personal relationships of men and women. As for the principle topic, of women keeping silent in the church, remember that this is set firmly in the context of speaking in tongues, but also that they are not being forbidden to teach, but forbidden to chat! Greek, as you can imagine of a culture with thousands of years of tradition of complex public discourse, has many words for speaking. The word used in this context is lalew which has the clear connotation of informal speech. Women in Jewish society were typically not allowed to be taught. As one 1st century source has it (Mishnah, Sotah: 3,4) Whoever teaches his daughter the Torah is like one who teaches her obscenity. They would therefore be less well educated in the issues raised during the service. It seems pretty clear to me that Paul's direction in Corinthians passage is that women who have questions about the teaching should wait until they get to ask their husbands, rather than embarrassing them by asking them about it in Church. By the second century, Tertullian, says of Christian men and women: Together they pray, together they prostrate themselves, together they perform their fasts; mutually teaching, mutually exhorting, mutually sustaining. Equal they are both found in the church of God Finally, let me point out that the sentence below is just wishful thinking: quote:Anyone who has lived in a small community knows very well that the minister (or priest or pastor) is in a very prestigious position indeed. Maybe not theologically, but in the community and social lives of Christians it is surely undeniable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
funkmasterfreaky Inactive Member |
It is well to remember, however, that this is mutual submission. Yes we agree woo hoo!
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Something you just don't seem to get about the Christian church schraf, is that no-one is in a prestigious position. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anyone who has lived in a small community knows very well that the minister (or priest or pastor) is in a very prestigious position indeed. Maybe not theologically, but in the community and social lives of Christians it is surely undeniable? I have personally never known of a pastor being a prestigious position, this is only personal experience. This does not mean in many cases it may be thought to be. Maybe I have just not lived in a small enough community as you say. This said pastors should not be thought to be prestigious. I apologize it may have been wishful thinking, it is not how it should be in the church. Note the church has never been perfect or Paul would have never written any letters. ------------------Saved by an incredible Grace.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7826 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote:Ain't that the truth! And then Peter says of Paul's letters "in which are some things hard to be understood" and round we go again!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jesuslover153 Inactive Member |
what does the rest of that verse say Mr. P?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7826 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
Hey what are you saying? That I am "unlearned" or "unstable" ? Mind you, I've been accused of both in my time - frequently with some justification.
For those of you who don't get the context, the full verse is 2 Peter 3:16, speaking of Paul, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
David O Inactive Member |
Is there a Bible Literalist denomination that follows 1 Tim 2:12 to the letter?
By the way Mutual submission is insanity, no child can serve 2 masters, mutual submission turns out to be tyranny of the most selfish one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 984 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
While I'm wasting time at work anyway: of all the "Bible literalist" denominations, how many have the office of Bishop as part of their clergy? Nearly all have deacons, and very few have bishops. The requirement for a bish is spelled out twice, in Timothy and Titus both, as I recall. How come they don't got 'em?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1716 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The requirement for a bish is spelled out twice, in Timothy and Titus both, as I recall. How come they don't got 'em? Here's a nutty idea - maybe so-called "Biblical Literalists" are only literal about the things that are convinient to enforce or keep certain members in positions of authority (like men)?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024