RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread

RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church

Message

Stephanos -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/8/2008 9:40:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Qtman But that still does not explain Priscilla. She was instrumental in the founding of the church at Ephasus and even taught Apolos. And it seems funny that when referring to her and Aquila Priscilla's name is always first. This just don't happen in the Bible. Every time I can remember the husband's name comes first such as Adam and Eve etc. So Paul obviously thought highly of Priscilla and her knowledge and ability to teach both men and women. Point one, Prisca is never mentioned with out her husband Aquila, thus when THEY took Apollos aside and corrected him, they did so TOGETHER. It was not her by herself doing it. Point two, order of names (rather word order in general) plays no meaning in Greek. It is case ending that determines everything. Furthermore, in 1st Corinthians 16:19, Paul does go "Aquila and Prisca", mentioning Aquila first. But again since word order in Greek is not important, it does not matter much.

MrFribbles -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/8/2008 9:59:01 PM)
quote: word order in Greek is not important Actually, sometimes it is. John 1:1 is a good example of this. But in the examples you gave, I would agree. Usually when two people are being named side by side (Paul and Barnabas, for example), precedence is not given one over the other. And you're quite right, Aquila is mentioned first in 1 Corinthians.

Stephanos -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/8/2008 10:21:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrFribbles quote: word order in Greek is not important Actually, sometimes it is. John 1:1 is a good example of this. But in the examples you gave, I would agree. Usually when two people are being named side by side (Paul and Barnabas, for example), precedence is not given one over the other. And you're quite right, Aquila is mentioned first in 1 Corinthians. But if word order in Greek is so important, why does nearly every single english translation reverse the order? kai theos en ho logos (and God was the Word) is how the Greek has it, but almost every english translation goes "And the word was God". The problem with this passage is not word order, but the understanding of how non-articular nouns work. Mormons and JW's will say that becasue Theos is nonarticular, it must mean "a" god, not THE God. But when you understand non-articular nouns, you then can see how it truly relates. Clearly God had a reason why He inspired the authors to write the way they did, but when it comes to interpretation of Scripture, we should not look at word order for the interpretation at all. Again, if that was the case, then all the english translations that have "and the Word was God" are in error.

benelchi -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/8/2008 11:22:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephanos quote: ORIGINAL: MrFribbles quote: word order in Greek is not important Actually, sometimes it is. John 1:1 is a good example of this. But in the examples you gave, I would agree. Usually when two people are being named side by side (Paul and Barnabas, for example), precedence is not given one over the other. And you're quite right, Aquila is mentioned first in 1 Corinthians. But if word order in Greek is so important, why does nearly every single english translation reverse the order? kai theos en ho logos (and God was the Word) is how the Greek has it, but almost every english translation goes "And the word was God". The problem with this passage is not word order, but the understanding of how non-articular nouns work. Mormons and JW's will say that becasue Theos is nonarticular, it must mean "a" god, not THE God. But when you understand non-articular nouns, you then can see how it truly relates. Clearly God had a reason why He inspired the authors to write the way they did, but when it comes to interpretation of Scripture, we should not look at word order for the interpretation at all. Again, if that was the case, then all the english translations that have "and the Word was God" are in error. Word order and (and even order of names) is important in Greek; the difference between English and Greek is how word order affects the meaning. In English, it distinguishes between the subject and the object, but in Greek, word order changes where the emphasis is in the passage. Martin Luther speaking about the John 1.1 passage mentioned above said, "the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism." Yes, word order is still important in Greek.

MrFribbles -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/9/2008 12:23:03 AM)
quote: Word order and (and even order of names) is important in Greek; the difference between English and Greek is how word order affects the meaning. In English, it distinguishes between the subject and the object, but in Greek, word order changes where the emphasis is in the passage. Martin Luther speaking about the John 1.1 passage mentioned above said, "the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism." Yes, word order is still important in Greek. Bingo. Word order is important - it just functions differently than word order does in English. Throwing a word that, grammatically, should be understood as the end of a sentence in English, forward to the start of a sentence, shows that the writer is emphasizing that word. But getting back on topic - it's erroneous to infer that Paul is emphasizing Prisca over Aquila just because, in some instances, their names are in a certain order. If that were the case, then he would put it that way all the time - which he does not.

benelchi -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/9/2008 12:34:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrFribbles quote: Word order and (and even order of names) is important in Greek; the difference between English and Greek is how word order affects the meaning. In English, it distinguishes between the subject and the object, but in Greek, word order changes where the emphasis is in the passage. Martin Luther speaking about the John 1.1 passage mentioned above said, "the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism." Yes, word order is still important in Greek. Bingo. Word order is important - it just functions differently than word order does in English. Throwing a word that, grammatically, should be understood as the end of a sentence in English, forward to the start of a sentence, shows that the writer is emphasizing that word. But getting back on topic - it's erroneous to infer that Paul is emphasizing Prisca over Aquila just because, in some instances, their names are in a certain order. If that were the case, then he would put it that way all the time - which he does not. Actually I believe the fact that he isn't consistent is a demonstration of the fact that he was choosing to emphasize one name over the other. Qtman was correct that in the Greek culture in general, and not just biblical literature, a husbands name was typically mentioned first. When Paul didn't follow this custom he would have done so only because he wanted to bring emphasis to Prisca.

wintery -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/9/2008 1:48:00 AM)
benelchi, 1Corinthians 14:38 - But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. A former pastor who was an NIV user told me he preferred this verse in the King James. He was saying that this is Paul granting permission to disregard what he had said a couple of verses before about women keeping silence, as in "if any man would ignore this, allow him to ignore it". I'm aware other versions are different, but is this a legitimate understanding of this verse? My personal thoughts on the "silence" being a cultural situation do not hinge on this verse, however.

Qtman -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/9/2008 10:18:15 AM)
We can't really read and understand Paul's writings to the various churches without considering the cultural influences. What was the culture at the time. Although there were several different ethnic groups in the churches Paul wrote to there was common threads in those various cultures. The treatment of women was one of them. We also have to consider why Paul was writing to those churches. In some cases it was his second letter to them at least. Some cases point to the fact the church did not heed his first letter so he had to address the questions again. In his letter to the Church at Corinth Paul said the women should be silent in church. They should not speak for them speaking would be a disgrace unto them. Now if we take this and apply it word for word without giving consideration to all the factors involved then even those who believe women can teach other women and children are wrong also.

Stephanos -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/9/2008 11:12:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Qtman We can't really read and understand Paul's writings to the various churches without considering the cultural influences. What was the culture at the time. Although there were several different ethnic groups in the churches Paul wrote to there was common threads in those various cultures. The treatment of women was one of them. We also have to consider why Paul was writing to those churches. In some cases it was his second letter to them at least. Some cases point to the fact the church did not heed his first letter so he had to address the questions again. In his letter to the Church at Corinth Paul said the women should be silent in church. They should not speak for them speaking would be a disgrace unto them. Now if we take this and apply it word for word without giving consideration to all the factors involved then even those who believe women can teach other women and children are wrong also. Be mindful of the culture of the time? Yes. Reading our culture today into the bible and changing what the bible says to fit our culture...Wrong 100% of the time. Just because our culture today is different, does NOT mean our interpretation of the bible should change. Remember, God Himself inspired Paul to write. The bible is God's Word. Dont you think HE knew that we would be reading it today. And if He did, do you think He would want us to jump through hoops and be forced to study other topics to understand scripture (ie anthropology, antiquities, ect), OR would He want us to go to scripture to understand what scripture says? BTW, thats what the BIBLE tells us to do.

Qtman -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/9/2008 11:39:17 AM)
Please address these verses from 1st Corinthinans. It seems to show even your thoughts about women teaching anything is church is wrong. 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

wintery -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/9/2008 12:31:24 PM)
Qtman, I'm very short on time so apologies for brevity... 1. not under law 2. what is the perfect law of liberty? 3. if a woman is not to dishonor or disrespect, what is more important, silence or respect? 4. Cultural considerations are seen in NT Again apologies for really busy day...later.

Lycea -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/9/2008 2:00:14 PM)
Sorry it took me a little while to get back to you about a woman preaching with her husband in the room. I believe that a woman can do so, and that as long as it is with his permission, and without a direct intent to teach him personally or correct him personally, she is still acting under his authority. It is the same as if an Elder or Bishop attended a church where he was not preaching, does that mean that the deacon or minister serving that church is acting outside of his authority? No. The same is true for a woman preaching in front of her husband. As for the "husband of one wife" I agree that it is in reference to men, as women could not have more than one husband in those days without being seen as a HUGE sinner, same today--polygamy is more accepted than polyandry, although both are at odds with NT scriptural ideals for holiness. Absolutely these are statements for the men serving in those positions, but that is not included in the aside instructions for women holding these positions of church authority/ministry because there is no need.

Marksman -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/9/2008 2:36:23 PM)
quote: She was instrumental in the founding of the church at Ephasus and even taught Apolos. You will find that Priscilla was not considered a teacher. The word for teacher or teaching is "didaskalos"and that word is not used in reference to Priscilla. quote: Now if we take this and apply it word for word without giving consideration to all the factors involved then even those who believe women can teach other women and children are wrong also. This is not an issue in the NT church because they did not have seperate women's and children's ministry. quote: Sorry it took me a little while to get back to you about a woman preaching with her husband in the room. I believe that a woman can do so, and that as long as it is with his permission, and without a direct intent to teach him personally or correct him personally, she is still acting under his authority. Can you show me where this is in scripture please?

Qtman -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/9/2008 3:09:39 PM)
quote: You will find that Priscilla was not considered a teacher. The word for teacher or teaching is "didaskalos"and that word is not used in reference to Priscilla. This statement makes about as much sense as saying a rose does not smell like a rose because you called it a gardenia. I don't care what you call her she did teach Apollos. Is this true or not.

GroupW -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/9/2008 3:17:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephanos quote: ORIGINAL: MrFribbles quote: word order in Greek is not important Actually, sometimes it is. John 1:1 is a good example of this. But in the examples you gave, I would agree. Usually when two people are being named side by side (Paul and Barnabas, for example), precedence is not given one over the other. And you're quite right, Aquila is mentioned first in 1 Corinthians. But if word order in Greek is so important, why does nearly every single english translation reverse the order? kai theos en ho logos (and God was the Word) is how the Greek has it, but almost every english translation goes "And the word was God". The problem with this passage is not word order, but the understanding of how non-articular nouns work. Mormons and JW's will say that becasue Theos is nonarticular, it must mean "a" god, not THE God. But when you understand non-articular nouns, you then can see how it truly relates. Clearly God had a reason why He inspired the authors to write the way they did, but when it comes to interpretation of Scripture, we should not look at word order for the interpretation at all. Again, if that was the case, then all the english translations that have "and the Word was God" are in error. At last a greek question I can answer. Particularly as it relates to word order in Greek and John 1:1, word order actually is important there. Not that dissimilar from English - word order determines emphasis. The word was God, or God was the word. Two similar statements, but the emphasis is different. The word order in the Greek that's used is sequentially reversed from how English would determine emphasis, but the impact is the same - the word was God is the more correct English translation as it puts the emphasis where the greek does. That's the answer per the Greek professor at Denver Seminary, at any rate.

GroupW -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/9/2008 3:18:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wintery Qtman, I'm very short on time so apologies for brevity... 1. not under law 2. what is the perfect law of liberty? 3. if a woman is not to dishonor or disrespect, what is more important, silence or respect? 4. Cultural considerations are seen in NT Again apologies for really busy day...later. At least Wintery gets the award for brevity ;)

Marksman -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/10/2008 12:53:04 PM)
quote: Is this true or not. No, for the reason I stated.

Marksman -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/10/2008 12:55:52 PM)
Qtman, why do you use an avatar that promotes a satanic festival?

benelchi -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/10/2008 1:05:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marksman Qtman, why do you use an avatar that promotes a satanic festival? There is a thread here that explains this whole issue, that is a much more appropriate place for a comment like this.

Qtman -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/10/2008 10:14:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marksman Qtman, why do you use an avatar that promotes a satanic festival? I have no idea what you are talking about. I guess that makes us even.

Qtman -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/10/2008 10:15:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marksman quote: Is this true or not. No, for the reason I stated. So you say she did not teach just because someone did not call her a teacher. Do you not see the humor in this reasoning?

Qtman -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/11/2008 8:18:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: benelchi quote: ORIGINAL: Marksman Qtman, why do you use an avatar that promotes a satanic festival? There is a thread here that explains this whole issue, that is a much more appropriate place for a comment like this. Benelchi is correct. This is off topic. I have responded HERE if you wish to read it.

Lycea -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/11/2008 11:24:15 AM)
quote: quote: Sorry it took me a little while to get back to you about a woman preaching with her husband in the room. I believe that a woman can do so, and that as long as it is with his permission, and without a direct intent to teach him personally or correct him personally, she is still acting under his authority. Can you show me where this is in scripture please? Marksman, I was answering a question posed by Stephanos: quote: However, if it truly is properly translated as a wife can not have teaching authority over her husband, then I guess He can not be in the sanctuary as she leads the sermons now. Right? If he is, and she is leading the congregation in teaching and authority, then does that not make her over him in this regard? Thus in violation of what Paul commands? Maybe you could have an argument with a single woman, but logicly a married woman is placed under the same restriction by your rendering as women in general are in the proper translation of the text. I guess the real question is do you really think that a wife can supplant authority given to him by God? I don't think so. I believe that it stands regardless of the roles they play in the church.

Marksman -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/11/2008 2:00:48 PM)
quote: I guess the real question is do you really think that a wife can supplant authority given to him by God? I don't think so. I believe that it stands regardless of the roles they play in the church. I still want to know where you find that in scripture? quote: Benelchi is correct. This is off topic. I have responded HERE if you wish to read it. But it still doesn't alter the fact that you are promoting a satanic festival. If I take what you say to its logical conclusion it is OK for me to promote other satanic activity like fornication as both are sin. I think you are a bit naive about the wiles of the devil. quote: So you say she did not teach just because someone did not call her a teacher. Do you not see the humor in this reasoning? It is not reasoning, it is saying what the scripture says. To use an analogy the word for redeemer in the Greek is never used to describe Paul, so no one talks about Paul being a redeemer. The word for teacher in Greek is not used to describe Priscilla, so it is logical to assume that she does not function as a teacher. My wife is a teacher and I introduce her as such, not as a flying instructor. My school secretary might give advice and direction, but that does not make her a teacher because she works in a school just the same as Priscilla has a meeting in her home but that does not make her a teacher.

benelchi -> RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread (10/11/2008 2:12:25 PM)
quote: It is not reasoning, it is saying what the scripture says. To use an analogy the word for redeemer in the Greek is never used to describe Paul, so no one talks about Paul being a redeemer. The word for teacher in Greek is not used to describe Priscilla, so it is logical to assume that she does not function as a teacher. My wife is a teacher and I introduce her as such, not as a flying instructor. My school secretary might give advice and direction, but that does not make her a teacher because she works in a school just the same as Priscilla has a meeting in her home but that does not make her a teacher. I am astounded by the logic you have used in this post, and I assure you that I have never seen logic like this used in any of the works of any biblical scholars.

Page: << < prev 216 217 [218] 219 220 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI