In Reply to: Re: short answer.. posted by OT2 on April 26, 2010 at 13:12:30:
ok...I admit, I am a bit brainstorming here...
(rhymes with heartwarming...& I hope, I have my heart right)...my flat is in a turmoil because of the handimen's labour...takes still some days to weeks...but frankly on certain things in scripture I yet don't feel being in inner turmoil...the male ...female "ranking"...somewhat leaves me "cold"...for one: I am not personally involved, will remain single...second: whereever a womanpreacher would turn up, I simply wouldn't go to listen, I can have that choice and Jesus can very well correct me on that and who knows, may be this thread is producing what I need...now even the AoG.file is stating some bewilderment about the two Pauline scriptures/verses most common, they cannot make their "progressive" stance rhyme with.
I fully acknowledge my preference with the good old days of the ...let's say...early/mid 19th century or may be even 18th century and earlier...where music often was purer...a lot in life seemed to have the order I "prefer"...where theology had a certain "standard"...
We have now a theological-supermarket...a buffet...where people do the picking...whatever tickles their nerves/tastebuds...or ears.
For me Christ is not like that...His message is an affront to my old fleshly nature...and with Paul we seek to say and be sure/to know, that with HIM we're actually crucified...the old sinful nature...being dead...but I figure...as Adam and Eve didn't die on the spot...but later...I am not dead to my old sinful nature immediately "on the spot"...the minute I accepted Christ...at least not effectively...to the point of sinning no more.
Back to musing/brainstorming: Darbyists think in terms of dispensations/households of faith...the time of Adam and Eve was one...and it should tell us something, that Jesus referred to them in the initial becoming one flesh...so that is before Moses...another dispensation...according to the Darbyists/brethren...furthermore, Darbyists insist, that at Jesus times...there were no real Christians yet...they say it happened with pentacost...if I remember that right...I mean they were disciples already so with Acts 11 I actually disagree with them...but I figure, they mean they couldn't have been born again really, because the Spirit hadn't come yet???In any event...they often claim, that much what Jesus said, was really for his disciples then...we can learn of it...but decisive are the instructions of Paul...since we're out of the goyim anyway???!!
Why am I saying this...because you also seem to make this difference : this is jewish this is soo and so...
But please let us keep then also in mind, that even Paul argues with "way before" Eve...to the point of saying...she was deceived by Satan not Adam...does that tell us anything??? I am not wanting to go over board now with all what could be probably found in the web about witchcraft and so on...because men and woman are deceived alike since then and it's not me to judge who happens to be more deceived...however, just from the point of scripture...I either take note of that which Paul says or I don't...
Berg was using that in one of his letters (or several)...to assume, that Paul had some problem with women...is that so???
Jesus appointing this man personally by divine intervention and people have severe doubts about what he lectured...I told people here on the boards...I have a book by a German theologian (with PhD), who reasoned together with some Dutch radical reform theologians...that all the epistles of Paul were a fraud....great, isn't it?...no more problems with dear Paul...there are so many books out about that subject...that actually Paul founded the Christian church...the way we know it now and that Jesus' intentions were quite different...really??
It took me just a quick view at all the verses, where Paul is so much in line with the rest of the apostles and Jesus Himself, that I have no doubt, that Paul really followed very close...and that Paul was real and his letters of him
Frankly, I read the Pauline message most...since I left TF...and I agree with St. Peter...somes things are indeed hard to understand...that's why I collected books/interpretations about the most ambiguous parts of scripture.
...As for your friend..."comrade" in faith...I see your point of him being in want/...and need...it's of course not so wise, to let hormones
cloud our perspection of holy scripture...& "coveting" some church-position oneself is also not the best circumstance in judging the
position of females etc...Paul does talk alot about not being idle and labouring with own hands...at least the Calvinists are famous for their work-ethics...it has something IMO.
Still I would be a hypocrite...if I wouldn't acknowledge my initial sympathies with your friend for leaving, if something becomes scriptually intolerable/unbearable...I didn't know more about the picture as I do now...still I would say...as it happens in many Lutheran churches of today...if the senior pastor would be a woman...I certainly would leave...just my position
I haven't studied up the neat links about kephale/source...I just skimmed through it quickly...I liked that discussion...but I would argue along with others there,...my "minimum"-interpretation-rule...if the word is in a wider interpretation range not found in both OT and NT...only non-koine-Greek allows it...then I just don't use it that way...plus I have a bit of a understanding problem/logic???
What difference makes it, whether we talk about source or head??The dependancy is clearly from Jesus to man...man to woman and not muddled up...or do I miss here a point???
If the source dries up...then what with the river???