What do you normally do when a Jehovah Witness knocks on your door?

[gb93433]

In regards to women leaders

There is plenty of evidence that the early church utilized women in ministry. There were women whose responsibility was to work with other women and children. They performed pastoral work with the sick and the poor and helped at baptism. From the earliest times deaconesses visited the sick, acted as door-keepers at the women's entrance to the church, kept order among church women, taught females in preparation for baptism and acted as sponsors for homeless children. They also carried official messages. There was a clearer line drawn between the sexes than there is today. Women deacons were not on the same level as men deacons. They could not teach and minister to mixed groups of people or men, and they were not ordained.

For the first 1200 years of Christianity there is evidence of woman deacons in the church. However, the Western Roman Catholic church never had them. Whereas the eastern church did.

Almost every country outside of the U.S. has women deacons in Baptist churches.

The emergence of deaconesses is unclear. But in the third and fourth centuries the office deaconess developed greatly. In a letter dated 112 A.D. Governor Pliny wrote a letter to the emperor Trajan. In it he mentions a couple of deaconesses (Book X, XCVI, 8, 289).

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Women were not deaconnesses. diakonos when speaking of women was always translated as 'servant'... not deacon.

Deacon's were to be the husband of one wife, not the wife of one husband.

 

[gb93433]

Women were not deaconnesses. diakonos when speaking of women was always translated as 'servant'... not deacon.

When was the last time you traced the derivation and the meaning of diakonos over time. If for example if you traced the word computer you would quickly find it was not originally a machine as we know it today. It was used for mathematics. That is only within that past 30 years or so. Remember the early church used the3 same owrds as what they took from their tradition.

If for example you were to assume the word for eldere always remined the same oyu would quickly realize that it was not a pastor in its original usage. If you maintianed that same dogmatism you would quickly claim that an elder was never a pastor. You would be entirely wrong though. That is exactly what oyu have done with diakonos.

I am amazed at your western theology which follows after the Roman tradiiton of the RCC. It is not true in the eastern tradition at all.

You could have at least looked up the one original reference I gave. Apparently you did not.

You must not be Baptist to make such a claim as you have. The majority of Baptist churches in other countries do have women deacons who serve women and children. Certainly don't visit any of those church with godly people in them because you might be in for a real shock as soon as you took communion with them. I can imagine the look on your face if you did that. Most of the Baptist churches in America follow the tradition of the western RCC and do not even know it.

Apparently you are not aware of the distinct separartion betwen the pastor and women in the church then and many now in the same areas. Some of those same countries have that same practice today.

I guess according to you where Jesus walked is a bunch of heretics today and the only true believers who have all knowledge are in America.

Sometime you ought to do a study on presbuteros and episkopos. That would give you a real challenge and most likely get you thoroughly confused in your theology. You would learn a lot though.

 

[gb93433]

Women were not deaconnesses. diakonos when speaking of women was always translated as 'servant'... not deacon.

Deacon's were to be the husband of one wife, not the wife of one husband.

Those over 65 don't count?

 

[DHK]

DHK,

You posted...
[Basic Bible hermeneutics teaches that one interprets the Bible literally unless the Bible itself gives reason to interpret it otherwise. And the Bible has given no reason to allegorize this book. I dismiss your interpretation as pure folly after the manner of two heretics.]

YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!

I'm thrilled to see you post that. And YOU are one who needs to *fine tune* your ability to employ that important principle.

Indeed, It is an important principle to abide by.

Your "literal" interpretation of the passage about not letting a non christian religionist into your home to discuss spiritual things is rendered to be a false view because, in your words..."the Bible itself gives reason to interpret it otherwise.".

No it doesn't. It gives no reason in the entire book to render any allegorical interpretation whatsoever. It is not the Book of Revelation. Neither is it a parable.

In light of our clear instruction to share the good news of the gospel at every oppotunity, it becomes crystal clear that the proper view of the "do not let them enter your home" passage is referring to the home in that culture when it was being used for a christian service and the false teachers wanted to teach their false doctrines in Gods church house.

This epistle teaches no such thing. Your argument is one from silence. It says the exact opposite of what you are saying. It says NOT to receive such a one into your house. How can you take an instruction NOT to do something and make it say DO something. That is equivalent to a denial of God's Word. No wonder people want to allegorize it!

The "children" would be the congregation at that church, and the woman would be the overseer, teacher or pastor of that house fellowship.

More allegorization when there is no need to--going directly against all principles of Biblical hermeneutics.

I sincerely hope this helps,

It does. It helps one to see to what lengths people will go in order to rationalize their way to disobey a simple command of God.

 

[gb93433]

DHK:

I am waiting for a response to posts #208 and 218.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

When was the last time you traced the derivation and the meaning of diakonos over time. If for example if you traced the word computer you would quickly find it was not originally a machine as we know it today. It was used for mathematics. That is only within that past 30 years or so. Remember the early church used the3 same owrds as what they took from their tradition.

If for example you were to assume the word for eldere always remined the same oyu would quickly realize that it was not a pastor in its original usage. If you maintianed that same dogmatism you would quickly claim that an elder was never a pastor. You would be entirely wrong though. That is exactly what oyu have done with diakonos.

I am amazed at your western theology which follows after the Roman tradiiton of the RCC. It is not true in the eastern tradition at all.

You could have at least looked up the one original reference I gave. Apparently you did not.

You must not be Baptist to make such a claim as you have. The majority of Baptist churches in other countries do have women deacons who serve women and children. Certainly don't visit any of those church with godly people in them because you might be in for a real shock as soon as you took communion with them. I can imagine the look on your face if you did that. Most of the Baptist churches in America follow the tradition of the western RCC and do not even know it.

Apparently you are not aware of the distinct separartion betwen the pastor and women in the church then and many now in the same areas. Some of those same countries have that same practice today.

I guess according to you where Jesus walked is a bunch of heretics today and the only true believers who have all knowledge are in America.

Sometime you ought to do a study on presbuteros and episkopos. That would give you a real challenge and most likely get you thoroughly confused in your theology. You would learn a lot though.

It is not I who is confused.

The Word of God is again, clear. Deacons were to be the husband of one wife, not the wife of one husband.

diakonos in the Word of God always referred to a servant when speaking of a woman.

 

[DHK]

The literal translation is, "The children of your elect sister greets you."

2 Jn is written to the chosen lady and then in verse 13 it talks about the children of the chosen lady's sister greet her.

I cannot imagine that John would have changed the meaning of the word children on the basis of several things.

1. It was not customary in that culture during that time that a man or pastor would have sent a letter to a married woman.

2. If that woman had children in that house and not married then her husband died or she had illegitimate children. If there were children in that home then must not have been very old (about 24 -30 years).

3. If the woman is married she would have been referred to as the woman of a man or the woman of a man's name as was the custom in the Hebrew language and culture.

4. If 2 Jn was to a literal lady then why did John use the word for children in 1 & 3 John as a reference to believers?

John's use of children in 1 & 3 John is consistent with the reference to believers and I believe consistent in 2 John as well. He did not change the meaning of the word children in 2 Jn.

Let me give you an example of your logic:
Look at these verses where Jesus uses the word "children."

Matthew 14:21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.

Matthew 19:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Now consider these verses:

Mark 10:24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

Luke 16:8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

John 21:5 Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No.

Your reasoning goes thusly:
In the second group of verses Jesus addresse his disciples and calls them "children". Comparing Scripture with Scripture, If Jesus called his disciples "children" in the last three verses quoted, and is always consistent in Scripture, then in the first three verses the word "children," must also refer to his disciples. Is that right? This is the "logical" type of "hermeneutic" that you are employing. Ignore the context of the letter and pull other verses out of their context with the same word used in different context so that you can redefine the word.

Ignoring the context of the book, is to ignore the meaning of the words.


The method of interpretation that you have employed is absolutely absurd. It is allegorical, and with that method you can make the Bible make say anything that you want.

 

[DHK]

The lady is singular and children is a plural. The letter is to the called out lady--the local church in that area where it was sent to. The lady is a church and the children are its believers. Over and over John addresses children. He refers to the children who are believers. John is consistent in his address of children.

Only in part is this true; but not entirely. As the letter progresses we find out that he is addressing primarily the elect lady. That is not made entirely clear until verses 4 and 5. The first verse says plainly:

2 John 1:1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not I only, but also all they that know the truth;
--Thus the greeting includes the children, and is not just to the lady.

Your allegorization is doctrinally wrong. I will state it again. If there is nothing in the context to take the passage in a figurative way, then always interpret it literally. It deserves a literal interpretation, for you have no precedent to read into this epistle the things that are not there.
Church is not in this epistle. It is adding to the Word of God.
"The lady is a church" Wrong! The lady is a lady!!
I have never met a lady yet, that looked like a church.
Where do you get such garbage?
"The children are 'ITS' believers" Wrong!
The children are not "its"; the children are the children of the lady, though I am sure they are believers as well.
Again, why do you post such nonesense that cannot be found anywhere in this entire book?

2 Jn 3 is a greeting using the standard form of a letter during that time.

Maybe that is because he is writing a letter.

The first three verses follow the standard form of a letter 9 who it is from, who it is to followed by a greeting. (In this case the greeting is a Greek and Jewish/Hebrew Greeting).

Chairos is not just a greeting. In fact it is used for joy more that Greeting. And it is used for "farewell" as well. It is just as much as a farewell as a greeting, as are othere such words in other languages (aloha being one such example).
In fact, this word for greeting, chairos is used 74 times in the NT. Only 3 times it is translated "Greetings," and 5 more times "hail," the only other form of greeting given in these 74 occurences of this word. It does have the translation of both "God speed," and "farewell." But 42 times the translation is "rejoice," its primary meaning. In this you err in your research.

The subject in 2 Jn 10 is tis and it is singular. The sentence is a first class conditional sentence too.

The third word in 2 Jn 12 is a plural dative. John has much to write to (you, plural, vs.12) who is the the elect lady (from vs.1, singular)

You is the believers--children (plural) who make up the church--elect lady (singular).

Nonsense. The fact that the pronoun indicates nothing of the such. True, he is writing to the lady. The fact that the pronoun is in the plural means nothing, or gives no reason for allegorization. It could simply indicate "the lady (and children)" or "the lady (and her household)," etc. We don't know who all is included in the "you." There is no reason to assume an allegorical "church." Besides that you have sunk your own ship going against your own argument. Church is a singular noun. "The church is known as a lighthouse in the community." It takes a singular verb--"is". It is not plural.

Thanks for challenging and forcing me to look at my Greek text and confirming my belief by what the text says.

No problem.

 

[gb93433]

Only in part is this true; but not entirely. As the letter progresses we find out that he is addressing primarily the elect lady. That is not made entirely clear until verses 4 and 5. The first verse says plainly:

2 John 1:1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not I only, but also all they that know the truth;
--Thus the greeting includes the children, and is not just to the lady.

Your allegorization is doctrinally wrong. I will state it again. If there is nothing in the context to take the passage in a figurative way, then always interpret it literally. It deserves a literal interpretation, for you have no precedent to read into this epistle the things that are not there.
Church is not in this epistle. It is adding to the Word of God.
"The lady is a church" Wrong! The lady is a lady!!
I have never met a lady yet, that looked like a church.
Where do you get such garbage?
"The children are 'ITS' believers" Wrong!
The children are not "its"; the children are the children of the lady, though I am sure they are believers as well.

Where did I mention "its?" Where did that come from?

Again, why do you post such nonesense that cannot be found anywhere in this entire book?[/quote]
Repeating the same ignorance does nothing to convince anybody of anything except your ignorance.

You may want to learn how to reach people by taking a look at how Jesus dealt with people. When you can give me some substance (facts) then I wil take a serious lok at them. It seems as thoiugh you just have opinions are simply not addresssing the issues I raise in an intelligent way by discussing the actual text, its histoprical context and how John uses those words. Your opinions are just that--opinions.

If you are unwilling to accept what I point out in the text at least you could give a reason why I am wrong and show how I am wrong. The issue is not about allegory but about John's usage of those words. If he uses them as figures of speech or literal is not the issue. The issue is how he uses them. From looking at 1 & 3 John you would have to admit that John uses them figuratively. It is apparent that you are unwilling to see other examples of how John uses the words in 1 & 3 John where it is obvious. If you feel comfortable and lack the humility to take a serious look at the Greek text then just admit it.

I will ask it again. Did you actually read what I wrote? Take a look at 1 & 3 Jn

Chairos is not just a greeting. In fact it is used for joy more that Greeting. And it is used for "farewell" as well. It is just as much as a farewell as a greeting, as are othere such words in other languages (aloha being one such example).

Don't waste our time so much. Learn how to use a concordance better so that you are able to learn how a word is actually used by the particular writer. For example if you try to determine an understanding of what salavation means in 1 Peter you would not just look up the word salvation and see how the entire Bible uses it. It is the same way with the word elder. Try looking up the usage of presbuteros and episkopos and then determione its meaning in the NT. Better yet look up the word for baptize in the entire Bible and then try and give the true meaning by using an OT meaning.

Did you know that Finnish is another example of a greeting and farewell too?

In fact, this word for greeting, chairos is used 74 times in the NT. Only 3 times it is translated "Greetings," and 5 more times "hail," the only other form of greeting given in these 74 occurences of this word. It does have the translation of both "God speed," and "farewell." But 42 times the translation is "rejoice," its primary meaning. In this you err in your research.

So some study and quit giving us your ignorance and stating it as fact.

Chairos is not a greeting or a farewll. In fact it is not used anywhere. Quit wasting our time and do some. It is obvious that you did not study the Greek text to make such an errooneous statement. The greeting is an infinitive. Obviously you do not understand the form of a letter during that time. So I understand why you wrote what you did.

The fact that the pronoun indicates nothing of the such. True, he is writing to the lady. The fact that the pronoun is in the plural means nothing, or gives no reason for allegorization. It could simply indicate "the lady (and children)" or "the lady (and her household)," etc. We don't know who all is included in the "you." There is no reason to assume an allegorical "church." Besides that you have sunk your own ship going against your own argument. Church is a singular noun. "The church is known as a lighthouse in the community." It takes a singular verb--"is". It is not plural.

You make no sense. You write like you are all mixed up.

I wrote "The subject in 2 Jn 10 is tis and it is singular. The sentence is a first class conditional sentence too.

The third word in 2 Jn 12 is a plural dative. John has much to write to (you, plural, vs.12) who is the the elect lady (from vs.1, singular)

You is the believers--children (plural) who make up the church--elect lady (singular)."


Which pronoun are making reference to?

 

[D28guy]

Gb,

You said...

I agree, but I do not see any evidence of women as overseers/pastors."

And Standing Firm added,

"Actually there were not women leaders in the early Church according the the Word of God.

There were women who ministered, but they certainly were not leaders."

Here is some enlightening information for you all, from the word of God, of course...

WOMEN AS MINISTERS

How does all of this lead up to women ministers? Perhaps you are thinking that although we have laid a biblical foundation for "neither male nor female" in Christ, certain verses in the New Testament still seem to ban women from ministry positions in the church.

Let's examine these verses for the true interpretation.

"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" (1 Corinthians 14:34).

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Timothy 2:11-12).

In these verses, Paul cannot be addressing women who were in the ministry, but rather those in the congregation who were out of order. How do we know this? We have many such proofs, many from Paul himself. Here is a partial list of women who were all in influential positions of leadership in the early church.

Pheobe (Romans 16:1-2):

This woman was a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea, who was beloved of Paul and many other Christians for the help she gave to them. She filled an important position of leadership. It would be a difficult stretch of the imagination to say that this woman fulfilled her duties without ever speaking in the church!

Priscilla (Acts 18:26):

Priscilla and her husband Aquila are often mentioned with great respect by Paul. Together they were pastors of a church in Ephesus, and were responsible for teaching the full gospel to Apollos. We are informed that they both taught Apollos, and pastored the church together. In fact, Priscilla is sometimes listed ahead of Aquila when their names come up. This has led some to speculate that of the two, she was the primary teacher and her husband oversaw the ministry.

At any rate, we see here a woman in a very prominent position of teaching and pastoring. (Other references to Priscilla and Aquila are Acts 18:2, 18; Romans 16:3, and I Corinthians 16:19).

Euodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4:2-3):

Here we see reference to two women who were "true yokefellow" and who labored with Paul in the advancement of the gospel.

Junia (Romans 16:7):

In this verse we see Paul sending greetings to Andronicus and Junia, his "fellow-prisoners" who are of note among the apostles. Junia is a woman's name. In some modern translations, an "s" has been added (Junias) because the translators were so sure a woman could not be an apostle, that they assumed a copyist has accidentally dropped the "s." However the proper male ending would have been "ius," not "ias." No church commentator earlier than the Middle Ages questioned that Junia was both a woman and an apostle.

Though there were other women throughout the Bible in positions of leadership, such as prophetesses, evangelists, judges, leaders, etc., the above references should be enough to establish that women were indeed a vital and normal part of church leadership.

Paul expected women to speak in the church, or else why would he have given the following directive? It would have been useless to give directions for women who were speaking in the church, if they were never allowed to do so.

1 Corinthians 11:5, "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."

Furthermore, if Paul believed that all women should never teach or speak in church, why does he commend many women who did just that?

Women have always been active in public ministry. On the pages of the New Testament we find mention of many who filled positions of leadership in the first century church.

Acts 2:19 mentions the four virgin daughters of Philip the evangelist as prophetesses who lived in his home at Caesarea, where Paul and his associates visited during his third missionary journey. Priscilla, or Prisca, and her husband Aquilla, were known as fellow-laborers in Christ with the apostle Paul. Their expertise as teachers enabled them to explain the way of God more accurately to Apollos of Alexandria, another important leader of the early church (Acts 18:25-26).


Another associate of Paul's, Lydia, a seller of purple dye, opened her home for ministry (Acts 16:40), as did many other Christian women in the Roman empire, including the "elect lady" to whom John addressed his second epistle. Close examination of 2 John would suggest that she was functioning in a pastoral capacity, as would also have been the case for Lydia (Acts 16:40)(Acts 16:40), Nympha (Colossians 4:15), and Chloe (I Corinthians 1:11). Phoebe was a leader of the Church at Cenchrea.

In Romans 16:1,2, Paul commanded the members of the church at Rome to receive her as such, and to help her in whatever manner she requested.

Paul also mentions that Andronicus and Junia were outstanding among the apostles (Romans 16:7), and there is little doubt that Junia was a feminine name.

Both John Chrysostom and Jerome made reference to her as a woman apostle, and no commentator referred to her as a man until the late thirteenth century.

God bless,

Mike

http://bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=141

 

[gb93433]

Here is some enlightening information for you all, from the word of God, of course...

http://bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=141

I agree with everything you wrote. I believe that godly women had places of service that served the church well and should never be discounted. I do not see any place where a woman was a pastor though.

 

[DHK]

Here is some enlightening information for you all, from the word of God, of course...God bless,

Mike

http://bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=141

It is not from the Word of God at all. It is from that biased website which takes Scripture out of context. Read on in the same site, and we come to this paragraph:

God has used many modern day women in His service as well as women spoken of in the Bible. Madame Guyon, Catherine Booth, Jessie Penn-Lewis, Aimee Semple McPherson, Corrie Ten Boom and Kathryn Kuhlman are only a few of the women on the list of great five-fold ministry gifts to the church. What are those gifts and that ministry? "And His gifts were (varied; He Himself appointed and gave men to us,) some to be apostles (special messengers), some prophets (inspired preachers and expounders), some evangelists (preachers of the Gospel, traveling missionaries), some pastors (shepherds of His flock) and teachers'' (Ephesians 4:11, Amplified Bible.).

Aimee Semple McPherson? Kathryn Khulman? What do you know about these peoples' theology? I believe that what they taught was very heretical, and being women they ought not to be teachers at all, of course--not according to the Scriptures. But that site disregards the Scriptures; it takes it out of context.

 

[DHK]

From the same site--teaching that God the Father is both feminine and masculine:

God has both a masculine and feminine nature. The mother heart of Jesus was evident as he prayed over Jerusalem. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Matthew 23:37).
Submission is considered to be a feminine trait. However, Jesus submitted to the cross under the direction of the Father. If we walk in the Spirit, we too will possess both the masculine aggressiveness and feminine submissiveness of God.

This is heresy folks. God the Father is not a woman, and has no feminine traits as such.

 

[D28guy]

GB,

"I agree with everything you wrote. I believe that godly women had places of service that served the church well and should never be discounted."

I agree completly, but not just places of service, but leadership roles.

"I do not see any place where a woman was a pastor though."

From the posted evidence I shared...and there are other sources as well...there is a very distinct possibility that Junia, Phoebe, Priscilla, and of course the "elect Lady" of the 2nd John church were all in pastoral positions. CLEARLY they were in leadership. Possibly pastors or overseers. Given that fact, its very doubtfull they were the only ones. There were probably many.

I have been a part of an evangelical fellowhip in the past where the husband and wife were co-pastors. Not meaning that the wife ministered to the women and children. No. They were both fully co-pastors. She was my pastor as much as the husband was. And she was very good in that role, as was her husband.

Mike

 

[D28guy]

DHK,

"This is heresy folks. God the Father is not a woman,..."

Needless to say...the writer of the material never said God was a woman. You have just slandered the author.

"...and has no feminine traits as such."

You've got to be kidding. You cant possibly be serious. I'm stunned.

DHK...

ALMIGHTY GOD THE FATHER, the CREATOR of every MAN who has ever lived, and EVERY WOMAN who has ever lived, is not a specifically masculine person or specifically a feminine person. He is GOD. He is the Alpha and the Omega. The Beginning and the End.

He is 100% GOD, and has has the total, complete, absolute, all encompassing and thoroughly perfect understanding of not only the masculinity of men, and the femininity of women, but also the nature of amphibians, fish, birds, dogs, lizards, cats, ants, doves, worms, and every other form of life imaginable. He has the total and complete understanding of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE.

To even SUGGEST...as you have done here, that...

"God the Father is not a woman, and has no feminine traits as such."

...is so unimaginably ABSURD and utterly RIDICULOUS, that I just am almost speechless.

This is just breathtaking.

Stunned,

Mike

 

[DHK]

Where did I mention "its?" Where did that come from?

From your own post: #208

The lady is a church and the children are its believers.

It's your quote.

"Again, why do you post such nonesense that cannot be found anywhere in this entire book?"

Repeating the same ignorance does nothing to convince anybody of anything except your ignorance.

Calling my research and Biblical exposition "ignorance" does nothing for you. I have done some extensive study here. I have spent years of study in these epistles, and teaching them to others.

You may want to learn how to reach people by taking a look at how Jesus dealt with people. When you can give me some substance (facts) then I wil take a serious lok at them. It seems as thoiugh you just have opinions are simply not addresssing the issues I raise in an intelligent way by discussing the actual text, its histoprical context and how John uses those words. Your opinions are just that--opinions.

I have given you plenty of substance. I get the idea that you reject: facts, historical context, immediate context, word usage, etc., all because of one command that doesn't suit your lifestyle. That really sums it up. It is "I don't like the command, so I will find another way to interpret the book" attitude. Pitiful!

I have given you cultural context that you don't even understand, even though I have repeated it more than once. Why don't you understand it? Because you can't picture it in your mind. You have never been outside of America. You don't know what a house looks like in that part of the world, and would thus look like in the time of Christ. You try to force your own culture into the time of Christ. It doesn't work that way. You are the one that not only can't give historical context, but can't even understand historical context.

If you are unwilling to accept what I point out in the text at least you could give a reason why I am wrong and show how I am wrong. The issue is not about allegory but about John's usage of those words. If he uses them as figures of speech or literal is not the issue. The issue is how he uses them.

You have just demonstrated that your mind is made up and you will not even consider to look at this passage of Scripture objectively. You are unwilling to be taught. You don't want to know the truth. You just want to reject it; you don't like what it says.
Why? Look what you said again:

If he uses them as figures of speech or literal is not the issue. The issue is how he uses them.
--You see; your mind is made up. They are figures of speech. That even isn't an issue with you. One can't even question that so-called fact. To do so would be ridiculous with you. This discussion should come to an end now with that attitude, for it shows you will not listen to the other side. It tells us that there is no other interpretation but an allegorical one, and you will accept nothing less--even though that type of interpretation wasn't even heard of before the third century, and that by a heretic called Origen, and then popularized by another heretic called Augustine.

From looking at 1 & 3 John you would have to admit that John uses them figuratively. It is apparent that you are unwilling to see other examples of how John uses the words in 1 & 3 John where it is obvious. If you feel comfortable and lack the humility to take a serious look at the Greek text then just admit it.

I have already pointed out that your logic here is very flawed. I can take one gospel and show you the words of Jesus directed in two verses, both times directed to his disciples. In one verse he tells them:
"Allow the little children to come unto me.
In another verse he says:
Children, have ye any meat?

Two usages of the word "children" in the same book, directed to the same audience. Does the word mean the same in both cases? Why or why not?
The reason why not, is obvious. Context is different.
And that is the very reason that "children" of the elect lady gives such a different context than the children of the other two epistles. It is not an allegory. John never wrote an allegory. This is not Pilgrim's Progress that we are reading.

I will ask it again. Did you actually read what I wrote? Take a look at 1 & 3 Jn

3John, I am well acquainted with, and 1John I have memorized. I certainly don't have to take a special look just for you. I know what both books say.

Don't waste our time so much. Learn how to use a concordance better so that you are able to learn how a word is actually used by the particular writer. For example if you try to determine an understanding of what salavation means in 1 Peter you would not just look up the word salvation and see how the entire Bible uses it. It is the same way with the word elder. Try looking up the usage of presbuteros and episkopos and then determione its meaning in the NT. Better yet look up the word for baptize in the entire Bible and then try and give the true meaning by using an OT meaning.

Your insults are very demeaning and will only backfire on yourself. I gave you a lot of good information, and you rejected it. Maybe you had better learn to use the concordance.

The one that I used is:
The Greek-English Concordance
To the New Testament
(A Tabular and Statistical Greek-English Concordance based on the KJV with an English to Greek Index)
by J.B. Smith;
Introduction by Bruce M. Metzger, Princeton Theological Seminary.
Herald Press, Scottdale, Pennsylvania. 1974

I have reliable material and resources at my fingertips, a personal library of 2,000 plus books not counting what is on my computer hard drive and/or other cd's or software.

There is no need to throw around insulting language just because you can't verify my information in your Strong's concordance. I didn't use one because I didn't have to. I have other resources which are much better. In my Greek concordance I have every Greek word in the NT listed, its translation, its reference, and how many times it is used. That is why I could give you that information. I have the resources whereas you did not.

So some study and quit giving us your ignorance and stating it as fact.

Stop the false accusations. I quoted you facts from said book above. You don't like what the facts said.

Chairos is not a greeting or a farewll. In fact it is not used anywhere. Quit wasting our time and do some. It is obvious that you did not study the Greek text to make such an errooneous statement. The greeting is an infinitive. Obviously you do not understand the form of a letter during that time. So I understand why you wrote what you did.

Obviously you do not understand what I did. I used a Greek concordance. This same word is used 74 times in the NT. 42 of those times it is translated as "rejoice." Only 3 times is it translated as "Greetings" and twice is it translated "God speed." You don't have a case. Your remarks make you look ignorant as if you have done no study whatsoever. Shut up with the insults and put up some real facts.
I don't care for those that waste my time either.

You make no sense. You write like you are all mixed up.

I wrote "The subject in 2 Jn 10 is tis and it is singular. The sentence is a first class conditional sentence too.

2 John 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
ei tis "If any..." Yes that is the subject of the first part of this sentence, the conditional part of it.
After the word "doctrine" there could be an implied "then" but it is not required. The rest of the statement makes up the command. "Receive him not into your house..."
The implied subject of every command is "you".
YOU receive him not into your house. You will note that almost all these verbs are left in their infinitive forms. And finally in verse eleven it is plain that the "you" is singular, as directed to the lady. (he or one that biddeth).

The third word in 2 Jn 12 is a plural dative. John has much to write to (you, plural, vs.12) who is the the elect lady (from vs.1, singular)

2 John 1:12 Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.
Barnes writes:

But I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face. Marg., as in Greek, mouth to mouth. The phrase is a common one, to denote conversation with any one, especially free and confidential conversation

--Barnes takes the "you" as referring to the elect lady; I see no reason to disagree with him.

You is the believers--children (plural) who make up the church--elect lady (singular)."

Again, Barnes states that you refers to the elect lady.
Why should I believe you over him?
AT least he makes sense.

 

[DHK]

DHK,
Needless to say...the writer of the material never said God was a woman. You have just slandered the author.

You've got to be kidding. You cant possibly be serious. I'm stunned.

Why should you be so stunned.
Look at what he said:

"Submission is a feminine trait."
Jesus submitted himself to the Father.

Just what is the implication of this. It is terrible.

 

[queenbee]

In regards to women leaders

There is plenty of evidence that the early church utilized women in ministry....

Almost every country outside of the U.S. has women deacons in Baptist churches.

QUOTE]


This is true - I have served as a deacon on several occasion; head of several major church committees with authority over men & women; assisted in worship services and in every church I have attended, women have played key roles within leaderhsip - everything from teaching to preaching and in between, some of them, much more effectively then men IMO.

 

[D28guy]

DHK,

""Submission is a feminine trait."
Jesus submitted himself to the Father.

Just what is the implication of this. It is terrible."

DHK, I would like you to answer a question for me.

This is a quote from the scriptures...

"Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a mother hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would not."

DHK...

Here is the question:

Who said that?

Mike