Women deacons

[HeirofSalvation]

Did they make a mistake when they gave the qualifications for a deacon? I think not. No way the liberals can get around that one scripturally. It's the fact that there are qualifications that make it an office, not the transliteration. Just like the bishop has qualifications and is called an office by more than just the KJV. It's common sense, sheesh. Nowhere in the bible does it call communion and baptism ordinances, but that does not mean they are not. It's the qualifications that make the difference.

Correct....but, the opposition refuses to address the context: Instead they will insist on debating the term "use the office of"...who cares?

They will not reasonably address your argument about what the Scriptures clearly teach are the list of qualifications...instead they will merely call you a dinosaur who despises "equality" or some other non-quantifiable term...

You hate "equality" Bron...that's the argument :sleep:

 

[michael-acts17:11]

It's the Hillary response. What does it matter? Of course it matters. If you could present the Greek word for "office" in the the text, you would. But you cannot, because it isn't there. I believe ANY & EVERY addition to the Word of God is an error. I am surprised at the willingness to dismiss changes to the text just because it conforms to modern tradition. I doubt you would so nonchalantly disregard additions to the Word by Catholicism or Mormonism.

If we believe in a word for word translation of the Bible, then let's not vary from that interpretational method just because it appeals to our own theology.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Correct....but, the opposition refuses to address the context: Instead they will insist on debating the term "use the office of"...who cares?

They will not reasonably address your argument about what the Scriptures clearly teach are the list of qualifications...instead they will merely call you a dinosaur who despises "equality" or some other non-quantifiable term...

You hate "equality" Bron...that's the argument :sleep:

Without the added text, the "office" is nonexistent. It is a state of being, not a formal position within a hierarchical religion. That is the liberal world's methodology. God's way is always best. Even when it contradicts our human reasoning. I'll stick with the real text, you can keep your translator-added doctrine.

Where did the "equality" comment come from? It has nothing to do with equality, it's about fidelity to the text of Scripture.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

It's the Hillary response. What does it matter? Of course it matters. If you could present the Greek word for "office" in the the text, you would.

When you explain to us how the word "office" is so sublimley critical...I'll address the word "office". Until then, why not argue the context of the qualifications for the "office" or the "play-ground" or the "cruise-ship" or whatever. Point is...I don't care what the word is...because it is simply irrelevant to THIS particular discussion. This passage of Scripture outlines the list of qualifications...explain how a woman satisfies those conditions...and you may claim whatever translation you want!!!!

I realize that I am an illiterate knuckle-dragging woman-hating Neanderthal...so, this is an easy debate for you to win...only I am an illiterate knuckle-dragging woman-hating (and misogonystic) Neanderthal...who will call you on a complete red-herring when you pose it.

This is a "red-herring" sir...and you enlightened sorts should know when one sees through it and I am sure you have numerous defeaters for our obvious errors...now...use them.

This passage gives a list of qualifications....they are listed long after your particular preference for how we translate "office"...just translate it as "limburger cheese" for all it matters.
No one will bite on your red-herring. You merely doubled-down on it.
Knuckle-dragging un-enlightened Neanderthal ISN'T BITING GET IT!!

But you cannot, because it isn't there.

No one is really bothering to argue what you prefer to translate your irrelevant word as...because it doesn't matter. You know it doesn't matter....you refuse to accept that Neanderthal also understands this....so, again he isn't biting. You have to create a new line of argument...because yours is irrelevant.

I believe ANY & EVERY addition to the Word of God is an error.

:applause::applause: Good for you...you take the old-school hard-core approach

I am surprised at the willingness to dismiss changes to the text just because it conforms to modern tradition.

I want you to listen to yourself for a second...you said that we are wanting to conform the text to "MODERN TRADITION"....Yes...you accuse the KJV translators of misusing the text...and us for defending simultaneously...a "MODERN" tradition.......because, as we all know...those of us who hate women's suffrage and refuse to accept the "equality" of women and who "subjugate" them are the post-modernists?? Is that your claim??? seriously, answer that. And you are following what, a classic approach??what??? the "old-school" fundamental traditionalist??? Is that how you paint yourself???

Dude... you are insulting our intelligence... you are semi rhetorically gifted...but so was Abraham Lincoln, and as H.L. Mencken said: The Gettysburgh address was "Rhetoric not logic, it was poetry, not reason"....Such is your post. You won't sneak these fast ones past this retarded knuckle-dragging Neanderthal. I realize that you think that everyone who disagrees with you is too stupid to see past your obvious misconstruals and dis-honest debate tactics...but some pot-smoking hippie professor of yours should have told you to be aware of knuckle-dragging morons who are WAY to smart to fall for the crap (and yes, your tactics are sheer crap so far) you are pulling now.

I doubt you would so nonchalantly disregard additions to the Word by Catholicism or Mormonism.

1.) "additions" are not what you are arguing, you are arguing mistranslations....not "additions" you just conjured this out of whole-cloth for sheerly rhetorical reasons.

2.) We are now debating "Mormonism".... Seriously..do you listen to yourself???
3.) Maybe you don't know what a "red-herring" is....I do....and this is it. The sum-total of all your arguments are "red-herrings"...look it up, and stop doing it, because...like finicky and over-fed fishes............we aren't biting on them. You need to use a different lure. Try a shinier color...we might be stupid enough to bite on a shinier color lure, you never know right??

You have done nothing but insult intelligence. Just debate the exegesis of the qualifications as listed by Paul in his letter to Timothy...THAT'S the debate...and we don't care to chase your passion for the proper translation of "office" you may translate it as "dog-vomit" for all we care...translate it as "dog-vomit"...Paul is still saying that...."there will be no chick deacons" do we understand one another now??

 

[michael-acts17:11]

When you explain to us how the word "office" is so sublimley critical...I'll address the word "office". Until then, why not argue the context of the qualifications for the "office" or the "play-ground" or the "cruise-ship" or whatever. Point is...I don't care what the word is...because it is simply irrelevant to THIS particular discussion. This passage of Scripture outlines the list of qualifications...explain how a woman satisfies those conditions...and you may claim whatever translation you want!!!!

I realize that I am an illiterate knuckle-dragging woman-hating Neanderthal...so, this is an easy debate for you to win...only I am an illiterate knuckle-dragging woman-hating (and misogonystic) Neanderthal...who will call you on a complete red-herring when you pose it.

This is a "red-herring" sir...and you enlightened sorts should know when one sees through it and I am sure you have numerous defeaters for our obvious errors...now...use them.

This passage gives a list of qualifications....they are listed long after your particular preference for how we translate "office"...just translate it as "limburger cheese" for all it matters.
No one will bite on your red-herring. You merely doubled-down on it.
Knuckle-dragging un-enlightened Neanderthal ISN'T BITING GET IT!!


No one is really bothering to argue what you prefer to translate your irrelevant word as...because it doesn't matter. You know it doesn't matter....you refuse to accept that Neanderthal also understands this....so, again he isn't biting. You have to create a new line of argument...because yours is irrelevant.


:applause::applause: Good for you...you take the old-school hard-core approach


I want you to listen to yourself for a second...you said that we are wanting to conform the text to "MODERN TRADITION"....Yes...you accuse the KJV translators of misusing the text...and us for defending simultaneously...a "MODERN" tradition.......because, as we all know...those of us who hate women's suffrage and refuse to accept the "equality" of women and who "subjugate" them are the post-modernists?? Is that your claim??? seriously, answer that. And you are following what, a classic approach??what??? the "old-school" fundamental traditionalist??? Is that how you paint yourself???

Dude... you are insulting our intelligence... you are semi rhetorically gifted...but so was Abraham Lincoln, and as H.L. Mencken said: The Gettysburgh address was "Rhetoric not logic, it was poetry, not reason"....Such is your post. You won't sneak these fast ones past this retarded knuckle-dragging Neanderthal. I realize that you think that everyone who disagrees with you is too stupid to see past your obvious misconstruals and dis-honest debate tactics...but some pot-smoking hippie professor of yours should have told you to be aware of knuckle-dragging morons who are WAY to smart to fall for the crap (and yes, your tactics are sheer crap so far) you are pulling now.


1.) "additions" are not what you are arguing, you are arguing mistranslations....not "additions" you just conjured this out of whole-cloth for sheerly rhetorical reasons.

2.) We are now debating "Mormonism".... Seriously..do you listen to yourself???
3.) Maybe you don't know what a "red-herring" is....I do....and this is it. The sum-total of all your arguments are "red-herrings"...look it up, and stop doing it, because...like finicky and over-fed fishes............we aren't biting on them. You need to use a different lure. Try a shinier color...we might be stupid enough to bite on a shinier color lure, you never know right??

You have done nothing but insult intelligence. Just debate the exegesis of the qualifications as listed by Paul in his letter to Timothy...THAT'S the debate...and we don't care to chase your passion for the proper translation of "office" you may translate it as "dog-vomit" for all we care...translate it as "dog-vomit"...Paul is still saying that...."there will be no chick deacons" do we understand one another now??

What is the deal with all the "women's suffrage" "pot-smoking hippie professor" nonsense? Seriously! We're not talking about women having authority in the Church. This is about men & women serving the Church. It is you who keeps throwing out nonsensical red-herrings of equality & suffrage. Like liberals, when you can't debate the issue, you resort to unfounded personal attacks.

There are women servants in the church. The word διάκονος, which the Holy Spirit used to describe Phebe, is same word used in 1 Timothy 3:8. It is not describing a position of authority over men, but one of servitude to others. Why can't you understand that? Let me say it slower for you. It...is...not...a...position...of...authority...in...the...Church. It...is...a...position...of...service...to...the...Church. If I were arguing for women preachers, then your statements of "equality" & "suffrage" might apply. But as it stands, they are ridiculous & unwarranted attacks with no basis in reality. In fact, you are playing the liberal when you launch foolish personal attacks.

Your approach kinda reminds me of Bob Beckel when he can't respond to a conservative's question based solely on the issue being discussed. "Oh yeah, well you're just a rightwing nut"! Sounds a lot like your, "Oh yeah, your just an equal rights, pot smoking hippie professor type liberal" nonsense. Perhaps you should listen to yourself before making such juvenile attacks.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

What is the deal with all the "women's suffrage" "pot-smoking hippie professor" nonsense? Seriously! We're not talking about women having authority in the Church. This is about men & women serving the Church. It is you who keeps throwing out nonsensical red-herrings of equality & suffrage. Like liberals, when you can't debate the issue, you resort to unfounded personal attacks.

No one has said anything about you personally.

There are women servants in the church

DUH

The word διάκονος, which the Holy Spirit used to describe Phebe,

The "Holy Spirit" didn't have to work so hard at it...it was mostly Paul's doing...God allowed it, either through the influence of the Holy Spirit, or not possibly...Perhaps, God allowed Paul to utilize as an apostle the wisdom he had already gained, and there was no need for input from the Spirit at all.....But, you obviously sound more pious to yourself if you invoke the backing of a member of the God-head...so...O.k. you sound more authoritative here ...oh...and I'm also falling for it too.

If I were arguing for women preachers, then your statements of "equality" & "suffrage" might apply. But as it stands, they are ridiculous & unwarranted attacks with no basis in reality. In fact, you are playing the liberal when you launch foolish personal attacks.

I'm not arguing "women preachers" I haven't mentioned "women preachers" that isn't the thread......and "equality" came from a previous post....re-read the thread. I didn't mention it first. "Equality" was hurled out by someone else initially... not me...........and again....nothing was "personal" you are crying too much. No one "personally" "attacked" you...grow up.

Yo

ur approach kinda reminds me of Bob Beckel when he can't respond to a conservative's question based solely on the issue being discussed. "Oh yeah, well you're just a rightwing nut"!

Bob Beckel is WAY more gifted at this game than you are...don't try to play it...he has had at least 35 years of practice at it....You insult him by invoking him...Even Alan Colmes pulls this off better than you do. You invoke them poorly.

Sounds a lot like your, "Oh yeah, your just an equal rights, pot smoking hippie professor type liberal" nonsense

.
I never said any such thing...I never suggested that to you at all re-read the post... I did not suggest that YOU were any such thing. Try again before you whine to the officials to throw a flag.

Perhaps you should listen to yourself before making such juvenile attacks.

No one attacked you personally. No one called you what you believe you were called. I can't fix poor reading comprehension....read my post again.

 

[Bronconagurski]

Correct....but, the opposition refuses to address the context: Instead they will insist on debating the term "use the office of"...who cares?

They will not reasonably address your argument about what the Scriptures clearly teach are the list of qualifications...instead they will merely call you a dinosaur who despises "equality" or some other non-quantifiable term...

You hate "equality" Bron...that's the argument :sleep:

I know, it's a crying shame that I hate equality so much, HOS. But the real truth is equal status, different functions, just like the Godhead. It has worked in our family for almost 29 years and I don't see any reason to change, especially not when it includes compromise for the sake of political correctness. Romans 12: 1-2 and Psalms 1: 1-2 are still in the bible. Honoring God's word and order of things has brought blessings to this family and brought us thru the fiery trials.

 

[OldRegular]

He didn't call any Gentiles, either.

God called a Gentile to write part of the New Testament.

Should only Jewish men be allowed?

You are reaching the silly stage now.

Let's think about this, people. These writings were to a specific people in a specific cultural context. Without taking that into account, we're handicapping ourselves here.

"Culture" has become the canned excuse for those who want to question Scripture. The simple truth is that deacons are to be the husband of one wife. Now I realize that the left is pushing homosexual lifestyle and marriage as an acceptable lifestyle but that acceptance does not apply to the word of God.

God calls women and men alike to all functions in ministry.

That is simply false!

And it's the same in marriage. Mutual submission is the salient principle.

Ephesians 5:22-33
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.
25. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26. That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27. That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Now I don't see mutual submission in the above passage. If you thoughtfully read the chapter you will see that Verse 21 refers to the previous 20 verses and is not talking about mutual submission of husband an wife.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I said I would not post in this thread again, but I want to post this important link; it shows that my hero, Thomas Helwys, and the first Baptists in England, the General Baptists, supported women as deacons:

http://www.baptisthistory.org/contissues/deweese3.htm

 

[annsni]

I said I would not post in this thread again, but I want to post this important link; it shows that my hero, Thomas Helwys, and the first Baptists in England, the General Baptists, supported women as deacons:

http://www.baptisthistory.org/contissues/deweese3.htm

And? They were wrong Biblically. End of story.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

And? They were wrong Biblically. End of story.

It has been shown that they were not wrong Biblically.

And since you are not God.... yes, end of story.

 

[annsni]

It has been shown that they were not wrong Biblically.

Oh really? I haven't seen it. I HAVE seen the Scripture:

"Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. " 1 Timothy 3:12

Kind of hard to put a woman in that qualification. So since Scripture is really quite crystal clear.....

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Oh really? I haven't seen it. I HAVE seen the Scripture:

"Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. " 1 Timothy 3:12

Kind of hard to put a woman in that qualification. So since Scripture is really quite crystal clear.....

Oh really? You have been given many scriptural passages which contradict your interpretation, and the passage you quote has been explained also, showing that it does not mean what you claim it does. But since all of this tears glaring holes in your unbiblical subjugation of women, you attempt to ignore it.

 

[annsni]

Oh really? You have been given many scriptural passages which contradict your interpretation, and the passage you quote has been explained also, showing that it does not mean what you claim it does. But since all of this tears glaring holes in your unbiblical subjugation of women, you attempt to ignore it.

Which posts?

And make sure you are dealing with verse 12. The one that says "Let deacons each be the husband of one wife" and tell me how a woman can fit that qualification.

 

[OldRegular]

Oh really? You have been given many scriptural passages which contradict your interpretation, and the passage you quote has been explained also, showing that it does not mean what you claim it does. But since all of this tears glaring holes in your unbiblical subjugation of women, you attempt to ignore it.

You have shown nothing from Scripture that contradicts the requirements for a deacon from 1 Timothy 3:12 and you cannot! There are no Scriptural passages that contradict 1 Timothy 3:12. You may be able to present various interpretations of some other passage of Scripture in an attempt to prove your argument but 1 Timothy 3:12 says what it says!

 

[Bronconagurski]

It has been shown that they were not wrong Biblically.

And since you are not God.... yes, end of story.

No, Thomas, no offense, but it has been shown that the qualifications for deacon have to be for a man only. Period. You can rebel, you can protest, but you have not a leg to stand on biblically.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Which posts?

And make sure you are dealing with verse 12. The one that says "Let deacons each be the husband of one wife" and tell me how a woman can fit that qualification.

Go back and read the thread. I'm not going to do it for you.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

You have shown nothing from Scripture that contradicts the requirements for a deacon from 1 Timothy 3:12 and you cannot! There are no Scriptural passages that contradict 1 Timothy 3:12. You may be able to present various interpretations of some other passage of Scripture in an attempt to prove your argument but 1 Timothy 3:12 says what it says!

You must not have read the entire thread, either.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

No, Thomas, no offense, but it has been shown that the qualifications for deacon have to be for a man only. Period. You can rebel, you can protest, but you have not a leg to stand on biblically.

I was going to tell you to go back and read the thread, too, but no use. You who believe this way will just ignore any contrary evidence.

No offense taken, by the way.

You, annsi, and OR have a right to be wrong, and as a Baptist I'm happy that you're exercising it.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Look to me like many of you think that the only gifts that women have access to are teaching other women, or children, cooking church suppers, and cleaning up afterward.