Female Bishops?

[jasoncran]

yup, apples and oranges.teaching and leading aren the same office.
reba is mod, but she doesnt teach her does she?

sometimes she does.

 

[Asyncritus]

So what is the real argument? The other lie to nail is that people who “believe in the Bible” or who “take it literally” will oppose women’s ordination. Rubbish. Yes, I Timothy ii is usually taken as refusing to allow women to teach men. But serious scholars disagree on the actual meaning, as the key Greek words occur nowhere else. That, in any case, is not where to start.

[If there is so much doubt, as he is suggesting, then his argument is worthless, one way or the other, and should be disregarded].

All Christian ministry begins with the announcement that Jesus has been raised from the dead. And Jesus entrusted that task, first of all, not to Peter, James, or John, but to Mary Magdalene.

[And that single fact is the basis for this enormous edifice he is now going to build on those shaky foundations. What extraordinary logic! What a foolish position to adopt!]

Part of the point of the new creation launched at Easter was the transformation of roles and vocations: from Jews-only to worldwide, from monoglot to multilingual (think of Pentecost), and from male-only leadership to male and female together.

He has clearly failed to observe that at Pentecost, it was the male apostles who did the speaking, and who usually got their heads handed to them in one way or another.

This is typical theological twisting. On a tiny little fact,a huge edifice is going to be constructed, which bears little resemblance to the reality of the situation which actually existed and which came to exist.

Within a few decades, Paul was sending greetings to friends including an “apostle” called Junia (Romans xvi, 7).

What utter nonsense. This casts discredit, as if more were needed, on his whole tissue of fabrication. Look at these translations. See anything common to them all?

7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.AV

7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.ESV

7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow countrymen and fellow prisoners. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were also in Christ before me. HCSB

7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.NKJV

7 A warm greeting, too, for Andronicus and Junias my fellow-countrymen and fellow-prisoners; they are outstanding men among the messengers and were Christians before I was.JBP

7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.RSV

7 and to Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen, who once shared my imprisonment. They are of note among the Apostles, and are Christians of longer standing than myself.
WEY

So he has to resort to lies to support his case. Not good.

He entrusted that letter to a “deacon” called Phoebe whose work was taking her to Rome.

More lies. Here are the translations in full, please note. Notice anything MISSING from ALL the translations after the AV?

Romans 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
Romans 16:27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. « Written to the Romans from Corinthus, and sent by Phebe servant of the church at Cenchrea. »AV

Romans 16:1 ¶ I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae,
Romans 16:27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.ESV

Rm 16:1 ¶ I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church in Cenchreae.
Rm 16:27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ--to Him be the glory forever! Amen.HCSB

Romans 16:1 ¶ Be sure to welcome our friend Phoebe in the way of the Master, with all the generous hospitality we Christians are famous for. I heartily endorse both her and her work. She’s a key representative of the church at Cenchrea.
Romans 16:27 All our praise is focused through Jesus on this incomparably wise God! Yes! MSG

Romans 16:1 ¶ I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea,
Romans 16:27 to God, alone wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.NKJV

Romans 16:1 ¶ I WANT this letter to introduce to you Phoebe, our sister, a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea.
Romans 16:27 to him, I say, the God who alone is wise, be glory for ever through Jesus Christ, amen! JBP

Romans 16:1 ¶ I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchreae,
Romans 16:27 to the only wise God be glory for evermore through Jesus Christ! Amen. RSV

Romans 16:1 ¶ Herewith I introduce our sister Phoebe to you, who is a servant of the Church at Cenchreae,
Romans 16:27 to God, the only wise, through Jesus Christ, even to Him be the glory through all the Ages! Amen. WEY

Romans 16:1 ¶ And I commend you to Phebe our sister — being a ministrant of the assembly that is in Cenchrea —
Romans 16:27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to him be glory to the ages. Amen. YLT

Yes, the letter-bearing bit is omitted from all of them.

Now Wright, being a 'bishop', a 'scholar' of some sort, should have known that they ALL omit those words. (Clearly he doesn't expect yours truly and others like him, to check his sources).

So whether Paul did send the letter by Phebe's hand is completely uncertain, and no case can be made for it in fact.

Wright knew this perfectly well, and chose to lie about it.

Says a lot for his integrity, and the poor quality of the case he presents.

So all this now following, is utter tripe and a complete fabrication.

The letter-bearer would normally be the one to read it out to the recipients and explain its contents. The first expositor of Paul’s greatest letter was an ordained travelling businesswoman.

Note how he slimily slips in the word 'ordained' - casually and with no support into the statement. Trying very hard to create the impression that she was some sort of 'priest' or whatever else fancy dictates.

The resurrection of Jesus is the only Christian guide to the question of where history is going. Unlike the ambiguous “progress” of the Enlightenment, it is full of promise — especially the promise of transformed gender roles.

There. Isn't that an amazingly vast conclusion to be drawn from a single, solitary, fact? I say it is - and the consequences he wishes to present, are equally unsound, and with very little basis indeed, as shown above.

The promise of new creation, symbolised by the role of Mary Magdalene in the Easter stories, is the reality.

Tripe.

I politely suggest that this is merely another mealy-mouthed theologian, about whom I have warned countless times, being mealy-mouthed again.

The church of England stands for nothing that I can discern.

Wright, as a leader, a high-ranking bishop or whatever, has no leg to stand on, since the NT says nothing about the existence of the unbelievable, enormous church hierarchy we see today, and of which Wright is merely another paid lackey.

He has no moral leg to stand on, and very little authority behind his obfuscations of the very clear NT teaching about the position of women in the church.

Worse, the NT says absolutely nothing about the existence of priests, (it does use the word bishop, but decidedly not with the same meaning as today's term), archbishops and the whole edifice which totters along under the name Christianity, with which it has little or no connection.

He should not hold any such position in the church, since there is no semblance of reason for the existence of 'bishops', parading round in their 'holy vestments', expensive cathedrals on the largest land-holdings in the United Kingdom, golden altars and all the accoutrements which have no scripturally justifiable place in the worship of the saints in Christ.

And if he should not be in that position, which should not exist, then all his pontifications are in vain, and irrelevant.

The question isn't whether there should be women 'bishops', it is whether there should be 'bishops' at all.

The question should also be asked whether there should be 'priests' at all, never mind 'women priests'.

When those questions have been answered, then perhaps the discussion can proceed intelligently.

I politely suggest that as long as we fail to scripture as the story of an evolving, transformative project of redemption, we will continue to fall into the trap of imagining that the Bible is a collection of timeless truths. Its not that simple, even though many stumble over this issue, making errors like the following:

Imagining?

With all due respect Drew, this is possibly the worst statement of yours I have ever read.

By saying this, you open the door to anything. Anything goes - and who shall say nay?

When the scriptural foundations are removed, then where shall we go? Is there any authority left anywhere?

If we have a slimy, slippery, undefinable, evolving, transformative, 'truth' - ugh! -then is there anything left that should be considered right or wrong? Is there any such thing as 'truth'?

There won't be. After all:

Ps 11.3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

And here are you, undermining those very foundations. In the name of what, I ask you?

Political correctness?

 

[Martin Luther]

Not a good idea.

 

[Drew]

Drew,
This is not simply about allowing a woman to teach a man. It is about the role of the man in a leadership role as Bishop within the church. Nobody said a woman can't teach... Actually, I can show a handful of passages that show women teaching.

But Wright's argument is more general - he makes the case that men and women are equally qualified to serve in any position of leadership.

 

[Drew]

[If there is so much doubt, as he is suggesting, then his argument is worthless, one way or the other, and should be disregarded].

It is hard for me to believe you really believe this is a valid criticism of Wright's point.

Wright is asserting that the meaning of what is there in the 1 Timothy text is under debate by serious scholars.

Instead of dismissing the argument, are you prepared to actually deal with it? Are you challenging the assertion that serious scholars disagree about the text in question?

 

[Drew]

Not a good idea.

Please explain why. And please do not ignore the argument in post 92.

 

[farouk]

What about the discussion of headship in 1 Corinthians 11: men, women, Christ, God (the head of Christ is God, etc.)?

 

[Drew]

So he has to resort to lies to support his case. Not good.

Oh not this low-brow stuff again........

I am quite confident that I will be able to show that your arguments that this respected scholar is lying do not have a shred of merit.

 

[Kaliani]

I take your bunny hoping around the matter in conjunction with not specifically replying to my original response as a means of trolling.

And yet, I merely didn't want to seem like I was challenging your reply in any way since I AGREE with it.

Might I humbly request, that is, if it is not too much to ask, that we not bunny hop to conclusions and bring out the dreaded T-word so easily?

 

[Grazer]

Oh not this low-brow stuff again........

I am quite confident that I will be able to show that your arguments that this respected scholar is lying do not have a shred of merit.

Please, go ahead. I don't think he is either.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Kaliani]

K:

So you're claiming that those who lead in the church can convincingly say: 'You must believe me when I say I have bent what God said, because of my hardness of heart" ?

Thanks to Jesus, precedents abound, as Jeff said, where one command outweighed another.

As Jeff said, it is a matter of discernment. Because even Satan can use scripture for his own evil ends.

Also, the issue is not 'bending what God said'. The issue is that 'God bent what HE said', temporarily.

 

[wayseer]

So what you're advocating is eisegesis rather than exegesis of what the New Testament says about the matter.

Re. your last sentence: Apples and oranges.

Both fruit - different colour.

Sometimes logic is useful.

 

[Aardverk]

Sure, and that's because they base their morality on feelings and opinions. While I understand your point, can you please tell me where I've failed to discern the matter in my last post? Was the content of my last post clear and articulate? Do more examples need to be expressed? Do you disagree with the examples or content in my last post?

Yes, I see now that it can be read as a cheap shot. I apologize.

As Kaliani has indicated, your 'tactic' of referring to trolling can also be seen as a cheap shot so we are both rightly reprimanded.

I will keep quiet now as there is a really interesting discussion going on. :seehearspeak

 

[Asyncritus]

[/COLOR]
It is hard for me to believe you really believe this is a valid criticism of Wright's point.

Wright is asserting that the meaning of what is there in the 1 Timothy text is under debate by serious scholars.

Instead of dismissing the argument, are you prepared to actually deal with it? Are you challenging the assertion that serious scholars disagree about the text in question?

There is no argument.

His summary is that serious scholars are disputing the meaning of the text in question.

Obviously, some are saying yea, and others are saying nay.

That being the case, then his opinion is of no consequence since others ('serious scholars'!)will definitely say he is wrong.

But the real hopelessness and unscripturality of his position is shown clearly by my comments on Phebe.

He has no case, and my points are irrefutable.

 

[Asyncritus]

Oh not this low-brow stuff again........

I am quite confident that I will be able to show that your arguments that this respected scholar is lying do not have a shred of merit.

Low-brow? Your bias is showing again!

It's the high-brows (how much higher than that ridiculous hat can you get? - And where's the NT support for such things? Jesus doesn't wear any - see Rev 1 for info on that)

who have put the Anglican church in the reprehensible low position it has reached.

Independent thought is my characteristic, and I will debate any scriptural topic scripturally with any high-brow you care to name. Why not email him and let him know he's under fire, and would he care to come here and defend his position?

No, he's probably too high and mighty to condescend to us of low estate.

 

[farouk]

Thanks to Jesus, precedents abound, as Jeff said, where one command outweighed another.

As Jeff said, it is a matter of discernment. Because even Satan can use scripture for his own evil ends.

Also, the issue is not 'bending what God said'. The issue is that 'God bent what HE said', temporarily.

Well, sorry, I also recall Alice in Wonderland saying that words mean whatever she wanted them to mean...

If we can't even read and trust the Bible for what it says, without turning it inside out, where does this leave the promises and words of comfort for the believer?

What about the discussion of headship in 1 Corinthians 11: men, women, Christ, God (the head of Christ is God, etc.)?

It's hard to argue that Paul didn't really meant it, or if he did, then it doesn't matter anyway.

 

[Asyncritus]

Well said, farouk.

 

[Grazer]

Well, sorry, I also recall Alice in Wonderland saying that words mean whatever she wanted them to mean...

If we can't even read and trust the Bible for what it says, without turning it inside out, where does this leave the promises and words of comfort for the believer?

What about the discussion of headship in 1 Corinthians 11: men, women, Christ, God (the head of Christ is God, etc.)?

It's hard to argue that Paul didn't really meant it, or if he did, then it doesn't matter anyway.

But why not turn it upside down, inside out and see what comes out of it? Sure it may get messy for some but I don't mind a bit of mess. Being challenged is how we learn and grow.

We all have our own theological positions, that the bible must be taken at face value is a theological position.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[reba]

The Scriptures are the Word of God.. They should be treated respectfully. They are not a casual writing.

 

[Grazer]

The Scriptures are the Word of God.. They should be treated respectfully. They are not a casual writing.

So surely treating it respectfully involves studying it for all its worth, not just memorizing what it says?