Leolaia,
I think I see where the misunderstanding happened and I apologize for my poor paragraph structure. I said:
'Inerrancy' is the concept that no amount of error is extant in the original, inspired manuscripts. It does not apply to any translation that exists so we have a 'moot point'. It does show a 99.95 accuracy of the harmony where the major texts are compared.
This was a figure that I got from one of my course books. This speaks to the manuscripts in use, in comparison to one another. This does not include the dead sea scrolls. I agree that Isaiah is the one that is the most harmonic....
Then I said: With the dead sea scrolls we have some of the Old Testament that goes back to 200 BC and the 'errors' are miniscule. They do not compromise the texts from the 10 and 12th centuries.
Adding this statement to the above caused the misunderstanding.
You said: But I never see them discuss other books like Jeremiah or 1-2 Samuel or the Psalms where the situation is quite different. Thus, your claim of only a "miniscule" difference sounded rather misleading to me.
I agree, it was just that. I also did not need to add to the carnage with the remainder of the post. It would indeed be ridiculous to continually cite sources when this would be only needed for a critical point in any discussion. I see that you are indeed careful in your post content and I could myself could use more of your patience!
I catch flak on all sides here and sometimes try to answer too much from too many people. Please forgive my inaccurate assumptions. We are all in a learning mode and need to be teachable. Thank you for your insight.
Rex
The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?
by jgnat 163 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Shining One
-
Shining One
OK Narkissos,
>The question being, is the church order to reflect the old or new creation? (Cf. 2 Corinthians 5:14ff).
A better question is: What does the text in dispute say (despite your contention that it is somehow contradictory)?
>in spite of the Galatians theological principle the NT texts did not condemn slavery on a practical level. Yet later Christian generations felt that the ongoing practice of slavery was incompatible with it. Were they wrong? Perhaps exegetically they were. But if practically they were not, might modern Christians who feel that the ongoing practice of sexual discrimination in church is incompatible with the same principle have a point too?
First of all, you say it is 'sexual discrimination' for a woman not to hold the office of pastor. If that is your view that's fine. Within this discussion, I did make some important points: 1) historically this was a huge improvement in women's rights; 2) It is a role situation and again, is this what the text says?
You know what? Men and women are different emotionally and in their application of intellect (a statement in general and not mean't to be universal). The radical feminists keep insisting that 'equality' means 'ignore biology' and it just doesn't hold water when you see the nonsensical applications of this idea.
Context, context, context.
If I am correct about the interpretation of the text, then that is the correct view, regardless of any modern social customs. You see, I do view the Bible as being the inspired word of God and that is where my axiom begins. I respect the word of God as just that. Even if I don't like what it says I am bound by it. When one preaches the word of God one must do justice to the text. One must also stay within the bounds of the text. A text out of context is a pretext!
The issue of slavery in the ancient world was not a priority of the church. The church was busy getting itself established in the midst of change, heresy and persecution. If you have a master and a slave get converted and they apply Jgnat's catch-all excuse, the law of love, as outlined in the book and epistles of John, then the master/slave issue was not important. The same can be said today for the issue of headship in a family where both are Christians who take their Lord's commands seriously.
Are we making any headway?
Rex -
Leolaia
Rex...Thank you for the clarification and comments, as well as the more constructive tone.
-
Cygnus
Many have taken the great leap from disagreement with the Watchtower to extreme, liberal scripture interpretation and outright unbelief.
And others might suggest you've jumped from the frying pan of JWism into the fire of Fundamenantlism (or a variation thereof).
Rex, like I've always said, the Watchtower and Jesus/Moses are essentially the same. They all say "we speak for God and if you don't do what we say our God will kill you." They all have the same amount of evidence backing up their claims: None. There is a difference however. The existence of the Watchtower can be proven. Not so with the others.
-
Narkissos
Rex,
I'm afraid you can't help painting your "adversaries" after your own image. It seems to be beyond the reach of your imagination that somebody might quote the Bible otherwise than as an authority, i.e. to promote some view as "scripturally correct".
Let me put it clearly. I am not a churchgoer anymore and I have no personal interest in who may hold this or that office. And I think that attempting to gather a consistent ecclesiology from the NT and apply it to a modern church is a dead end.
What I pointed out is that your treatment of two practical sets of NT passages on the role of women (1 Corinthians 11 & 14 on the one hand, 1 Timothy on the other hand) was inconsistent, making your appeal to "scriptural authority" a joke. (Sorry to repeat myself once again.)
What does the text in dispute say (despite your contention that it is somehow contradictory)?
If you mean Galatians 3, its interpretation was not in dispute as I made clear. I only pointed to a deep dissonance with the practical texts on women. A difference in "spirit," if you prefer, which any candid reader can get.
First of all, you say it is 'sexual discrimination' for a woman not to hold the office of pastor.
I think it suits the current meaning of "sexual discrimination" indeed.
Within this discussion, I did make some important points: 1) historically this was a huge improvement in women's rights
Thanks for reminding that. Would you care to explain? What is "this"? If you refer to Galatians 3:28, to which you deny any practical implication, I fail to see how it can be any "improvement in women's rights". If you refer to 1 Timothy which you hold as a "permanent practical instruction," how so? For which women specifically?
-
defd
Shining one
Thanks for the reply. I only wish the you were STILL a witness. As for me. I will never leave Jehovah and Jesus. I will never Leave His Org. as imperfect as it is. Keep up the fine work and remember Hebrews 6:10 "For God is not unrighteous so as to forget YOUR work and the love YOU showed for his name........................"
-
LittleToe
Defd:What would you do, I wonder if Jehovah or Jesus showed you clearly that the WTS wasn't their organisation? Would you bury your head in the sand? Would you read the bible more, in an attempt to discount it? Would you dare wonder that others might have reached the same conclusion? That was exactly what happened to me, as a diligent and busy Elder. Subsequently I went online and my worst fears were confirmed. You appear to be doing it the other way around, or perhaps simultaneously. Don't be so quick to discount that which has been brought before your eyes. ShiningOne:
You might want to be a little slower about judging until you know who you're dealing with. Do you really know anything about those whom you are castigating? Since you surely must be a communicant member (perhaps even an office bearer) of an Evangelical church, and a student of theology, perhaps you might give us an insight into your doctrinal postion - Calvinist amillenialist, perchance? -
Leolaia
As I discussed in previous threads, the author of the Pastorals is also keenly interested in refuting gnostic or proto-gnostic heresy (cf. 1 Timothy 1:3-4, 6:3, 20 "knowledge falsely so-called", 2 Timothy 2:17-18), and mentioned such false teachings as a forbidding of marriage and procreation (1 Timothy 4:3) and a realized eschatology claiming that the resurrection has "already taken place" (2 Timothy 2:18), which are teachings associated with gnostics. The forbidding of marriage was an important facet of the gnostic worldview, for procreation and marriage were believed to be evil works of the Demiurge to sustain death in the world (cf. Gospel of the Egyptians, fr. 1-2, Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 1.24.2, Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum, 33, Gospel of Thomas 79:3), and gnostics urged women to "make themselves male" such that "the two become one and the male with the female is neither male nor female" (Gospel of Thomas 22:4, 114:2, Gospel of the Egyptians, fr. 5, Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 5.8.44; compare the similar formulae in Galatians 3:26-28 and 2 Clement 12:2). In the gnostic worldview, this meant that women would remain single and took on roles that elsewhere were restricted to men (cf. Gospel of Philip 81:3). Irenaeus described how one gnostic leader regularly had women consecrate the eucharistic wine and serve as church prophets (Adversus Haereses 1.13.3), and Tertullian noted:
"They all have access equally, they all listen equally, they all pray equally....The very women of these heretics, how wanton they are! For they are bold enough to teach, to dispute, to enact exorcisms, to undertake cures, and even baptize...Today one man is a bishop and tomorrow another; the person who is a deacon today, tomorrow is a reader; the one who is a priest is a layman tomorrow. For even on the laity they impose the functions of the priesthood" (De Praescriptione Haereticorum, 41).
The gnostics thus applied the ideology found also in Galatians 3:26-28 to church life as a whole, as actually abolishing gender distinctions. It is thus not difficult to see why women were particularly attracted to these teachings. We know elsewhere that there were female prophets who espoused "heretical" teachings in the churches, such as the prophetess at the church of Thyatira who taught "the deep things (ta bathea) of Satan" (Revelation 2:20-24), a phrase strongly reminiscent of gnostic terminology. The author of the Pastorals himself also mentions "silly women" who are attracted to heretical teachings "in an attempt to educate themselves but can never come to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Timothy 3:6-7). Finally, it is of note that the author is particularly concerned with the situation in Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3-4), where people were "teaching strange things", and Ephesus is known as the home of the early gnostic Cerinthus (cf. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3.3; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.28, 4.14; Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 7.21), and it was also already the home to a female emancipation movement originated by the Artemis mystery cult.
In this light, and by examining the rhetorial structure of the passage, the command that women are "not to teach or to have authority over a man" (1 Timothy 3:12) likely pertains to an already-existing situation that the author wished to change, in which women taught in some churches (like "Jezebel" in the church of Thyatira) and claimed headship roles over men....similar to what we elsewhere know occurred in fully-fledged gnostic churches. If women were indeed expounding proto-gnostic points of view that the author considered "heretical", getting them to STOP teaching would certainly been an important goal for him. The author viewed these activities as a perversion of the natural order of things (1 Timothy 2:13-14), and went on to say that such women should instead focus on living a modest life and procreation, for "she will be saved by childbearing" (v. 15), a very striking phrase in light of proto-gnostic and gnostic attitudes towards marriage and procreation! Gnostics believed that women are CURSED by childbearing and saved only through gnosis or knowledge of "truth", whereas the author here claims that women are SAVED by childbearing while "knowledge falsely so-called" is what threatens the salvation of those carried away by "strange teachings". Note also that the reference to Adam and Eve claim two things (1) that Adam had precedence over Eve in order of creation, (2) Eve was deceived, not Adam. The rhetorical structure of this passage implies that such female teachers are "deceived" like Eve, i.e. deceived into false teachings. Finally, this might be a coincidence, but various gnostics also believed that Eve had precedence over Adam because she received gnosis first, and thus became Adam's spiritual "mother" (cf. the Gospel of Eve, The Reality of the Rulers 90:1-16, Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 4.praef.4), for she is the "mother of all living" which these gnostics interpreted as including Adam. Claiming that Adam was "created" first and thus has precedence over her is thus interesting and it also bases the precedence on the act of creation, which gnostics believed to be inferior if not evil compared to the revealing of gnosis.
-
jgnat
Cursed by childbearing, saved by childbearing....not an issue for the modern woman. I think these days we want it all. Babies and the executive suite.
-
defd
Little toe
What would you do, I wonder if Jehovah or Jesus showed you clearly that the WTS wasn't their organisation
I would leave littletoe. I would go where they tell me too.