Feminism and Adventism


(Kim Green) #41

Could an average child do this? (according to EGW):

"Jesus seemed to know the Scriptures from beginning to end, and He presented them in their true import. The rabbis were ashamed to be instructed by a child. They claimed that it was their office to explain the Scriptures, and that it was His place to accept their interpretation. They were indignant that He should stand in opposition to their word. {CSA 8.4}

They realized that in spiritual understanding Jesus was far in advance of them. 10 {CSA 9.1}

At a very early age, Jesus had begun to act for Himself in the formation of His character, and not even respect and love for His parents could turn Him from obedience to God’s word. “It is written” was His reason for every act that varied from the family customs. {CSA 9.2}

His brothers, as the sons of Joseph were called, sided with the rabbis. They insisted that the traditions must be heeded, as if they were the requirements of God… His strict obedience to the law of God they condemned as stubbornness. They were surprised at the knowledge and wisdom He showed in answering the rabbis. They knew that He had not received instruction from the wise men, yet they could not but see that He was an instructor to them. They recognized that His education was of a higher type than their own. 11 {CSA 9.3}


(Steve Mga) #42

“Jesus had no theological training”, DRich.

It IS True that Jesus did NOT go through the theological program like Paul did.
HOWEVER, he had Joseph and he had Mary. He learned to read, to write. Actually
he apparently knew 3 languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek.
He would have access to both the Hebrew AND Greek Old Testament.
He heard the word of the Lord on Sabbath and at various Festivals.
After His BarMitzvah he apparently was called upon to “read” quite frequently.
He thought, he had developed INSIGHT into the meaning of Scripture through
meditation in his personal devotions.
I would recommend 3 books on Jesus.
1st. – The Jesus Creed by Scot McKnight
2nd. – Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time by Marcus Borg
3rd. – The Meaning of Jesus by Marcus Borg and N.T.Wright.
These will provide insight into the HUMAN Jesus,
his learning experience, and relationship to the
Written Word and relationship to God.


#43

Anything I say here you will disagree with or deny. And I find it interesting that no one touched the points I made at the end or the questions about Jesus not choosing a woman. Okay,
Gen.3:16 God is speaking to Eve. “…and he shall rule (mashal) over you.” God set up this role, not Adam. Man has headship, and this role was set up when there was only one man and one woman.
Only men were priests and did the priestly duties. This was set up by God,not Moses.
Miriam tried to usurp leadership, and was punished for it by God, not Moses.
No female ruler was ever chosen or approved of by God. There is only one woman ruler in the Bible, and she gained the throne by murder.

When Jesus was here, he " could have" chosen a woman or two to be an apostle and leader of the Christian faith. He did not. Did he discriminate? People like you would say he did. But he was God, and was following the roles of man as head which he himself had set up in Genesis.
And please don’t tell me it was because of the culture back then. There was no culture in Eden. And while here, Jesus was so very often ignoring the customs and culture of his day and they killed him for it because he was a threat to the establishment. But he did not set a woman up in any position in the church. It was founded on men only.

I Cor. 11: 3 Paul says the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man and the head of Christ is God. The word for head is Kaphale. You can check out the meaning. So Paul affirms the role of the man’s headship that was set up in Gen. 3.

Paul says the elder or leader of the church is to be “the husband of one wife”. It is kind of hard for a woman to be a husband.

So, I am concluding from my study of the Bible, that there is no change in the headship of man from one end of the Bible to the other. God set it up, and didn’t change it when he walked the earth and Paul continues that role policy.

Culture cannot change something that God set up without violating his word and making itself above God. Humans can’t change the headship of man anymore than they can change the Sabbath to Sunday. They may “think to change it” but that is all.

While men and women are equal in value in God’s eyes, there is a distinction in the roles. Therein lies the problem of this women being in headship positions. You and I can’t change the roles God has set up no matter what culture says.


(Tim Teichman) #44

Untrue! I agree with you on this.

I didn’t think them worth comment. I will say that we must not assume that examples in the bible are either prescriptive or restrictive, and that many biblical statements are seeped in a misogynistic world view.

Would you follow Paul’s advise on head coverings? Is is really important to our salvation for women to keep their hair long (not ‘shorn’) and for men to not cover their heads in church? Or was that just their societal norms. If you think it does apply, then what constitutes ‘shorn’? If you have kinky hair, how short can your hair be before you’re not heeding Paul’s advice, especially understanding that he was not giving it in a society that had very many Africans?

Would you follow the biblical advise regarding your daughter’s marriage? If so, how much do you think you can sell her for? And if she’s raped, remember you can get the full sum from the rapist for her hand in marriage. You don’t want to get cheated.

Jesus chose 11 men to be apostles, in the story, because he was operating within a culture that accepted men in such roles and one that diminished women in many ways. Still, there is no biblical prescription to only choose men.

Indeed, Paul stated that Junia was “outstanding among the apostles” in Romans 16.

In Judges 4, we read that Deborah was the leader of Israel.This means she filled the roles of political and spiritual leader of the entire kingdom. She relayed the word of God to men and ordered/led them into battle.

Judges says, "…Because he had nine hundred chariots fitted with iron and had cruelly oppressed the Israelites for twenty years, they cried to the Lord for help. 4 Now Deborah, a prophet, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading[a] Israel at that time. 5 She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites went up to her to have their disputes decided."

There are many more biblical examples of women leading. To some extent, we are free to focus on them, or on the other passages by others that subjugate women. Or we can notice that both exist, that there were different camps/belief systems over time as recorded in the bible. And that, further, none of those systems are totally acceptable to us today. But still the core message can be.

Well it was. Exactly that.

No, the Romans crucified him for crimes against the state, for claiming to be king of the Jews. They didn’t care one bit about his religious teachings.

No, only Levite men were priests. If you’re going to go by this standard, then all pastors need to be Levites.

Good luck with this. I’d say a deeper and more complete and subtle study of the bible is in order, though.

That reminds me of my prior request. Which, as expected, you have not responded to. I’ll restate it here:

“Name one [role]. Find me one role that culture cannot change and show how it has not changed since bible times and how the bible says it will not and should not ever change. That’s a rhetorical challenge, of course, because there is no such role.”


(dale) #45

Where did all the other judges deal with their matters? In the gate. Do you know what the significance of sitting in the gate was? Deborah dealt with her matters under a tree. Not in the gate like all the other judges.


(dale) #46

this quote describes the importance of the role that has been given to women, that we as men cannot fulfil. It was not given to us and as I read this I know from experience that I as a father does not have the same influence that the mother does. No matter what the woman does, there is no higher responsibility of that as a mother and as a man there is no higher responsibility than that of a father. Those responsiblities should be first and foremost.

You may agree or disagree, what I can say is that I haven’t seen this articulated in quite this manner. One should appreciate how some of women’s roles that have been sorely unappreciated by men for thousands of years.

The Husband’s Equal —Woman should fill the position which God originally designed for her, as her husband’s equal. The world needs mothers who are mothers not merely in name but in every sense of the word. We may safely say that the distinctive duties of woman are more sacred, more holy, than those of man. Let woman realize the sacredness of her work and in the strength and fear of God take up her life mission. Let her educate her children for usefulness in this world and for a home in the better world.

The wife and mother should not sacrifice her strength and allow her powers to lie dormant, leaning wholly upon her husband. Her individuality cannot be merged in his. She should feel that she is her husband’s equal—to stand by his side, she faithful at her post of duty and he at his. Her work in the education of her children is in every respect as elevating and ennobling as any post of duty he may be called to fill, even if it is to be the chief magistrate of the nation.

The Queen of the Home —The king upon his throne has no higher work than has the mother. The mother is queen of her household. She has in her power the molding of her children’s characters, that they may be fitted for the higher, immortal life. An angel could not ask for a higher mission; for in doing this work she is doing service for God. Let her only realize the high character of her task, and it will inspire her with courage. Let her realize the worth of her work and put on the whole armor of God, that she may resist the temptation to conform to the world’s standard. Her work is for time and for eternity.


(Robert Lindbeck) #47

@GeorgeTichy and @cincerity I think all the discussion about what Paul wrote or didn’t write, who he wrote about etc are all back to front and completely miss the point. Paul was writing to specific people about specific issues.
The best illustration about ordination is in the Gospel. Jesus is ordained three times in the Gospel - at His baptism the Spirit is seen and heard. At His transfiguration the Spirit is seen again.
His final ordination is not by the Spirit. His final ordination is by a woman. Not just any woman but a former prostitute, an outcast of society. Christ’s reaction to this woman and the criticism she received tells us more about ordination than anything that Paul wrote. Jesus elevated a single woman to a place higher than any of His apostles or any of His other followers.


(Robert Lindbeck) #48

Better still, He wrote (or is) the textbook.


(Robert Lindbeck) #49

@drich, Paul does “reject” the law, in so much that it is not a means to salvation. The passage that @timteichman quoted reinforces the notion that our salvation is not grounded in our works. Nothing we can do has any effect in the slightest whether we are saved or not. And that was Paul’s point. The passage is not about the keeping or not keeping of the law per se but whether it is of any benefit for salvation.
Trying to keep the law only shows us that we can’t.


(Kim Green) #50

Well said, Robert…the least shall be first. I appreciate you pointing out about the 3 times the Spirit apoeared- fascinating.


(dale) #51

Works was never a means of salvation. You can’t be saved by works because no amount of “good works” can undo your sin. It simply isn’t possible. Jesus he can remove your record of sin because he suffered in our place. He paid the penalty for us.

Jesus said more than once we are going to be judged by our works Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Revelation 20:12,13 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Revelation 22:14,15 14 ¶ Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Well now how can God say those things? Because it is directly clear that we will be rewarded/judged based on our works? Because the bible is blatantly clear on that in those verses? The bible doesn’t contradict itself nor can any portion of it be ignored. So any rejection of clear testimony of the scripture is not warranted.

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

The last verse which everyone seems to over look. Yes we are saved by grace through faith. That grace we are saved by does something to us. Verse 10 says that we are created in Christ Jesus unto good works. That’s what the bible says. Now look at the new covenant promise: Hebrews 10:16 16 ¶ This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

If our actions originate from our heart, and God writes his law in our heart and puts his Holy Spirit in us what does that do? It changes our actions.

Galatians 5:22 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 ¶ Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these ; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 ¶ But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Love is manifested in things that we do. Love is an action. Saying that you love someone and do nothing for them isn’t love. If I told my wife I loved her and did everything that she hated would she believe that I loved her? Absolutely not. Would anyone one else believe that I loved her? No.

reading Hebrews 11, Paul attaches every person named. As a person of faith to something that they did. Faith produces works. It changes your action. Faith causes someone to choose to follow Jesus, to repent of there sins thoseare all things that they do, it makes drunk people sober, it makes criminals give up their criminal ways. Those are all fruits of the spirit. If the spirit of God is in you it will change you. It gives evidence to your faith.

James 2:14-26 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 ¶ Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 ¶ Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 ¶ For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.


#52

I don’t know how you put your answers in between what I wrote. I wish I could do that.
I will start at the top.
I disagree. Jesus was not controlled by culture in not picking a woman. And since he knew the future, if he had picked just one woman, it would have solved this controversy down here in 2018.
You said " There is no biblical prescription to only choose men". There is no example of God putting a woman in charge in the OT or the NT.

Romans 16 You are reading this one way ( making her an apostle) and most of the versions translate it another way meaning 'they were highly respected among the apostles: " They were well-known to the apostles": “They were noteworthy in the eyes of the apostles” “They were well-known to the apostles”
You can’t use this text to prove she was an apostle.

Deborah was a prophetess and judge. That is all she was. She was not a priest or ruler.

While the Romans were the one who actually nailed Jesus to the cross, they would not have done so if it were not for the Jews. Pilate knew Jesus was innocent and harmless to the Roman government, so he did not have him killed because of his being “king of the Jews”. He posted the sign as his way of mocking the Jews. DA 745

You challenged me again" Find one role that culture cannot change…"
I did. The headship of man as set up by God in Gen. 3:16. You just don’t want to see that.
Culture and humans have tried to change the two institutions founded by God in Eden, pre-sin.
Sabbath as the seventh day. Marriage between one man and one woman.
Humans (under Satan) have done a pretty good job of trying to erase them both. Can’t be done.
Humans can’t change the headship of man as set up by God. Can’t be done.

Drich is correct in saying that women have a very valuable role as mother. It is extremely important.
No one else can do it. That is a God given role. The father role is of equal value. The priest of the family is never the woman in the Bible. That role was given to men by God.

It is a “role” issue. It has nothing to do with man/woman equality. People don’t seem to see the difference.

Christ is HEAD of the man. Man is HEAD of the woman. God is HEAD of Christ. ( He submitted to that headship of the Father )
Those are roles of authority that no human can change…only think to change.

After our exchange here, it would seem that you are not going to change your mind, and I am convinced that my Bible does not give any authorization to change the headship from man to woman. I find no text in the Bible that says the sacredness of the Sabbath has been moved to Sunday. I find no text in the bible that says a man can marry another man. I find no text in the Bible that says a woman is head of the man. You cannot use the argument of “omission” to say any of these have changed except in humans’ minds.

I do find texts that say the Sabbath is the seventh day. (Sunday worshipers don’t like that because they don’t want to agree with God’s word. )
I do find texts that say a man shall leave his parents and marry a woman and that same sex marriages are an abomination (LGBT people don’t like this because they don’t want to accept God’s word)
I do find texts that say the man is head of the woman. (WO people don’t like this because they don’t want to accept God’s headship principle )

Have a Good Sabbath.


#53

I have posted Gen 3:16 on this site before.
I call it the gender conflict verse. Some can call it “battle of the sexes” verse.

The significant , key word that I focus on is the word translated “desire” in KJV. The Hebrew word is used 3 times in the old testament…one time right in the next chapter where God is talking to Cain.

NLT and other translations correctly translated as a dominating/controlling desire. I remember hearing James Dobson talk about the verse, on radio, and not understanding the actual meaning of that word. When one understands what the word means, then the word after , “rule” makes better sense.

The other verse that is significant is 1 Tim 2:13 which many ignore because they want to say that Paul is writing based on culture and yet that verse goes way past culture.

So much for SDA being people of the book.
Fanaticism prevails (Rom 10:2)


(Pierre-Paul Legault) #54

Não falou fluente. Eu posso entender, ler, comunicar; mas com um pouco de dificuldade. Eu gostou muito a cultura brasileira.


#55

Uhhh… ever heard the phrases…“hen pecked”, “ball & chain”???

Go to “desire” in Gen 3:16

Read Desire of Ages where EG White says that Eve was an agent of Satan.

“Perceiving no evil results from what she had done, Eve grew bolder. When she “saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat.” It was grateful to the taste, and as she ate, she seemed to feel a vivifying power, and imagined herself entering upon a higher state of existence. Without a fear she plucked and ate. And now, having herself transgressed, she became the agent of Satan in working the ruin of her husband.” PP56

Eve= CEO and founding member of the N.O.W. crowd


#56

I find you to be correct about Gen.3:16 in the sense that women hate that verse and try to twist it to say something it does not say. I looked at that verse in ten different translation, and all of them make it clear that the man is in authority over the woman.
The word “desire” is teshuwqah" which means having a desire or longing, craving for. At least that is what my concordance says.
In Gen. 4:7 God tells Cain that sin will have a “teshuwqah” for you, but you should rule over it… If you relate that thought to Gen. 3:16, you will see some similarities.

You are also correct about I Tim. 2:12-14. Here Paul appears to be showing that because man was made first, he has authority over the woman not the other way around. This was not a cultural issue for Paul. It was a fact to him since he appeals to the creation story for his support.
And then he goes right on in chapter 3 to say that a leader in the church was to be the husband of one wife…and list other characteristics.

I have often wondered what Paul would say at a General Conference meeting concerning this issue.
We will never know.


#57


If we go back to Genesis 2, we see that Eve was part of Adam, and that he was to cleave to her and become one person.

I think we can extend that insight by pondering our individual brain function.

Right and left brain hemispheres are very much analogous to Eve and Adam, I think.

Here we have, through the corpus callosum, what we might call a chiasmic process.

chi·as·ma

(kī-ăz′mə) also chi·asm (kī′ăz′əm)

n. pl. chi·as·ma·ta (-mə-tə) or chi·as·mas also chi·asms

1. Anatomy A crossing or intersection of two tracts, as of nerves or ligaments.

2. Genetics The point of contact between paired chromatids during meiosis, resulting in a cross-shaped configuration and representing the cytological manifestation of crossing over.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/chiasmic

Certainly, in the brain, we don’t normally see an authoritarian rule of the left brain over the right brain, but rather a dialectic process, a dialogue, if you will.

A psychologically integrated person demonstrates both Hedgehog and Fox characteristics, I submit.

A marriage between two maturely integrated people would be a wonder of Nature!

It might be worth pondering the possible analogies between the chiastic processes in the Bible, in physiology, and in Sacred Marriage, especially as related to the Sabbath, and by extension, eschatology.

The right and left hemispheres of the brain speak different “languages” you might say, but ideally, they are necessary compliments to each other.

Perhaps we collectively require more personal, individual psychological integration before we can find the “unity” we are trying so desperately to impose at present.

Prophecy awaits patiently for that day, I imagine.

Wikipedia:

In 1986, William H. Shea proposed that the Book of Daniel is composed of a double-chiasm . He argued that the chiastic structure is emphasized by the two languages that the book is written in: Aramaic and Hebrew. The first chiasm is written in Aramaic from chapters 2-7 following an ABC…CBA pattern. The second chiasm is in Hebrew from chapters 8-12, also using the ABC…CBA pattern. However, Shea represents Daniel 9:26 as “D”, a break in the center of the pattern.[7]

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

#58

I appeal to STRICTLY KOSHER HEAD RABBI ABRAHAM BENJAMIN BENGURION SCHWARTZ
:tired_face:

To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your labor pains;
with pain you will give birth to children.
You will want to control your husband,
but he will dominate you.” NET


(George Tichy) #59

Maybe there are some people who feel being like Jesus… :roll_eyes:


#60

I think I will stick to something simpler like ROCKET SCIENCE & BRAIN SURGERY