[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< You do well at proposing theological theories. When we get in the field of the reality of what Scripture actually says and doesn’t say…you falter.[/quote]
Of course I’m gonna say it’s vice versa. My overly long posts (I try, I really do) are not theories. They are nothing other than points strung together into larger pieces of the system. Chapter and verse is there I just didn’t cite them. That method is what Luther and Calvin rode out of Rome. I take no credit. I can’t. None of this is mine.
I gave you the only answer I responsibly can at this time. I can only imagine what it would be like to be in your position, but I pray you come outta this(I actually really do). For your sake and for your family’s.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tirib the Satanic Tool Slayer, Pan Maddox, I.S., and Sloth-the-Late-Comer, was/is a single man permitted to be a pastor/bishop or deacon in the New Testament church? If so, why?[/quote]
Why? I don’t understand the question…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tirib the Satanic Tool Slayer, Pan Maddox, I.S., and Sloth-the-Late-Comer, was/is a single man permitted to be a pastor/bishop or deacon in the New Testament church? If so, why?[/quote]
Why? I don’t understand the question…[/quote]
Simple question - was/is a single man permitted to be a pastor/bishop or deacon in the New Testament church? If so, why?[/quote]
Yes. But, I still don’t understand why you’re asking “why.” I have a feeling you’re going to try pulling some 1 Tim 3 on me.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tirib the Satanic Tool Slayer, Pan Maddox, I.S., and Sloth-the-Late-Comer, was/is a single man permitted to be a pastor/bishop or deacon in the New Testament church? If so, why?[/quote]
Why? I don’t understand the question…[/quote]
Simple question - was/is a single man permitted to be a pastor/bishop or deacon in the New Testament church? If so, why?[/quote]
Yes. But, I still understand the ‘why’ of it. I have a feeling you’re going to try pulling some 1 Tim 3 on me.[/quote]
Soz u tink i bee sneeky purvurt basturd, huh?[/quote]
Eh?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tirib the Satanic Tool Slayer, Pan Maddox, I.S., and Sloth-the-Late-Comer, was/is a single man permitted to be a pastor/bishop or deacon in the New Testament church? If so, why?[/quote]
Why? I don’t understand the question…[/quote]
Simple question - was/is a single man permitted to be a pastor/bishop or deacon in the New Testament church? If so, why?[/quote]
Yes. But, I still understand the ‘why’ of it. I have a feeling you’re going to try pulling some 1 Tim 3 on me.[/quote]
Soz u tink i bee sneeky purvurt basturd, huh?[/quote]
Eh?[/quote]
So you, Rabbit-in-Grass, you insist on running from single man as church leader question or you decide to be honest Injun sometime soon?[/quote]
Rofl. I don’t know what it is you think I’m running from! I said yes, they could be Bishops and deacons. I don’t know what you mean by the ‘why’ of it. My guess is that you’re saying no, but I have no idea unless you say it. Before I proceed, I’d like to know this isn’t a baseless assumption on my part. At the moment I don’t know if you disagree, or agree. If you disagree, then I would assume you’re thinking of 1 Tim, which I can then address. But first, am I even understanding correctly what your own position is? Do you have a passage in mind?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Why do you have to know my beliefs before answering a simple question like that?[/quote]
Because the claim from 1 Tim 3:2-4 is that they can’t.
I shall provide a simple copy and paste for the verse in question. But, really, as stated below, Paul own lifestyle should’ve put this to rest…
"Another Fundamentalist argument, related to the last, is that marriage is mandatory for Church leaders. For Paul says a bishop must be “the husband of one wife,” and “must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for Godâ??s Church?” (1 Tim. 3:2, 4â??5). This means, they argue, that only a man who has demonstrably looked after a family is fit to care for Godâ??s Church; an unmarried man, it is implied, is somehow untried or unproven.
This interpretation leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if “the husband of one wife” really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic “keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way” would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.
In fact, following this style of interpretation to its final absurdity, since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements (not of their having met them, or of candidates for bishop meeting them), it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry! Clearly such excessive literalism must be rejected.
The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so. Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement on bishops which he did not himself meet. Consider, too, the implications regarding Paulâ??s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet are barred from ministry!
The suggestion that the unmarried man is somehow untried or unproven is equally absurd. Each vocation has its own proper challenges: the celibate man must exercise “self-control” (1 Cor. 7:9); the husband must love and care for his wife selflessly (Eph. 5:25); and the father must raise his children well (1 Tim. 3:4). Every man must meet Paulâ??s standard of “managing his household well,” even if his “household” is only himself. If anything, the chaste celibate man meets a higher standard than the respectable family man.
Clearly, the point of Paulâ??s requirement that a bishop be “the husband of one wife” is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married)."
I’m guessing the requirement that a bishop not have more than one wife becomes a nod for all others to have more than one. Which just isn’t the case. It’s simply ‘practice what you preach.’ Nothing more. This is the same Paul from 1 Cor 7:2, after all.
“But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tirib the Satanic Tool Slayer, Pan Maddox, I.S., and Sloth-the-Late-Comer, was/is a single man permitted to be a pastor/bishop or deacon in the New Testament church? If so, why?[/quote]
If I have actually been used in the slaying of any tool of Satan to God be the glory.
The honest answer from me is I’m not sure. I fiddled with this a bit many years ago and never finished. A half dozen principles spring to mind, but this isn’t as simple as it would first appear. The obvious !st Timothy passage, Timothy’s youth, Paul’s singleness (Though there is some indication that he may not have always been that way), Paul’s dealing with gifted celibacy in 1st Corinthians to name a few.
I must suspend judgment until better studied. I’m not sure.
OK - the Song of Songs . . . beautiful book - it has dual purpose. There are some who see only the literal and some who only see the allegorical - I think this is false. It is both, literal and allegorical - that is that is tells the story of Solomon and the Shulamite woman (shulamite is merely the feminized name Solomon - indicating that she and he are become one)
It is called the “Song of Songs” or poems of poems, verse of verses because it is a collection of poetic utterances from her and from him as they revel in their love. The typology is to be seen in light of Christ and his Bride, the church.
OK, chapter one:
The Shulamite speaks first:
Oh that he would kiss me with the kisses of his mouth!
Literal - she longs for the kiss of her lover
Allegorical - The bride longs for the attentions of her groom
For your love is better than wine,
Lit - her longing turns from the wishful to the focused remembering of details
Alle - the bride now remembers the strength and passion of her groom’s love
Your anointing oils are fragrant,
Lit - she really likes his choice of cologne
Alle - oil is a frequent symbol of the HS - the bride longs for the intimacy of his presence
Your name is oil poured out;
Lit - man she is going to tear him up when he finally gets there . . .here the joy of calling out her lover’s name overwhelms her
Alle = see Mal 1:11 for the joy we should have at the name of our savior
Therefore the virgins love you.
Lit - those without husbands/lovers wish that you were theirs (but You are all mine baby!) - she revels in the fact that she’s got the man that all the girls want . …
Alle - those without salvation should be jealous of our relationship with Christ because of how we have praised and bragged about him.
The man of the hour arrives!!
Draw me after you, let us make haste!
Lit - come on, take my hand and drag me off, hurry let rush to our bed
Alle - we should continually long to be in our savior’s presence
The King has drawn me into his inner chambers.
Lit - finally, her king (remember the sovereign rule of the NT?) has brought her into the inner chambers, the inner sanctum, it’s time to get down to it!
Alle - it is Christ who allows us to enter into the holy of holies - he brings us into the place of intimate relationship with God
Now there is a change, she switches from the singular to the plural, why? Because she is literally referring to her erogenous zones . . .getting hot in here . . .
We will exult and rejoice in you
We will extol your love more than wine;
Rightly do they love you!
Lit - her body is responding to the caresses and kisses of her lover, she is amazed at how she is responding to his touch but knows it is because of his talent, beauty and passion - rightly does her body respond to him
Alle - all parts of the bride of Christ (the church) should revel in his presence and in his love and tender care for us . . .
I am very dark, but comely, O daughters of Jerusalem
Lit - this is the first reference to the daughters of Jerusalem, this can be two things - actual people - her handmaidens or the virgins mentioned earlier, or her breasts personified - I like the second because of the imagery these crazy lovers continually use, but there is not a definite conclusion either way - it doesn’t really alter the meaning - she, taken with his ravishing passion, starts to be self-conscious
Alle- we should be conscious of our failings and seek to prepare ourselves to be appealing to our Groom, the Christ
Like the tents of Kedar, like the curtains of Solomon - apparently she is comparing herself to something dark in color to provide a comparison of how dark her skin actually is
Do not gaze at me because I am swarthy
Because the sun has scorched me
Lit - the passion and excitement of her lover has frightened her and now she feels unworthy and self-conscious before the passion of this perfect man - it is here that she begins to think of herself as unworthy of this wonderful man’s attentions
Alle - our sinfulness darkens our souls and we should feel unworthy in the presence of our perfect Groom, the Christ himself glorified
My mother’s sons were angry with me
They made me keepers of the vineyards
But, my own vineyard I have not kept!
Lit - she laments that she was mistreated in her past life and unable to make herself more perfect for him
Alle - our past lives before salvation really do have an impact on us and should cause us to realize that we could not perfect ourselves
Tell me, you whom my soul loves,
Where do you pasture your flock,
Where you make it lie down at noon
For why should I be like one who wanders
Beside the flocks of your companions
Lit - she appears to have recovered from her self-consciousness - probably due to the ministrations of her lover - and now begins to tease her lover in return - there is some additional imagery hidden within the text regarding where he would pitch his tent (yes, pun intended) at noon while the flock rested.
Alle - we should always seek the company of our Love to the exclusion of all others
Now, her lover Solomon speaks
If you do not know
O fairest among women
Follow in the tracks of the flock, and pasture your kids
Besides the shepherds’ tent
Lit - he’s not falling for the teasing and teases her back, basically telling her just to follow the flocks and see where she ends up - and while she’s at it , she should pasture her kids (bare her breasts) where the shepherds have “pitched their tents” -I can see much naked tickling and squealing going on at this point
Alle- this tit-for-tat playful teasing between lovers (pillow talk, guys - don’t forget to use it) is illustrative of the security they have in each other and the intimacy that they share
I compare you my love
To a mare of Pharaoh’s chariots
Lit - wow, try this line on a girl today and see how far it gets you - you should probably say something more along the lines of “baby, your curves are sweeter than a Ferrari’s” - in that day-this probably was quite the line and Pharaoh’s mares were probably the best in the world
Alle - more of the same intimate teasing and playfulness
Your cheeks are comely with ornaments
You neck with strings of jewels
Lit - he now addresses her earlier self-consciousness by declaring her beautiful - there is also an unspoken reference to the sheen of her passion (girls don’t sweat- remember that)
Alle - we are beautiful to our Savior, he loves us just as we are
We will make you ornaments of gold
Studded with silver,
Lit- you are so beautiful, baby, I’m going to buy you all of the jewelry I can to show you how much I love you and to enhance that natural glow, you have right now . . .
Alle- Jesus loves us as we are, but he does want to sanctify us.
While the king was on his couch
My spikenard gave forth its fragrance
Lit- he’s done really well, she’s seriously turned on now - yes, it is that literal
Alle - our passion and desire should be for our savior
My beloved is to me a bag of myrrh
That lies between my breasts
Lit - as he lies between her breasts she is revealing in his scent
Alle - keeping Christ close to our hearts should be a constant reminder of his sacrifice for us (see myrrh/wine at the cross)
My beloved is to me a cluster of henna blossoms
In the vineyards of Engedi
Lit - I may have not been able to tend to my own vineyard (see above) but now I am the most beautiful vineyard in the land and my lover is the most fragrant blossom around . . .
Alle - God takes us from where he found us to paradise
OK - that’s it for now