Reply # 5 In Kurt Vetterli
your the second section you want to hold out that Adam, contrary to the statement of Paul in 1 Timothy 2:14, the sin but tempted (other UEs. 'cheated') was. You take then others, general statements about the temptation to sin and apply them to Adam (of which Paul says he has not cheated in the Fall).
you justify this hermeneutic balancing act by claiming that Paul is so often the Old Testament statements substantially (!) Modified to make a point. I ask you, Christian! Are you serious? It's hard to believe! If the AT sites, which Paul quotes and interprets for us sound different with him than we understand it in the OT, the problem lies with the reader of the Bible, not the apostles, under divine guidance interprets the OT!
It's not as difficult as it might appear, perhaps even. When Paul says that Adam was not deceived, but Eve, he does not know that Adam did not sin, but that sin came to him in other ways than through the deceitfulness of sin, which was aimed directly at him. But Satan tempted the woman to sin and Adam followed her (ordered her to this point). Adam did not sin, because he was taken (by the devil, sin), but he sinned with perhaps a deliberate decision, because he woman to run for office.
If the report of Moses and the blanket over his face in the Old Testament there is nothing about it, why did Moses and Paul mentions in his letter to the Corinthians, the reason is not so difficult to understand that he had information from God received. He has not changed the meaning of the original statement in the OT! In 2 Corinthians 8:00
orders Paul to simply state that the Corinthians compensation following the example of God to create the AT. The Apostle calls are often things in the U.S., are there as a model, typology as a shadow, and explains why God called these things this way. This occurs, for example, like in the example of the ox, the connected not muzzle should be.
The thing with the mountains in Gal 4 must be understood typologically.
All the examples that you bring to justify your (äxgüsi, oblique) hermeneutics have nothing to do with the fact that Paul re-interpreted, but that he set out the intended meaning of God. That should not really be seen as difficult. It is definitely not the case that the Apostle interprets his Bible different from what they had to be understood before, but they adapt to the current culture. Sorry, but who argues does so, the Bible and turn to violence to make them available for their own ideas. That you are doing here in my view, hard working and subordinate to the Apostle the same.
Next: I'm agree with you that both men and women are God's image. The fact that the woman is somehow inferior. To my knowledge no one says, women will not allow for spiritual guidance offices. This is only an assumption of feminists (which I did not say that you impute to me). But
equivalence (which is also based in creation) does not mean absolute equality or hierarchical equality! Safe: Gen 2 does not point directly to a hierarchical order. But that just needs to take the relationship! After the fall of the two, man and woman - in addition to the notice of the consequences of the case - again on the original order referenced. will be
The consequence of sin that the woman seeks the guidance of the man (that's the meaning of "for you will be their desire" - cf. Gen 4:7, where exactly the same wording is used, this time for sin, which calls for Cain). However, it should be reversed, the man will 'rule over the woman. Of course, not a tyrannical ruling, but a loving guidance meant.
The term "assistance" is certainly not meant that the woman is to be understood by as inferior, or that the help is a kind of slavery. Clearly, it is about supplements. But as a logical complement brings with it a division of roles. The woman does things better than the man, or they can be things that the man can not and vice versa. Each is created in a certain way. This confirms the fact even more roles to be valid for all people at all times. Men should hold spiritual direction (sverantwortung) because it corresponds to their creature. Women are not designed for it, they should help the men them to meet this responsibility well.
If you look in the New Testament, you see that in every case confirmed, where is the relationship of the spouses something. Ephesians 5:00, Colossians 3:00, 1 Peter 3, etc. ..
If you always such bodies are only for the current Into context with valid, then you run such an arbitrary hermeneutics, with which you turn the writing and use to justify all sorts of absurdities can. For example, you can then also the statements of Scripture on homosexuality simply understood that it condemns only homosexual in Corinth and the Romans, because it was there a particular problem and not in the context of the faithful love of the partners was alive. Today this is really so wrong in the churches to justify ten years ago or earlier, the parish for women with the same hermeneutics.
I would really challenge you, your hermeneutics again then to check if you can not really lead you by the desire to you to hold cherished idea of the admission of women for spiritual management offices. I do not see how you can get to the interpretations of how you present it, if one starts from the simple meaning of the sections. It seems to me that you alienate the bodies to support the liberal-feminist understanding of the pastoral instructions in 1 Timothy and Titus.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment