Bishops/Elder/Pastors required to be married?

[Tenchi]

This is exactly a word game and a translation issue, which I’ve already predicted.

Calling a defeater of your assertions a "word game" is just a rhetorical maneuver that seeks to discount (for no good reason) what you recognize will completely dissolve your point about Phoebe the "deacon." But simply throwing out a disparaging label isn't an argument. It's just name-calling, really; what children do when they're cross.

The original Greek work in Rom. 16:1-2 was diakanos, from which came the word “deacon”, and Paul entrusted her to carry his message from God. Sister Phoebe may not be an elder, but she was most assuredly a deacon, a leader of the Cenchrean church which Paul acknowledged, he asked the Roman church to assist her.

No, as I pointed out, Paul's qualifications for the office of deacon rule out Phoebe since she was neither husband nor father. This is why older translations render diakonos in Romans 16:1 as "servant," rather than deacon. Nothing forbids Phoebe from being a servant, as all Christians are to be, but from the official role of a deacon, as Paul described it to Timothy, Phoebe could not have qualified. As I already pointed out, more modern translations use "deacon" rather than "servant" in order to pander to secular, worldly trends which they do in sacrifice of scriptural cohesiveness, creating the very problem your contention about Phoebe illustrates.

Your argument comes not from the Scripture, but your own confirmation bias, it only shows your contempt against women and single people.

Uh huh. That "empty barrel" adage has risen again in my mind...

By the way, I'm married. Have been for nearly twenty years. It's very hard to be so when one has "contempt against women." Also, I was single 'til I was 39, so, rather than contempt, I have a great deal of understanding of, and sympathy for, single people. But you tell yourself whatever story about me that makes you feel better.

If this translation is the result of modern feminism, then call God a feminist, for He made Mary Magdalene to be the first eye witness of his only begotten son’s resurrection, an apostle of apostles.

??? What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Nothing. Just like it has nothing to do with Phoebe not qualifying for the office of deacon.

No sir, I might be bored at other subjects such as trinity, but never on this one. You are totally unaware of your own arrogance and discriminatory attitude,

Just more projection, here. (You know what "projection" is, right?)

your twisted view has effectively rendered all faithful servants of God who took a vow of celibacy unqualified frauds, and you're reinforcing the idolatry of marriage which is already prevalent in the church, both in the past and present age.

And more rhetorical histrionics. My view is neither twisted nor idolizing marriage. Rather, my views are simply carefully biblical - unlike yours.

In case you've forgotten, we the church are collectively the bride betrothed to Lord Jesus, our great commission is to make disciples, not babies!

Uh huh.

That is our eternal destiny in the kingdom of God, any earthly marriage and family life is but a temporary reflection, like a trailer of the whole movie, or to use a more biblical analogy, crumbs fallen off the master's table!

You don't say...

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Calling a defeater of your assertions a "word game" is just a rhetorical maneuver that seeks to discount (for no good reason) what you recognize will completely dissolve your point about Phoebe the "deacon." But simply throwing out a disparaging label isn't an argument. It's just name-calling, really; what children do when they're cross.

What is really appalling is that while Paul honored sister Phoebe as the deacon - DIAKANOS - of the Cenchrea church, you insist that she was nothing but a "servant", because her biblically affirmed position of deacon has completely dissolved your point, not mine.

No, as I pointed out, Paul's qualifications for the office of deacon rule out Phoebe since she was neither husband nor father. This is why older translations render diakonos in Romans 16:1 as "servant," rather than deacon.

If Paul really meant servant he would've used the word "doula", not "diakanos". He didn't rule out sister Phoebe, you did.

Nothing forbids Phoebe from being a servant, as all Christians are to be, but from the official role of a deacon, as Paul described it to Timothy, Phoebe could not have qualified. As I already pointed out, more modern translations use "deacon" rather than "servant" in order to pander to secular, worldly trends which they do in sacrifice of scriptural cohesiveness, creating the very problem your contention about Phoebe illustrates.

Don't attribute your own bias to translation, whoever translated the "modern" versions has far greater credibility than you, it has nothing to do with "cultural trend" but everything to do with your own disapproval.

Uh huh. That "empty barrel" adage has risen again in my mind...

By the way, I'm married. Have been for nearly twenty years. It's very hard to be so when one has "contempt against women." Also, I was single 'til I was 39, so, rather than contempt, I have a great deal of understanding of, and sympathy for, single people. But you tell yourself whatever story about me that makes you feel better.

Oh really? Did you get married to meet the "husband" qualification? And what about the "father" part? What happens to those who struggle to conceive? Does low sperm count, PCOS or endometriosis disqualify a leader? This literal reading of "husband and wife requirement" is ridiculous, and I wonder why you're not so passionate and fervent on other virtues on this list. One says "not quarrelsome", and yet you've been nothing but quarrelsome.

??? What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Nothing. Just like it has nothing to do with Phoebe not qualifying for the office of deacon.

It has everything to do with your blame on "modern translation". God's word plainly and clearly stated that Paul greeted sister Phoebe as the DEACON of the Cenchrea church, period! What does that have to do with "feminism"?

Just more projection, here. (You know what "projection" is, right?)

Whatever you say if it makes you feel better, sir. Or feeds your ego.

You don't say...

I do.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

And more rhetorical histrionics. My view is neither twisted nor idolizing marriage. Rather, my views are simply carefully biblical - unlike yours.

What you disparage as "rhetorical histrionics" is demanded by God to examine any preaching in the name of God under the light of hard historical facts, by which the wheat is separated from the chaff, true biblical teachings are separated from false ones, according to God's holy words through his ordained spokesman Moses. All I did was faithfully following Deut. 18:21-22 and presenting some simple inconvenient facts against your unintelligent, presumptuous argument.

"And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him." (Deut. 18:21-22)

Call me whatever you like, sir, we're all entitled to the First Amendment right of free speech and religion, but you know what rises in my mind? Sour grapes, which make the greatest whine.

 

[Hopeful 2]

No he didn't, Paul left, he remained.

For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. (2 Tim. 4:6)

I think you're overlooking plainly stated circumstances in 1 Tim. 1:4.

That made him an overseer who oversees the correct teaching of God's word.

You are free to believe anything you want.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Oops - You are correct. It was Barnabas that was an apostle.
Apollos was an itinerant preacher, not a local pastor.
Again, since he was not leading a congregation, the "husband of one wife" does not apply.

I agree.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You are free to believe anything you want.

Nonetheless we're reading the same bible.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Nonetheless we're reading the same bible.

It doesn't always seem like it.
I read it with the knowledge that man can live perfectly before God.
Without that insight, I too would be trying to justify sin in the believer.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

It doesn't always seem like it.
I read it with the knowledge that man can live perfectly before God.
Without that insight, I too would be trying to justify sin in the believer.

You are free to believe anything you want as well, including your blasphemous sinless perfection heresy. I won't go further on that old stale rabbit trail, lest I disrespect the OP and derail this thread.

 

[Hopeful 2]

You are free to believe anything you want as well, including your blasphemous sinless perfection heresy. I won't go further on that old stale rabbit trail, lest I disrespect the OP and derail this thread.

That's your insight....