Which LOTR Character Are You?
I took this quiz online just for fun to see which LOTR character do I resemble the most by answering some questions. And my result is shown below. It’ll be fun to know your result, too, so let me know which LOTR character you are! Anyway, here’s a copy of my results after taking the quiz…
You scored as Arwen.
You’re Arwen Evenstar! This elven princess may not get in on too much action, but she’s always optimistic and hopeful for the future. She does what she can to help her love, Aragorn, who is off fighting, and is always supportive of him.
”I would rather spend one lifetime with you than face all the ages of this world alone.”
And here’s the graph version of my results:
Which LOTR character are you? |
The graph says I scored equally as Arwen and Gandalf, but the tie-breaker question revealed I was more Arwen. Notice I scored 0% on Gollum, ha ha… That’s precioussssssssss… :) Now, as for my favorite and least favorite LOTR characters, here are my opinions…
I’m just sooo thankful that Eowyn is not #1 on my result! :) Honestly, she’s one of my least favorite LOTR characters. She has this “woman-can-do-everything-a-man does” type of spirit. I don’t really like how she carries herself, including the way she steals romantic glances at Aragorn. She comes across as flirtateous and a bit “forward” for a woman. :P She doesn’t seem very feminine…and of course, I don’t mean in terms of her appearance, but rather her spirit. Eowyn is the type of woman who can kill her own snake, so to speak. And I disagree with some of her thoughts, including the whole thing about women going to war. I have a feeling Eowyn would make a feminist if she had lived in modern day, heh-heh.
Moving on to my favorite LOTR character… And it is… Drumrolls, please… Samwise Gamgee!!! Yes, 
I know, I know, most people would probably not pick Sam’s picture to be put on the big poster to promote the movie because he may not look quintessential of a hero. They’d probably pick Aragorn or Gandalf or Frodo for that. But still, nevertheless, he is my favorite character in the entire movie because of his loyalty–a true rare character I deeply admire in anyone! He has some comical scenes with Smeagle when the two were fighting and Smeagle calls him “the fat hobbit.” :) He courageously rescues Frodo even after being told to go off and abandoned by Frodo himself. Sam didn’t come up #1 in my quiz result (he was #3) but that’s only because I don’t have hairy feet! ;) Another reason I just love Sam’s character is because I can relate with him in certain parts of the movie, for example his complete distrust of Gollum. Frodo, having carried the ring himself, was able to extend some mercy to Gollum by giving him “a second chance” because he understood the burden and influence the ring has upon anyone who has bore it. But I see some of myself in Sam because (and you may think this is regrettable) I would not have extended the mercy that Frodo did and, in fact, would probably have treated Gollum in the same way Sam did and gone on the journey without Gollum. I would’ve been zealous in my effort to shatter Gollum’s image in Frodo’s eyes (to protect him) since Gollum is deceitful and untrustworthy. Honestly, I just couldn’t see how I could trust Gollum and protect my friend at the same time. I really like how there’s something very human (and real) about Sam in this. And I just love Sam’s faithfulness, loyalty, passion, and courage! Sam is the kind of person everyone wants to have as a friend!
January 10th, 2007 at 8:52 am | Permalink
[...] Hat tip to Jessica for this one: [...]
January 10th, 2007 at 8:20 pm | Permalink
I knew it wouldn’t be Eowynfeminazi!
January 10th, 2007 at 8:30 pm | Permalink
You scored as Gandalf. You are Gandalf! This wise, old mage is loyal and brave. He is known for his counsel and advice to his friends and allies during tough times.
“All you have to do is decide what to do with the time that is given to you.”Which LOTR character are you?created with QuizFarm.com
January 10th, 2007 at 9:36 pm | Permalink
Here is my scrore, LOL
You’re Samwise Gamgee! Samwise the brave is the most loyal friend that you could ever ask for. He’ll be there for you through thick and thin, and be willing to do anything for you. “There is some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it’s worth fighting for.”
Samwise 75%
Gandalf 69%
Arwen 69%
Eowyn 56%
Faramir 44%
Aragorn 38%
Frodo 38%
Pippin 25%
Gollum 13%
January 11th, 2007 at 4:21 pm | Permalink
Hi Josh: Gandalf is a great character to be (after all, he was #2 in my own result.
) Who did you score as for #2 (if you remember)?
Tim: You scored as my favorite LOTR character! Sam was #3 on mine… Hmm, maybe I should re-take the test again.
January 11th, 2007 at 7:25 pm | Permalink
Jessi, I’m not sure what number 2 was. I didn’t wanna use up too much space in my previous comment, so I just put the main one up. Sorry! I do remember that as far as Sam went I was 69% likened unto him.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:39 pm | Permalink
The most precious thing to me about the LOTR series is something my dad said to me after watching the third one. “This movie was really about Samwise Gamgee. He’s the one who grew and sacrificed the most, even though he didn’t have to. He’s the real hero, even though he got no glory on screen.”
I thought that was interesting, since my dad’s tried to teach us to value loyalty and sacrifice. At the same time, I do a mean Gollum impression. Turns out that I have some Gollum in me, too.
Samwise 100%
Gandalf 88%
Frodo 69%
Aragorn 69%
Eowyn 63%
Arwen 63%
Pippin 44%
Gollum 38%
Faramir 25%
One hard thing about being Samwise: Most people take him for granted because he’s always there. Although he eventually gets frustrated and walks away, it’s never easy for him to do that.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:55 pm | Permalink
I just thought about this… I think the LOTR quiz explains why I love golden retrievers so much. They are the Samwise of dogs.
Hmmm… which animal would best represent some of these other characters?
Samwise - golden retriever
Gandalf - stallion
Frodo - penguin
Aragorn - lion
Eowyn - Siberian husky
Arwen - St. Bernard
Gollum - vulture
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:43 pm | Permalink
Hi Darren, thanks for sharing your quiz result! I like your choices of which animal represents which character. I think you’re right that golden retrievers are probably the Samwise of dogs.
I really like them… they’re one of the most extremely loyal (and intelligent) dogs to their master. Speaking of which, well-trained German Shepherd dogs are quite loyal, too, to their owners, but mmm… I guess they’re too fierce, eh? 
I scored as Arwen but I have no idea what St. Bernard are like.
January 25th, 2007 at 10:14 pm | Permalink
Hi, Jessica! Welcome to my blog and thanks very much for visiting.
What, you speechless, with the amount of writing you do on your blog? That would be hard for me to imagine too. 
Thank God Biblical gentleness isn’t equated with silence. But I somehow doubt that you’re the first one to get the bread when it’s passed around. 
Yes, yes, what a lovely name. Apparently, your parents were not the only ones to think so:
http://www.thenamemachine.com/baby-names-girls/Jessica.html
The grace of God seems to have been applied quite liberally in that generation.
—
I was intially trying to decide whether the golden retriever would go better with Sam or Arwen. In my mind, the important distinction is the purpose they were bred for. Golden retrievers get the bird and come back over and over again, whereas St. Bernards were bred as search and rescue dogs. They can love from a distance.
That’s what makes Sam and Arwen very different to me. They’re both very loyal, but Arwen has a gift to be able to support and encourage Aragorn from far away and even detect when he’s in trouble without actually being there.
While we’re on this topic, which Star Wars character do you think you’d be?
April 30th, 2007 at 6:57 am | Permalink
Hi Jessica,
I love this quiz! I tried it for almost ten times now :D. I always come up with Aragorn as the #1 result although I kept hopelessly hoping it would be Samwise :D; #2 mostly Samwise and after that between Gandalf, Arwen and Eowyn.
I kind of agree and disagree with your notion about Eowyn. I agree that she has a certain feminist spirit in her, however, I cannot totally blame her for misreading Aragorn’s love. Even the King of Rohan thought the same thing and I dislike Aragorn for somewhat misleading her.
Speaking about Gollum is interesting because I came across this reading that asked, “If we think we can do good enough while we’re awake, think whether it would still be the same in our dream?” Gee… that questions my integrity in every aspect! I really need God’s mercy
Nice quiz, love it, thanks Jessica!
May 1st, 2007 at 8:03 pm | Permalink
Hi Grace,
Nice to hear your quiz result. I always find it interesting to hear people’s results. That’s great that you’re an Aragorn, which is actually a great thing cause he’s brave and courageous. You tested ten times, huh? Wow, that’s too much… I tested only 8 times.
And you know what? Like you, I kept hopelessly trying to get Samwise #1 in my result. But to no avail. *sigh* I’ve come to gradually accept and now fully embrace that the reason Sam came up #2 in my result is only because I don’t have hairy feet like hobbits do. What can I say, I’m blessed with smooth human feet.
About Eowyn, that’s a very interesting observation you made. Mmm, I guess you’re right. Upon reflection, Aragorn might’ve misled her. In which case, poor Eowyn. But I’m super glad in the end Aragorn ended up with Eowyn who supports him from a distance, maybe like the Proverbs 31 woman?
Like any noble man, I suppose Aragorn likes a wife who supports him in the home, instead of expecting her to fight his battles for him in the fields—or in the gates, so to speak?
Hehe… Okay, I think I’m going way overboard and confusing myself with this comparison thing, so I’ll stop it here. Ha ha ha 
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:28 am | Permalink
Err, make it my 12th times by now :D… In this “Sam thing” case I believe it’s because our feet are not hairy enough, there can’t be other reasons, can they :D?
I agree that a woman should not fight FOR her man’s battles, but she should support him IN his battles (actually I’m still not quite get it in relation to Prov 31:23 :D). Because everybody should fight their own battles. It’s those battles that make us strong and be what we are intended to be. Cannot agree with you more on this.
To be honest, I’m more glad because Eowyn ended up with Faramir, they seem to be a good match. But I still want to smack Aragorn for ever giving Eowyn a kind of hope (please forgive my limited vocabulary) :D. Gee, I could talk for hours about LOTR, will end it up here. Period. LOL :D:D:D:D! Thanks Jess!
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:29 pm | Permalink
Hi Grace! You wrote:
Ha ha ha ha
So hilarious!! That cracked me up laughing. You know what? I actually thought it was so funny that Eowyn ended up with Faramir in the final scenes. Awww, what a cute couple. 
Since you can talk hours on this, mmm, why stop here?
Who’s your least favorite LOTR (if any) or what’s your favorite scene?
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:31 am | Permalink
Hahaha, thanks Jessica!
My least favorite character… almost none I guess, except maybe the sorcerer who became an ally of Saruman and put the King of Rohan under Saruman’s spell. Yaaiiksss… His wandering eyes for Eowyn and tongue like a snake.
I don’t really like scenes where Gollum talked to himself. So gloomy and devastating. But I do feel sorry for Gollum. He represents all unbelievers, powerless to fight against sins. I was once in his place. Hiks…
What about you?
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:18 pm | Permalink
Hi Grace,
Thanks for sharing. Yeah, Gollum’s moments of “multiple personality disorder” were quite creepy!
I feel sorry for him, too, because obviously he’s been so affected by the evil influence. And you know what? The ring was eventually destroyed not because someone overcame its evil power. Frodo certainly didn’t throw it willingly into the fire. I think Tolkien deliberately wrote the story so as to have the ring destroyed by “accidentally” being thrown into the fire on purpose, to show the sinfulness, greediness, and depravity of the human nature and its inability to overcome temptation by human will alone. It shows we can’t rely on our own strength alone to overcome evil.
Oh, by the way, I thought it funny about Eowyn and Faramir being a couple, because I don’t think there was really any other important human male character left in the movie?
So I guess it was obvious Faramir is the only one left. 
heh-heh…
Mmm, my least favorite scene… probably the fighting scenes. I don’t really care too much to watch most of the battle and the killing in the movie. I like the parts where Sam and Smeagle were comically arguing with each other, though, and Sam got called “the fat one.”
Sam is the best character!
May 4th, 2007 at 3:08 am | Permalink
http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1019512.aspx
I started a discussion in a forum asking people to take the quiz and the results came quite variably and fun
Just see it for yourself if you want. And there are also some other discussions in that forum where you might be interested in, Jessica. It’s like spreading the news about Christ through non-Christians forum.
About Eowyn, actually Legolas can be another good choice
if both of them follow Aragorn-Arwen’s step (I would if I were her). You see, although I don’t like Eowyn’s many styles, but I sympathize with her nonetheless because perhaps that was the way she ever knew to do in such situation, say that was the way she was brought up to be (and believe). Remember when she said about she could die if she was trapped like a bird in a cage?
In reality, I’m interested in movies about war (hopelessly without blood and all) because many of them are based on true events. But I can see your view about the fighting scenes in LOTR. What are your most favorite scenes then?
May 4th, 2007 at 3:49 am | Permalink
I tried to respond to this post three times to no avail, Jess. I’ll reply from my email facility then
May 4th, 2007 at 7:04 pm | Permalink
Hi Grace,
I’m happy to tell you that it is now fixed already, so now your response is showing up.
I’m so sorry for the inconvenience. Apparently the spam filter was too strong, and perceived that the link you included might’ve been spam-related. But I’ve done something to fix it, so you probably won’t have to encounter this again in the future. Thanks for your patience. 
And yes, I did visit your page there. Thanks for letting me know. I’ve been wanting to ask if you had a page online (or something related), cause I think that you have lots of good & edifying thoughts to share. Let me know if you have any other blogs, okay? I would be glad to visit. By the way, I commented on one of your discussions, too. Hope you receive it and that you’ll get to read it.
Oh yeah, you’re right about Legolas! I can’t believe I forgot the white-haired Legolas.
I mean, the other girls watch the movie for him. 
Though I personally like Aragorn better. 
One of the most memorable scenes for me is when Samwise shared his last piece of food and last drop of water with Frodo. How he stayed with Frodo to the end. That was so touching. And when Frodo told him to leave, I almost shed a tear. I loved the scene where Sam rescued Frodo from that ugly monstrous spider. Sooo courageous! I love that scene a lot. Sam is a hero.
May 5th, 2007 at 1:00 am | Permalink
Jessica, somehow I thought of that spam possibility, too
I have nothing else online, perhaps one day when I have more time to write. I love reading and sometimes writing to express my thoughts, but I like connecting with people more to touch those who are lowly in spirit because I myself like that, too. Somehow they understand my language and so do I - in some cases 
Thanks for joining in, just make yourself comfortable. There is no obligation to stay or whatever if you feel that you are not called to do that. We all have our own gifts and ministries, right
Remember when Sam almost drowned himself after refusing to follow Frodo’s request about letting him go to Mordor alone? “I made a promise myself, Mr Frodo, don’t you ever leave him, Samwise Gamgee!” How much tead I’d shed, well… at least a bucket, I guess… if not more, LOL!!!
November 20th, 2007 at 12:38 pm | Permalink
so you dont like Eowyn ? interesting. raised as a king’s daughter and spoiled against the rules of society, she still had to submit to the fact only a man could rule even if she were queen. determined not to be a milk sop, the man who married her would have to be a man
dispite a comment earlier by someone, she would not be a femminazi or feminist as she enjoyed being a woman too much. her desire to go to war was more out of desperation to survive than to be slaughtered if they were defeated. i know people confuse her attitude to be anti-woman, but they do so because they forget she is royalty and someone in authority. she is a perfect example of a proverbs woman in her desire to take care of everyone that she has charge over, no matter how lowly thier position. as well as her desire to master every task in her life. a truely rare woman to find to be sure. she reminds me of the typical frontier woman who could shoot, skin a deer, ride a horse and kill flies with a bull whip and still long to be held as a woman 
yup .. that is my kind of woman ! ! ! true proverbs 31
November 20th, 2007 at 8:19 pm | Permalink
No, I don’t like Eowyn. I stand by my feminist label. Let’s see, milk sop is defined loosely as “a weak and ineffectual person.” So, friend, is that how you define traditional feminine roles? as milk sops? It was Eowyn’s violent and physical aggressiveness that violated all things feminine. It was her blatant disregard of her Father’s wishes that violated her femininity.
So being born to royalty means automatic authority? In Scripture it is a sign of judgment when a nation is ruled by women. I think I’ll side with good ol’ John Knox and his thoughts concerning the “Monstrous Regiment of Women.”
And as for your allusion to the Proverbs 31 woman, it doesn’t apply. Could you kindly show me wherein it is intimated that this Proverbs 31 woman is commissioned to fight in a war, though she has husband and other men to do so? Don’t get me wrong, a wife and a mother ought to protect their family from harm, but never by abandoning them to go off to war.
So, I’ll respectfully disagree with your thoughts that such behaviors are befitting of a Christian Lady who is to be a keeper of her home, a helpmeet to her husband, or a serving daughter to her father if she’s not married.
November 21st, 2007 at 6:58 am | Permalink
No offense taken Josh, we all have our opinions. would that i were eloquent so that i could convey my understanding. a proverbs 31 woman is the ideal and she is not real. a man would be hard pressed to be all the things a proverbs woman could be. as for how i see women
they are beautiful creatures with the capability to be more cruel than any man could be. i do see the violations you claim for Eowyn. as i remember her only violation of her father’s wishes we when she rode off to battle with him. she knew her place in thier society, that she would never rule as we know a queen can do here, and submitted to that and all the other dictates of thier society.
being born to royalty means automatic responsibility.. so there has to be authority with it.. do you not feel it yourself now that you are adopted into the royal family of our Lord? why would it be less in a natural family? i have not read knox’s view of women, but i am sure it is neither flattering or biblical.
why would not proverbs 31 apply to a woman who battles ? in the law it says a woman is to battle her attacker in a rape, and if she doesnt show signs of the battle on her person, then she is considered to have consented. you condem her for fighting in a battle for thier very existance as though the men were going off to war and there was no threat to her. you my friend prefer to have your women subservient, i prefer them to be submissive. a big difference. Eowyn submitted to her culture and her position. Had she died on the field, would it have pleased you better? or do you condem the woman (Judges 4:21) for slaying the enemy?
this is a funny conversation considering Eowyn is a pagan in a warrior society.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:16 pm | Permalink
Third attempt to get this right.
How is it that one can be sure of the Biblical invalidity of a man’s writing, when one hasn’t even read such? Knox not Biblical? Take some time read him, it’ll be good.
From Knox’s The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women:
Ron, you wrote:
I believe you’re misrepresenting my aforementioned assertions, Sir. Wherein have I written (or implied) that a woman ought not engage in self-defense? Next:
Again, it is incumbent upon all of God’s creatures to practice innocent self-defense, otherwise they’re guilty of breaking the Sixth Commandment by extension.
Quite presumptious, no? No, Sir, I am a proponent of biblical submission.
Should we submit to our culture when it violates the principles of Scripture? I think not.
Are you kidding me? Do you really seek to paint such a harsh picture of me? Do you really mean to intimate that I would glory in one violation of God’s principles for the sake of another? As for “slaying the enemy” I’ll leave you a word from William Einwechter:
November 26th, 2007 at 6:06 am | Permalink
Josh, you obviously are better at these blogs than i.. hope you can make out what i wrote in reply
;;what you quoted from knox is enough to confirm my opinion of him. thank you.
as to women ruling, in the old testiment view, the only woman who came close to that title would be jezabel, deborah’s role was not that office. guess you could say she was more a counselor. a good bible study would show the curse of eve was her desire to dominate a man. so now we have the women’s lib to prove it. but as far as ruling goes, Paul says a woman should not usurp authority over men, notice the key word, usurp. Paul never said a woman (mature in the Lord) could not have authority over a man.
I believe you’re misrepresenting my aforementioned assertions, Sir. Wherein have I written (or implied) that a woman ought not engage in self-defense?
;; you implied it when you say a woman should not go to war when the struggle was to the death.
Should we submit to our culture when it violates the principles of Scripture? I think not.
;;sigh… even if eowyn was a christian, none of her actions violate scripture. you said yourself she was obliged in the scriptures to defend herself.. and that is what she did by going to battle. but since she is a pagan, the point is still made she did nothing wrong. you may not like her style, but she is definitely not a feminist.
;;had you read the verse, you would have noticed i was NOT talking about deborah, but another woman.
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
November 26th, 2007 at 6:30 am | Permalink
Hi, Ron. I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving.
Concerning Paul’s admonitions (My emphases added):
1 Cor. 14:33b-35 (ESV)
And 1 Tim. 2:11-12:
I’m not sure how to reconcile those passages with what you said. It seems pretty clear to me that Paul says a woman ought not have authority over a man.
Concerning a woman not engaging in self-defense, I’ve neither explicityly nor implicitly asserted that a woman ought not engage in self-defense. In fact, I said it is here prerogative to do so by extension of the 6th Commandment. Defending one’s home (AT HOME) and family (AT HOME) is far different from going out actively to war.
You mentioned that since Eowyn’s a pagan, she wasn’t guilty of sin? Does that mean, according to you, when a Pagan breaks God’s Law they’re not sinning. I’m a bit confused. Forgive my density as I don’t think I’m understanding you properly.
I did read the verse to which you alluded. I then responded with a quote from Einwhecter which deals with the context of the verse you cited. You see, context is always helpful in interpreting isolated prooftexts.
As for your allusion to Galatians 3:28, how could I possibly disagree? I fully agree that Jews, Greeks, Slaves, Freedmen, Male, and Female can all be equally saved by faith in Christ…and are equal in that sense. I’m not sure, however, how this verse contradicts anything I’ve written, since we haven’t been talking about salvation (and that is what Galatians 3 is talking about).
Ron, to what extent do you think women should serve in the Church? Deacons, Elders, Pastors? Just curious. Thanks!
November 26th, 2007 at 12:12 pm | Permalink
Hi, Ron. I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving.
;;thank you.. it was an interesting one to say the least (i am a newlywed
;;;Paul said a woman should not “usurp” authority over a man. here again we see paul dealing with the society at the time. it does not change what he taught .. especially in the corinthian church that most people quote to ‘put women in thier place’.. that church was very young and paul was dealing with the society.. i suppose you think the law he was referring to about women being quiet was the old testiment?? these were gentiles, and the social law of the area was very strict.. just as the issue of the hair was a cause of concern because there the prostitutes kept thier head shaved.
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Romans 16:1
I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
if you remember what our Lord said at the last supper, about the greatest should be servant of all, would that not place her above the ones she served? what about the women who had churches inside thier homes?
just as the old testiment had prophetesses, so did the church.. if you remember, paul said the prophet was 2nd in rank in the church behind an apostle..
paul taught the church to work inside the society they lived in.
I am NOT saying that a woman leads inside the family over the man, but as the help mate, she does give counsel to the man, and its a foolish man who ignores her. I am not saying in a social order a woman should be preferred to rule over men when there is a man equally or better qualified. as in the case of eowin, as i said earlier in the blog, she submitted to her social order in that she would never be allowed to be the sole monarch (queen) as did happen in europe and other places i would imagine. eowin submitted to her culture. she could be a queen with a husband, but she could never hold all the power as queen.
;;; i believe i did not argue this point. my point was your condemnation of her for going to fight in the battle that was a do or die situation. if the battle was lost, they were all lost. as i said previously, i am not argueing the point and i do not believe eowin would have ever considered going to war were not the situation so dire. so in this situation, the self defense, IMHO, does apply.
;;;my point in that was she was living in a pagan society living under thier customs, as i said before, wether christian or pagan, she did nothing wrong in going into battle. even were she a believer, there was nothing she did that would be considered a sin. as for God’s law, any who break it are guilty, even if they dont know about it. in romans paul talks about the law of God being written on the gentile hearts already.
;;a bit over kill i think.. i was mearly asking if you condemned that woman for putting a nail through the guy’s head a sin.
;;i guess if that is all you see.. that is all you get. to me, it says in the body we are all on equal footing, not just in salvation alone. its the calling that places us inside the body, the role we fulfill as it were. prophet or prophetess, its still the number 2 position in the church.. and if a woman can hold that position, what prevents her from the others?
if you havent already guessed.. i am not calvanistic
i am not a robot or atomitron. anyway.. it looks as though we are at the point to agree to disagree on this topic. i will never agree eowin is a feminazi, she doesnt meet the criteria of trying to take or usurp power over men or for female superiority.
;;personally? the offices you name should be filled by blameless MARRIED men as paul outlined to timothy.. unfortunately most churches ignore that requirement. paul does talk about women teaching other women so there is obviously a position for women to be teachers and a hierarchy of authority for women in the church since some women had churches in thier houses. since women were prophetesses in the old testiment, it would not change in the new, so there IS a was for them to serve. I have read about many women missionaries and my hat is tipped to them for the way they serve the Lord and how the Lord blessed thier ministry (IMHO, the modern day apostle is a missionary). I know socially speaking, many resist and fight against women have an active responsible role, so it is a topic i tread lightly on as I do not wish to offend the Holy Spirit in what it is doing.
God bless
November 26th, 2007 at 1:51 pm | Permalink
Ron:
Congratulations!
Paul also said he does not (i.e. READ: By God’s authority) permit a woman to teach OR usurp authority over a man.
Huh? You’re losing me. So Paul’s admonition here is not relevant, since our society is different?
You’ll have to clarify this as well. Is the Old Testament null? Male headship and authority over the woman is moral in nature, by virtue of the fact that it is a creation estlabishment…even before the fall.
And? We’re all called to be servants. That is hardly a woman teaching or having authority over a man in the church.
I do not understand how you think this translates into women having authority over men? You’re mixing concepts. Jesus was not talking about church hiearchy or offices.
What about them? That’s a great way to serve the church…male or female. Providing a place when there is no other. Wonderful!
Insofar as the Prophetesses go, I’ll defer again to John Knox. Furthermore, I think there’s some disagreement on the definition and perpetuity of the office of “Prophet,” seeing as now there is a closed Canon of Scripture that is sufficient for all faith and practice in the life of the Christian.
You make him sound so postmodern. Did he start the Emergent movement?
And hypothetically speaking, by submitting to her culture she ignored God’s Law.
An assertive engagement into battle, while there were men for such a task is NOT self defense.
And? I’m not following.
An example of something in Scripture does not equal a prescription for it. Which is why I have alluded to both Einwechter and Knox.
Well, I prefer not to eisogete the text. Instead, I’d like to consider the context, which includes the previous chapters of the book, Paul’s purpose in writing it, etc. Thus, since Paul is writing to the Galatians about the false gospel that the Judaizers were spreading, we get to this chapter wherein he is discussing the freeness of salvation. One by faith, and not by works of the law. And this salvation renders all free and equal in Christ. It’s not discussing Church hiearchy or office.
I’m sure you mean ‘Calvinistic’, but I’m most uncertain what you mean by denying that you are a robot or atomitron. Certainly you don’t mean to imply that the Doctrines of Grace, T.U.L.I.P., Five Points of Calvinism, Canons of Dordt, etc. teach that men are robots, do you?
Very well, Sir.
And I certainly would agree that it is both permitted, authorized, and appropriate for women to teach the younger (or older) women, etc.
November 28th, 2007 at 7:46 am | Permalink
just a comment about what you wrote in another topic where you said we are all just robots anyway….
you are assuming they only provided a location instead of being in charge of it.
Luke 22:25-27 (King James Version)
25And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
27For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.
November 28th, 2007 at 8:25 am | Permalink
Ron:
And you do know that such a comment was intended as sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek, right?
Are we to presume or assume upon Scripture? I meant the text nowhere says that they were “in charge.” In fact, there’s a hermeneutical principle known as the Analogy of Faith/Analogy of Scripture which teaches us that Scripture interprets Scripture.
Therefore, since all throughought Scripture I see that it is God’s design to have men as leaders, and not to have women rule over men, then I can safely interpret this descriptive texts about women providing their homes for the good of church as being faithful to all other Scripture.
So, I’m not assuming anything. Rather, I’m simply exegeting (drawing from) the text and not eisogeting (reading into) something that’s not to be found there.
You quoted:
No offense, Ron, but simply quoting a passage of Scripture doesn’t change things. You still have not taken this text and show me how it authorizes female leadership in the Church. If it does, then Paul was sinning by adding a caveat to Timothy and the Church in Corinth concerning women being silent, and not having authority over men. Then, the canonicity of those epistles should be called into question, since the Word of God can’t contain lies.
First, Jesus is talking to the disciples here (who were all men, incidentally). Second, his words concerning greatest and the least, etc. was a rebuke of their misunderstanding of leadership. They were to lead by example. This passage, in no way, has anything to do with who may lead, but how true leaders ought to carry out their commission by Christ.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:41 pm | Permalink
sorry.. no I do not know that.. there are many who do believe that, if you are ‘destined’ to be saved, there is nothing you can do to stop it.. and if you are not predestined to be saved, nothing you can do will change that.
generally true, but overlooks the times God used women when there was no man available. IMHO corinthians is a bad example as nearly all were immature…. and timothy is the rule of thumb. Timothy himself was taught of women the christian faith, so in my mind your line of reasoning would have forbid and does forbid any woman from witnessing to any man about Jesus.
my only point is not to advocate for women to have positions in the church, but when the men are lacking, women can and should fill the gap. I have seen preachers use those very scriptures to force women off the board of directors in churches they helped form. I dont believe that is godly or righteous. and that is the bone i pick with you about. You are absolute, no women allowed (i doubt you would have listened to deborah with your view), I mearly claim a woman is able to fill the gap when necessary. I have learned much from women preachers, and I will learn what I can from anyone who has truth to tell, otherwise, with your logic, i would have to condemn this site for using a format to try to teach indirectly just because a woman runs it.
hardly just i think.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:42 pm | Permalink
just curious, Josh, has your mother quit teaching you anything?? and at what age should a mother quit teaching her son?
November 29th, 2007 at 1:46 pm | Permalink
were they? my bible says the apostles were all men, and it also talks about the women who followed him… what were they?
November 29th, 2007 at 2:16 pm | Permalink
Ron, you wrote:
The above is an example of what is known as erecting a strawman. What you’ve asserted above is a misrepresentation of what Calvinism teaches. Instead of saying ‘if you are destined to be saved, there is nothing you can do to stop it’, you should say, ‘if you are predestined to be saved there is nothing you would do to stop it. What man, when shown his utter and depravity before a holy God, then show how he can be saved from it, would reject it? None.
This is why Jesus says in John 6 “All that the Father has given to me, will come to me, and those who come to me I will not cast out.” Then later in verse 44 he says, “No man can come to me, unless my Father draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.” Then in v. 65 he says, “This is why you cannot come to me, because it hasn’t been granted to you by my Father.” You see, there’s already a ‘cannot’ involved here…a man cannot believe unless God changes his heart and makes him able. Then, he cannot reject God, because he WOULD not.
Then your next statement is just as misrepresentative. It’s as simple as this, Ron. Whosoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved. No doubt about it. Christ will cast no one out who comes to him. You’re looking at predestination in the wrong light. God has predestined a people for himself. You don’t know who they are. I don’t either. However, I know the means God uses to draw them to Himself. The Gospel.
Thus, I share the gospel with all men, proclaiming that God has commanded all men everywhere to repent. One need not fear if he’s elect or not. He just needs to repent. And if he’s convicted of his sin under the preaching of the Gospel, and has a desire to truly know Christ…guess what? He’s one of the Elect. Only God can raise dead sinners.
Ummm…no. Timothy was taught by his mom and grandmother. Your examples don’t apply as I never intimated that mothers ought not teach their children. Or even that women can’t teach children at church. That’s a whole different ballgame. Also, nowhere have intimated that women may not witness to others. Do you think I’m ignorant of Priscilla’s instruction to Apollos, or the Samaritan’s women witness to everyone?
Is that bad?
I don’t think Deborah was wrong, FWIW. Read the excerpt I posted from Einwechter.
Another bad example. I never said women can’t blog, write, etc. Again, I remind you that I’m