PDA

View Full Version : Women ministers



Equipped_4_Love
Oct 25th 2007, 03:04 AM
I was just thinking about this the other day, and was looking for some feedback.

1 Timothy 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence

While most Christians believe that this has to do with the authority structure of men over women, with which I partly agree, I have come up with another angle which I also find sensible.

When I was online a few days ago, I noticed that several men were talking about a certain woman preacher, and they kept going on about how attractive she was.

This got me thinking....that perhaps the reason Paul forbade a woman to teach over a man had as much to do with the fact that men are visual creatures, and may more easily be distracted from God's Word if a woman is teaching. In other words, it has less to do with a woman's inability to teach, and more to do about the men's reaction to her.

Think about it....if an attractive female preacher is speaking, I think that most men would be paying more attention to her looks than her message. On the other hand, women are NOT visual creatures, and though it CAN happen, they would be less likely to be distracted by the way a person looks.

If it had to do with women not being spiritually discerning enough to teach, the Paul might have also forbade women to teach women, as well.

I am REALLY not trying to rag on you gentlemen here, but be honest...if you were to see an attrctive lady speaking from the pulpit, wouldn't you be just as focused, if not more focused, on her looks, rather than the message?
Women are not visual creatures, so for the most part, we don't have this problem...men, on the other hand...I believe that Paul said this because a woman teacher may prove distracting for the man, rather than the woman's inability to teach effectively.

karenoka27
Oct 25th 2007, 03:09 AM
You must remember that anything found in the Word of God, comes from God. It wasn't Paul's decision to have women not speak in a church service..

2 Timothy 3:16-"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Stepping out now...unfortunately, there are many that may follow my post saying that it is ok for a woman to be a minister. I strongly disagree.

Equipped_4_Love
Oct 25th 2007, 03:14 AM
You must remember that anything found in the Word of God, comes from God. It wasn't Paul's decision to have women not speak in a church service..

2 Timothy 3:16-"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

I understand that, so let me rephrase it...what Paul said THROUGH the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.


Stepping out now...unfortunately, there are many that may follow my post saying that it is ok for a woman to be a minister. I strongly disagree.

....and I agree with you. I was raised in a very orthodox home, in which this was taught...and although I have discarded much of the theology that I had growing up, I still feel very strongly about this.

The question, though, was not WHETHER it was wrong..It was WHY it is wrong

karenoka27
Oct 25th 2007, 03:19 AM
Because God said no?
That is my guess. I am always amazed at how people can take God's Word and try to twist it so that they can do what God clearly says not to do.

mcgyver
Oct 25th 2007, 03:24 AM
Interestingly enough....During Paul's time, one of the hallmarks of the pagan religions that were so prevalent, were the "priestesses" that were found in nearly every pagan temple.

They "prophesied", gave "interpretation of omens", etc. Perhaps Paul (through the Holy Spirit) was saying that a Christian woman should have no opportunity to be confused with a Pagan woman by her conduct?

Just a thought...

SemperReformanda
Oct 25th 2007, 03:26 AM
Because God said no?
That is my guess. I am always amazed at how people can take God's Word and try to twist it so that they can do what God clearly says not to do.
Exactly.

There are also reasons found in the following verses:

For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
(1 Timothy 2:13-14)

Some good links:
http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/9601a.html
http://www.pressiechurch.org/Theol_2/six_questions_that_have_never_be.htm
http://www.pressiechurch.org/Theol_2/public_preaching_of_women.htm (This one's fiery!)

Mograce2U
Oct 25th 2007, 03:42 AM
Hi Cloudburst,
Who told you women aren't visual creatures? That gave me a chuckle. It could be that we don't have the same attention span perhaps when it comes to lustful thoughts. But women are just as imaginative as men when it comes to the presence of the opposite sex.

But we don't have to worry about that because Paul tells us why he says this - because it was Eve who was first deceived. In a rather imaginative dialogue with the devil, at that. She was the one who thought the forbidden fruit looked good to eat. (so much for not being visual...)

When you look at some of the questionable groups who call themselves Christian, not a few were started by women. It seems that women are found in greater numbers than men in most churches, so I expect it is natural for them to want to be leaders. After all we rule our children well...

If you have ever talked to women who have had to work under a female boss, there are not many who can do so well. But then as a woman, perhaps I don't react to the same things from a male boss who acts like a jerk.

Equipped_4_Love
Oct 25th 2007, 03:44 AM
Because God said no?

Touche!!! You're right


That is my guess. I am always amazed at how people can take God's Word and try to twist it so that they can do what God clearly says not to do.

Oh, goodness, I hope that you aren't implying that I was the one doing the twisting, because that seriously was not my intent.
I was just trying to discuss something that I've been thinking about. I also agree with you that women should not be pastors.

Equipped_4_Love
Oct 25th 2007, 03:56 AM
Hi Cloudburst,
Who told you women aren't visual creatures? That gave me a chuckle. It could be that we don't have the same attention span perhaps when it comes to lustful thoughts. But women are just as imaginative as men when it comes to the presence of the opposite sex.

Well, actually, men have told me that...about them being visual. Not only that, but women have also said that they are more emotional than men.


But we don't have to worry about that because Paul tells us why he says this - because it was Eve who was first deceived. In a rather imaginative dialogue with the devil, at that. She was the one who thought the forbidden fruit looked good to eat. (so much for not being visual...)

LOL....How true. Well, I do agree with the fact that the heirarchy has to do with the woman being deceived, but when I was reading these comments about the woman preacher, this thought seriously came to mind.
I guess I didn't really give a whole lot of thought to it....I was just feeding off what these guys said.


If you have ever talked to women who have had to work under a female boss, there are not many who can do so well. But then as a woman, perhaps I don't react to the same things from a male boss who acts like a jerk.

I, personally, wish I worked with more women. I am the only female in my division, which is okay, but I do wish I could engage in more "girl talk" at work....there's only so many conversations about football practice and "hot chicks" that I can tolerate.
I have had a female boss in the past, and I guess I was lucky, because she was very nice.

Soj
Oct 25th 2007, 04:00 AM
This got me thinking....that perhaps the reason Paul forbade a woman to teach over a man had as much to do with the fact that men are visual creatures, and may more easily be distracted from God's Word if a woman is teaching. In other words, it has less to do with a woman's inability to teach, and more to do about the men's reaction to her.You make a good point here cloudburst, and in the context of the verse in question Paul does indeed mention a woman's looks in verse 9:

1 Timothy 2:9 ∂In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Yet Paul does give a clear explanation of the main reason why a woman is to not teach or seize authority over the man in verses 13 & 14 - the man was first formed and given the authority by God (Genesis 2:18), and the man was not deceived like the woman was in the garden (Genesis 3:13), suggesting that she would be again if she is put in a position of teaching or authority over the man.

It must be noted that what Paul is writing about here is concerning the order of authority within the local church (1 Timothy 2:7; 1 Timothy 3:1), and while there is some spiritual application concerning wives and husbands the doctrinal application is the local church. So women are not to teach or usurp authority over men within the local church, no women deacons, or pastors/bishops who do the preaching and teaching of God's word to the congregation.


I am REALLY not trying to rag on you gentlemen here, but be honest...if you were to see an attrctive lady speaking from the pulpit, wouldn't you be just as focused, if not more focused, on her looks, rather than the message?No comment! :cool:

jeffreys
Oct 25th 2007, 04:19 AM
From a strictly pragmatic point, I'll share this observation of the women pastors I've known, and known of.

An inordinately high number of women pastors are extremely liberal both theologically and socially. Some seem to be almost angrily feminist, to the point they spend a lot of time actually bashing men. Some have gone through horrible divorces, and seem to have a chip on their shoulder. A disproportionate number are lesbians.

There was a woman pastor who, years ago, was part of our area Ministerial Association. She was kindly received by all the men, and treated like anybody else. But her main mission seemed to focus on eradicating all gender-related language from the Bible & their hymnals. It was rather strange.


I'm sure there are some members here who will believe me a horrible person for sharing these observations. But they are my honest observations, and they make me rather sad.

Wintermute
Oct 25th 2007, 10:30 AM
Titus 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

SemperReformanda
Oct 25th 2007, 10:46 AM
Titus 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
Let's not be too quick to play choppy-choppy:

Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.
(Tit 2:3-5)

Also, let's try not to "trump" one verse with another. It doesn't make for good theology :)

Wintermute
Oct 25th 2007, 10:53 AM
Let's not be too quick to play choppy-choppy:

Exactly, which applies as much to the Timothy verses. And what is meant by teaching, according to Paul.

SemperReformanda
Oct 25th 2007, 11:25 AM
Exactly, which applies as much to the Timothy verses. And what is meant by teaching, according to Paul.
Agreed.

In the interests of doing so, I will quote 2 Timothy 2:1-3:8.


First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness--with good works.

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.
(1Ti 2:1-3:8)


Could you please illustrate from the text how complementarians misinterpret what Paul is saying?

Sold Out
Oct 25th 2007, 01:06 PM
I was just thinking about this the other day, and was looking for some feedback.

1 Timothy 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence

While most Christians believe that this has to do with the authority structure of men over women, with which I partly agree, I have come up with another angle which I also find sensible.

When I was online a few days ago, I noticed that several men were talking about a certain woman preacher, and they kept going on about how attractive she was.

This got me thinking....that perhaps the reason Paul forbade a woman to teach over a man had as much to do with the fact that men are visual creatures, and may more easily be distracted from God's Word if a woman is teaching. In other words, it has less to do with a woman's inability to teach, and more to do about the men's reaction to her.


Oooh Oooh Oooh....that's a FANTASTIC point! So true! The Holy Spirit revealed that just to you!!!

always
Oct 25th 2007, 01:17 PM
Many fail to see that all things are done with a divine order, when any female goes forth into a ministry, she should have come out from under a covering or authority (pastor) that had follow her growth in the Lord, this is keeping in line with God's divine order.

The idea that woman may be a distraction to males bother me, for one reason. The bible states that we are "dead to the sins of this world"

1Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness...

this includes men, it is a bad message to the world and mostly to young christian men that they are strong in the Lord in the face of anything, but a woman?

ludacris!

Sold Out
Oct 25th 2007, 01:33 PM
this includes men, it is a bad message to the world and mostly to young christian men that they are strong in the Lord in the face of anything, but a woman?

ludacris!

That's a great line of thinking...but simply not true. There are many,many Christian men caught in the bondage of pornography and other forms of sexual immorality. We are wise to not turn a blind eye to what is reality.

I have an 18 yr old son who is a strong Christian young man. He has been called into full-time ministry. He has shared with me his struggles with lusting. He's a man..plain & simple. The sinful desires do not go away when we get saved....we just have to put them in check. He goes to great pains to try and protect himself by what he sees, listens to, etc. He reads lots of books on Christian morality for teens & men. It takes an extra dose of character for men living in these times, because the temptations in front of them are almost unbearable to resist.

Remember, Sarah convinced Abraham to have a child with Hagar, even though God had already promised them a child. A woman can have more power over a man than even God.

I think Cloudburst makes an EXCELLENT point, and Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote those words for a reason. God meant what He said, and every 'thou shalt not' is a promise of God's protection over us.

SemperReformanda
Oct 25th 2007, 01:39 PM
God meant what He said, and every 'thou shalt not' is a promise of God's protection over us.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

jeffreys
Oct 25th 2007, 02:04 PM
That's a great line of thinking...but simply not true. There are many,many Christian men caught in the bondage of pornography and other forms of sexual immorality. We are wise to not turn a blind eye to what is reality.

I have an 18 yr old son who is a strong Christian young man. He has been called into full-time ministry. He has shared with me his struggles with lusting. He's a man..plain & simple. The sinful desires do not go away when we get saved....we just have to put them in check. He goes to great pains to try and protect himself by what he sees, listens to, etc. He reads lots of books on Christian morality for teens & men. It takes an extra dose of character for men living in these times, because the temptations in front of them are almost unbearable to resist.

Remember, Sarah convinced Abraham to have a child with Hagar, even though God had already promised them a child. A woman can have more power over a man than even God.

I think Cloudburst makes an EXCELLENT point, and Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote those words for a reason. God meant what He said, and every 'thou shalt not' is a promise of God's protection over us.

I agree with everything you've said, but I'm not sure I totally agree that this is a reason for women not to be in ministry (though I'm not sure that's your intent).

If we're going to keep a woman from preaching, because she's pretty and could be a distraction, what about women on the platform helping lead worship?

My wife of 24 years is a beautiful woman. She is often on the platform singing with one of our worship teams. She always dresses in a very appropriate and modest fashion. But if I'm sitting in the pew, doing the Homer Simpson drool and thinking, "Mmmmmmmmmm... naked," that's my problem, and is not a result of her being provocative.


I guess that's my way of saying that I'm not sure how far we can take the argument of "being distracting" when it comes women in ministry.

PrayerInMemphis
Oct 25th 2007, 02:14 PM
great point, Cloudburst!

I've never felt very comfortable with the idea of women pastors....I think it's because I feel God wants men to be the spiritual leaders of their churches that for the same reasons He wants them to be the spiritual leaders of their households.

but nonetheless, women are still the backbones of these institutions...:hmm:

always
Oct 25th 2007, 03:14 PM
That's a great line of thinking...but simply not true. There are many,many Christian men caught in the bondage of pornography and other forms of sexual immorality. We are wise to not turn a blind eye to what is reality.

I have an 18 yr old son who is a strong Christian young man. He has been called into full-time ministry. He has shared with me his struggles with lusting. He's a man..plain & simple. The sinful desires do not go away when we get saved....we just have to put them in check. He goes to great pains to try and protect himself by what he sees, listens to, etc. He reads lots of books on Christian morality for teens & men. It takes an extra dose of character for men living in these times, because the temptations in front of them are almost unbearable to resist.

Remember, Sarah convinced Abraham to have a child with Hagar, even though God had already promised them a child. A woman can have more power over a man than even God.




Christian Men who are still lusting after women need the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you:

It is naive to think that women don't lust just as men do, and it is a horrible thought to me that you are saying ALL men ordained and called of God are subject to the wiles of women, I don't believe that

men filled with the Holy Ghost and those with a mind to live for God recognize the enemy working in these situations

Think of Bro. Joseph with Potiphar's wife, all men don't fall for the sin of lust.

Sold Out
Oct 25th 2007, 04:15 PM
I guess that's my way of saying that I'm not sure how far we can take the argument of "being distracting" when it comes women in ministry.

True................

Sold Out
Oct 25th 2007, 04:23 PM
Christian Men who are still lusting after women need the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you:

It is naive to think that women don't lust just as men do, and it is a horrible thought to me that you are saying ALL men ordained and called of God are subject to the wiles of women, I don't believe that

men filled with the Holy Ghost and those with a mind to live for God recognize the enemy working in these situations

Think of Bro. Joseph with Potiphar's wife, all men don't fall for the sin of lust.

I won't derail the thread by addressing your baptism of the Holy Ghost comment.

Please don't be naive about this....men ARE different from women in this respect. If we women could spend a day with our husband's minds, we'd probably try to commit suicide! We as women have NO WAY of comprehending the struggle that men have when they are exposed to things that can cause them to stumble. Why do you think there are so many strip clubs for men, but only a few for women? Men are stimulated visually!!!!

Joseph is a terrific example of a man who resisted temptation. It was because of his love for God that he refused to give in to it. No where does it say he DIDN'T lust...he just chose not to sin.

diffangle
Oct 25th 2007, 04:28 PM
It is naive to think that women don't lust just as men do, and it is a horrible thought to me that you are saying ALL men ordained and called of God are subject to the wiles of women, I don't believe that

Exactly! There are women who throw themselves at pastors, just look at how many pastors have been busted for adultery. According to this article below, 37% of pastor's have admitted to commiting adultery...

http://www.instchristiangrowth.org/Art%204%20Adultery.htm

always
Oct 25th 2007, 04:33 PM
Joseph is a terrific example of a man who resisted temptation. It was because of his love for God that he refused to give in to it. No where does it say he DIDN'T lust...he just chose not to sin.


Exactly! it starts with the man's committment and his love for God, that he restrained himself, even if he did lust.


Exactly! There are women who throw themselves at pastors,

Exactly!, women do this as much as men, and sometimes out of a more devious plot of a mindset, what they perceive as prestige.

Woman have a job dealing with their own soul salvation, men have to deal with theirs

9Marksfan
Oct 25th 2007, 04:42 PM
just look at how many pastors have been busted

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

I know it's a serious issue, but your turn of phrase had me thinking of several cop cars with flashing lights and sirens turning up at the guy's house and the cops breaking into the bedroom, guns at the ready!

"OK, pal, you're BUSTED!!!!"

Sorry - my wife says my sense of humour is totally inappropriate at times.....

Semi-tortured
Oct 25th 2007, 04:43 PM
I won't derail the thread by addressing your baptism of the Holy Ghost comment.

Please don't be naive about this....men ARE different from women in this respect. If we women could spend a day with our husband's minds, we'd probably try to commit suicide! We as women have NO WAY of comprehending the struggle that men have when they are exposed to things that can cause them to stumble. Why do you think there are so many strip clubs for men, but only a few for women? Men are stimulated visually!!!!

Joseph is a terrific example of a man who resisted temptation. It was because of his love for God that he refused to give in to it. No where does it say he DIDN'T lust...he just chose not to sin.

I think babtism of the Holy Ghost is one thing that can help a man fight lust, but the Holy Ghost can't make decisions for you at the end of the day. That would eliminate the free will God gave us. He can convict us and let us know its very wrong, but even then, men slip because they can twist things in their head until it fits. Sometimes men ignore the Holy Ghost's convictions all together and do it because they feel the urge so strongly. I know how this is because I am a recovering porn addict. It can be absolute torture to not give in to the temptation at times. Sometimes the Holy Ghost would be screaming at me not to do it, but the temptation was so strong I would block it out , do it and then almost cry afterwards because I couldn't stop it. I'd feel so low because I knew I failed God and sinned against Him. It is getting easier to fight off the temptations, but I still slip once in a while. I think the more I dedicate myself, the easier it will be. Will I reach a point where I will be able to never be tempted again? I doubt it in this life. Men are visual creatures, like Sold Out said. Yes, women are too, but IMO, any woman who tries to say they are just as visual (or close to it) is trying to belittle the differences of men and women which is a huge problem in today's day and age.

Men and women are VERY different. This mixing up of guy's needing to be more feminie and girls needing to cowboy up is hurting our church. No wonder there are so many people who are sexually confused (gay, trans, etc) when they are being taught that they really aren't different, but that people have just raised us different throughout history causing differences. We are different and compliments to each other.

Wintermute
Oct 25th 2007, 04:43 PM
Could you please illustrate from the text how complementarians misinterpret what Paul is saying?

I'm personally not in favor of women's ordination. However, I'm not convinced the 1 Timothy verse pertains to women's ordination. And I've seen that verse used to basically say women have no place even speaking or preaching.

In the old testament, while the priesthood clearly was off limits, there certainly were offices that were open to women, including nazirite and prophetess. In I Corinthians 11:5 we see women prophesying. Philip had four daughters that were prophets, Acts 21:9. See also Acts 2:18 and Luke 2:36-38. In 2 Chronicles 34:20-28, 2 Kings 22:12-20 and Judges 4-5 we see instances where women held the office of prophet and even judge over Isreal and giving out orders to men (especially in the Deborah case).

always
Oct 25th 2007, 05:27 PM
Yes, women are too, but IMO, any woman who tries to say they are just as visual (or close to it) is trying to belittle the differences of men and women which is a huge problem in today's day and age.

No, not in the least, we are different, but sin hasn't changed, sin is the same

1Cor 10:13 states

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].

so this "men are more visual" is a cop out


Men and women are VERY different. This mixing up of guy's needing to be more feminie and girls needing to cowboy up is hurting our church. No wonder there are so many people who are sexually confused (gay, trans, etc) when they are being taught that they really aren't different, but that people have just raised us different throughout history causing differences. We are different and compliments to each other.

With this I agree, and add that the differences don't give one an excuse to fall for any one particular sin more than the other.


Wake up brothers!

this borders on that foolishness that a rape victim caused her own rape because of this/that because the poor little man couldn't help himself

Semi-tortured
Oct 25th 2007, 05:30 PM
No, not in the least, we are different, but sin hasn't changed, sin is the same

1Cor 10:13 states

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].

so this "men are more visual" is a cop out



With this I agree, and add that the differences don't give one an excuse to fall for any one particular sin more than the other.


Wake up brothers!

this borders on that foolishness that a rape victim caused her own rape because of this/that because the poor little man couldn't help himself

Yikes. I hope you weren't taking my post to be a cop out for us. That it gives us the excuse to sin. NOT SAYING THAT> I was merely trying to point out that we are more visual and there are differences amongst the sexes which more and more people in this world are trying to teach is not the case. That is all.:kiss:

always
Oct 25th 2007, 05:38 PM
Yikes. I hope you weren't taking my post to be a cop out for us. That it gives us the excuse to sin. NOT SAYING THAT> I was merely trying to point out that we are more visual and there are differences amongst the sexes which more and more people in this world are trying to teach is not the case. That is all.


No, I knew what you mean't and I was agreeing with you, you are right, and adding my 2 cents:kiss:

PrayerInMemphis
Oct 25th 2007, 05:44 PM
this borders on that foolishness that a rape victim caused her own rape because of this/that because the poor little man couldn't help himself:hmm:really? because as a female, I haven't at all associated the above situation with what's being talked about it this thread...

always
Oct 25th 2007, 05:47 PM
:hmm:really? because as a female, I haven't at all associated the above situation with what's being talked about it this thread...


I did, and I've worked with females that this very thing has happened to, and it messed up their lives. "your dress was too short" "you should down play your beauty" because men are "visual persons"

we all got eyes!

amazzin
Oct 25th 2007, 05:50 PM
I was just thinking about this the other day, and was looking for some feedback.

1 Timothy 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence

While most Christians believe that this has to do with the authority structure of men over women, with which I partly agree, I have come up with another angle which I also find sensible.

When I was online a few days ago, I noticed that several men were talking about a certain woman preacher, and they kept going on about how attractive she was.

This got me thinking....that perhaps the reason Paul forbade a woman to teach over a man had as much to do with the fact that men are visual creatures, and may more easily be distracted from God's Word if a woman is teaching. In other words, it has less to do with a woman's inability to teach, and more to do about the men's reaction to her.

Think about it....if an attractive female preacher is speaking, I think that most men would be paying more attention to her looks than her message. On the other hand, women are NOT visual creatures, and though it CAN happen, they would be less likely to be distracted by the way a person looks.

If it had to do with women not being spiritually discerning enough to teach, the Paul might have also forbade women to teach women, as well.

I am REALLY not trying to rag on you gentlemen here, but be honest...if you were to see an attrctive lady speaking from the pulpit, wouldn't you be just as focused, if not more focused, on her looks, rather than the message?
Women are not visual creatures, so for the most part, we don't have this problem...men, on the other hand...I believe that Paul said this because a woman teacher may prove distracting for the man, rather than the woman's inability to teach effectively.

The womens role in the church is clearly laid out as one who teaches and instructs. In the church the women is never the head, that's the man's role. I don't have an issue with people calling women pastors because this is just a title. But they are not to function as the head leader of the church.

Semi-tortured
Oct 25th 2007, 06:19 PM
I did, and I've worked with females that this very thing has happened to, and it messed up their lives. "your dress was too short" "you should down play your beauty" because men are "visual persons"

we all got eyes!


Well, I have to take a slight exception to this. I think the amount of pedephilia today is directly related to 13 yr old girls wearing clothes, makeup and jewelry that make them look 10 years older. I have seen girls that are 13 and they look like they are beautiful 20 yr old women. Not saying to play down your beauty, but there are women who dress so provocatively that they indeed garner extra attention and that extra attention can quite often lead to negative consequences. Playing down beauty and not flaunting your beauty are two totally different things.

An example for men could be this: Women are often drawn to security. If I'm a man, and I dress in Versace, drive a Ferrari and pull a diamond crusted money clip out of my pocket holding 20 c-notes to buy a pack of gum, I am going to attract a certain kinds women. Yes, some may be good, but it also leaves myself open to attracting those who are bad. When a bad woman bleeds me dry and leaves me, was I completely innocent in the matter? No. I flaunted my wealth in a way that would attract vultures and gold diggers. I could easily have dressed in clothes from the Gap, driven a modest Acura and paid for my pack of gum with a 1 dollar bill I pulled out of my wallet. Am I dressing down my wealth? No. I am living a good life. But I am also not flaunting it.

always
Oct 25th 2007, 07:26 PM
Well, I have to take a slight exception to this. I think the amount of pedephilia today is directly related to 13 yr old girls wearing clothes, makeup and jewelry that make them look 10 years older. I have seen girls that are 13 and they look like they are beautiful 20 yr old women. Not saying to play down your beauty, but there are women who dress so provocatively that they indeed garner extra attention and that extra attention can quite often lead to negative consequences. Playing down beauty and not flaunting your beauty are two totally different things.

An example for men could be this: Women are often drawn to security. If I'm a man, and I dress in Versace, drive a Ferrari and pull a diamond crusted money clip out of my pocket holding 20 c-notes to buy a pack of gum, I am going to attract a certain kinds women. Yes, some may be good, but it also leaves myself open to attracting those who are bad. When a bad woman bleeds me dry and leaves me, was I completely innocent in the matter? No. I flaunted my wealth in a way that would attract vultures and gold diggers. I could easily have dressed in clothes from the Gap, driven a modest Acura and paid for my pack of gum with a 1 dollar bill I pulled out of my wallet. Am I dressing down my wealth? No. I am living a good life. But I am also not flaunting it.

I understand your mindset, this is good advice, but if you treated a woman with respect and love, and she did not return it, she has the problem, not you

jeffreys
Oct 25th 2007, 07:29 PM
Well, I have to take a slight exception to this. 1. I think the amount of pedephilia today is directly related to 13 yr old girls wearing clothes, makeup and jewelry that make them look 10 years older. I have seen girls that are 13 and they look like they are beautiful 20 yr old women. 2. Not saying to play down your beauty, but there are women who dress so provocatively that they indeed garner extra attention and that extra attention can quite often lead to negative consequences. Playing down beauty and not flaunting your beauty are two totally different things.

An example for men could be this: Women are often drawn to security. If I'm a man, and I dress in Versace, drive a Ferrari and pull a diamond crusted money clip out of my pocket holding 20 c-notes to buy a pack of gum, I am going to attract a certain kinds women. Yes, some may be good, but it also leaves myself open to attracting those who are bad. When a bad woman bleeds me dry and leaves me, was I completely innocent in the matter? No. I flaunted my wealth in a way that would attract vultures and gold diggers. I could easily have dressed in clothes from the Gap, driven a modest Acura and paid for my pack of gum with a 1 dollar bill I pulled out of my wallet. Am I dressing down my wealth? No. I am living a good life. But I am also not flaunting it.

1. Actually, I don't believe that's true at all. Much of the time, BOYS are the victims of pedophilia. In addition, it is a psychological/pathological problem - not something brought about by somebody dressing immodestly.

2. This is true, yes. But I think we're mixing issues here.

always
Oct 25th 2007, 07:55 PM
The womens role in the church is clearly laid out as one who teaches and instructs. In the church the women is never the head, that's the man's role. I don't have an issue with people calling women pastors because this is just a title. But they are not to function as the head leader of the church.


How could we ever get higher than Christ:hmm:

amazzin
Oct 25th 2007, 08:14 PM
How could we ever get higher than Christ:hmm:

I believe I am clear as to what I am referring to. Of course, Christ is the head but lets not play semantics with words. I am referig here to the lead pastor or senior overseer.

Thanks you

godsgirl
Oct 25th 2007, 08:19 PM
If any man cannot control himself-he needs to be put away.

always
Oct 25th 2007, 08:21 PM
I believe I am clear as to what I am referring to. Of course, Christ is the head but lets not play semantics with words. I am referig here to the lead pastor or senior overseer.

Thanks you

alright, 50 lashes with a wet noodle for me,:lol:yes, I knew what you were talking about, and to a certain extent do agree, there is a divine order, but I do and can accept a woman place in leadership by a man, (Deborah!!!!!!!!!!) I wonder if she was distracting to anyone in that battle?

amazzin
Oct 25th 2007, 08:58 PM
alright, 50 lashes with a wet noodle for me,:lol:yes, I knew what you were talking about, and to a certain extent do agree, there is a divine order, but I do and can accept a woman place in leadership by a man, (Deborah!!!!!!!!!!) I wonder if she was distracting to anyone in that battle?

Those were contensious years for Israelites and many things were in disarray. God's peopel were ruled by judges and not kings as was the divine order that God established.

SemperReformanda
Oct 25th 2007, 09:53 PM
I'm personally not in favor of women's ordination. However, I'm not convinced the 1 Timothy verse pertains to women's ordination. And I've seen that verse used to basically say women have no place even speaking or preaching.

In the old testament, while the priesthood clearly was off limits, there certainly were offices that were open to women, including nazirite and prophetess. In I Corinthians 11:5 we see women prophesying. Philip had four daughters that were prophets, Acts 21:9. See also Acts 2:18 and Luke 2:36-38. In 2 Chronicles 34:20-28, 2 Kings 22:12-20 and Judges 4-5 we see instances where women held the office of prophet and even judge over Isreal and giving out orders to men (especially in the Deborah case).
Thanks for the post.

What I am asking, though, is for you to illustrate for me how I am misinterpreting the specific text I quoted when I say that when a woman teaches any mixed gender congregation is disobeying the commands given here. Is it wrong, or twisting these scriptures, so say that a woman should not teach or have authority over men in a Christian context?

SemperReformanda
Oct 25th 2007, 09:56 PM
alright, 50 lashes with a wet noodle for me,:lol:yes, I knew what you were talking about, and to a certain extent do agree, there is a divine order, but I do and can accept a woman place in leadership by a man, (Deborah!!!!!!!!!!) I wonder if she was distracting to anyone in that battle?
This is from one of the links I posted earlier:


The arguments advanced by those who profess reverence for the Bible, in favor of this unscriptural usage, must be of course chiefly rationalistic. They do indeed profess to appeal to the sacred history of the prophetesses, Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, and Anna, as proving that sex was no sufficient barrier to public work in the church. But the fatal answer is, that these holy women were inspired. Their call was exceptional and supernatural. There can be no fair reasoning from the exception to the ordinary rule. Elijah, in his civic relation to the kingdom of the ten tribes, would have been but a private citizen without his prophetic afflatus. By virtue of this we find him exercising the highest of the regal functions (I Kings 18), administering the capital penalty ordained by the law against seducers into idolatry, when he sentenced the priests of Baal and ordered their execution. But it would be a most dangerous inference to argue hence, that any other private citizen, if moved by pious zeal, might usurp the punitive functions of the public magistrate. It is equally bad logic to infer that because Deborah prophesied when the supernatural impulse of the Spirit moved her, therefore any other pious woman who feels only the impulses of ordinary grace may usurp the function of the public preacher. It must be remembered, besides, that all who claim a supernatural inspiration must stand prepared to prove it by supernatural works. If any of our preaching women will work a genuine miracle, then, and not until then, will she be entitled to stand on the ground of Deborah or Anna.

Sold Out
Oct 25th 2007, 10:49 PM
If any man cannot control himself-he needs to be put away.


No mercy! No mercy! :lol:

always
Oct 25th 2007, 10:55 PM
This is from one of the links I posted earlier:
If any of our preaching women will work a genuine miracle, then, and not until then, will she be entitled to stand on the ground of Deborah or Anna.


man nor woman work miracles, God does!

the very fact that some women are preaching is a miracle, from abusive situations, from addictions, and so called terminal illnesses they have emerged with their brothers.

We have Deborahs and Annas today stepping out in faith on their own grounds and callings of God.

The scripture quoted by so many and the one reference by the OP was Paul's inspired and anointed wisdom dealing with an infant christian church, and instructions to men to teach their wives, why? why would ones be taught if not to use that knowledge? Can anyone tell me why?

I'm sure my bro. Paul if here would ask where are the woman? did the men do what I instructed them to do.

I don't know what any of you guys do to further the gospel, but I do minister, to men and women in prison.

OP, those inside are attracted to women, but some are sincere and are only concerned with the word given.

My gender does not change the fact that living He loved us, dying He saved us, buried He carried our sins far way, rising He justified us, freed us forever, and for us he's coming back one glorius day, the gospel

Men have given their lives to God as HE used me as a vessel. Are they considered not saved because they heard it out of the mouth of a woman?

Every time I see one of these threads, I thank God for my husband, he is the head(authority)over our ministry, we've gone through a lot, but he recognizes that there are two women in our ministry that have a powerful message from God, there are 14 of us, 7 men and 7 women. We go in as the gospel, one, used of God, in His Image, male and female HE created us

SemperReformanda
Oct 25th 2007, 11:16 PM
man nor woman work miracles, God does!

the very fact that some women are preaching is a miracle, from abusive situations, from addictions, and so called terminal illnesses they have emerged with their brothers.

We have Deborahs and Annas today stepping out in faith on their own grounds and callings of God.

The scripture quoted by so many and the one reference by the OP was Paul's inspired and anointed wisdom dealing with an infant christian church, and instructions to men to teach their wives, why? why would ones be taught if not to use that knowledge? Can anyone tell me why?

I'm sure my bro. Paul if here would ask where are the woman? did the men do what I instructed them to do.

I don't know what any of you guys do to further the gospel, but I do minister, to men and women in prison.

OP, those inside are attracted to women, but some are sincere and are only concerned with the word given.

My gender does not change the fact that living He loved us, dying He saved us, buried He carried our sins far way, rising He justified us, freed us forever, and for us he's coming back one glorius day, the gospel

Men have given their lives to God as HE used me as a vessel. Are they considered not saved because they heard it out of the mouth of a woman?

Every time I see one of these threads, I thank God for my husband, he is the head(authority)over our ministry, we've gone through a lot, but he recognizes that there are two women in our ministry that have a powerful message from God, there are 14 of us, 7 men and 7 women. We go in as the gospel, one, used of God, in His Image, male and female HE created us
Just because it works, doesn't make it right.

jeffreys
Oct 25th 2007, 11:18 PM
If any man cannot control himself-he needs to be put away.

Where would you suggest putting him? :hmm:

amazzin
Oct 25th 2007, 11:21 PM
If any man cannot control himself-he needs to be put away.

Easily said. Perhaps any women who cannot control herself should be put away???

Come on, there's got to be a better way.

always
Oct 26th 2007, 02:32 AM
Just because it works, doesn't make it right.

If it wasn't right it would not work and would not produce fruit! This is the Ministry that God gave us stewardship over tenth year, and we have seen members of our community and surroundings communities come back home from prison join and reconcile back with their perspective churches and grow in the Lord. One man who has been ordained in his church joined the ministry and goes back in with us.

You must be careful how you speak against someone working for the Lord, you could be speaking against God




Acts 5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

xlive_4_godx
Oct 26th 2007, 02:47 AM
Because God said no?
That is my guess. I am always amazed at how people can take God's Word and try to twist it so that they can do what God clearly says not to do.

All do respect, you do realize in Lev. that it says we shouldn't enter churches without shaving or having a cleanly shaven head?

Also in Lev. it talks about not have any piercings or tatoos...

I have a female pastor at my church, and I have to say that in the disciple's times, the woman was generally ignorant and uneducated; Paul was mainly saying that she should keep her questions to herself (during Jesus' teachings).

Don't normally get offended, but you see, I do have a female pastor at my church..

I do ask you this though; Does God not say ALL go out and preach his Gospel? Does this NOT mean women too??

SemperReformanda
Oct 26th 2007, 03:00 AM
If it wasn't right it would not work and would not produce fruit! This is the Ministry that God gave us stewardship over tenth year, and we have seen members of our community and surroundings communities come back home from prison join and reconcile back with their perspective churches and grow in the Lord. One man who has been ordained in his church joined the ministry and goes back in with us.

You must be careful how you speak against someone working for the Lord, you could be speaking against God

Acts 5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
Let's test your argument.

I'm sure that in the Roman Catholic church there are people who are saved. Not many, but some. They are growing in the knowledge and the love of God. But, does this automatically make the Roman Catholic church a God-honouring, Biblical, wise church? Of course not. They dishonour God with their attitude to Him and to His word.

Now, should we argue pragmatically, like you seem to want to? Or should we look to the Scriptures to see what a church should look like, and move on from there?

SemperReformanda
Oct 26th 2007, 03:03 AM
All do respect, you do realize in Lev. that it says we shouldn't enter churches without shaving or having a cleanly shaven head?
Uh... what?


I have a female pastor at my church, and I have to say that in the disciple's times, the woman was generally ignorant and uneducated; Paul was mainly saying that she should keep her questions to herself (during Jesus' teachings).
Paul was writing after Jesus had ascended into heaven.


I do ask you this though; Does God not say ALL go out and preach his Gospel? Does this NOT mean women too??
Of course it does. Nobody is arguing with that. The question is, does the Bible teach that men and women have different roles when it comes to preaching the gospel?

The Parson
Oct 26th 2007, 03:25 AM
All do respect, you do realize in Lev. that it says we shouldn't enter churches without shaving or having a cleanly shaven head?

Also in Lev. it talks about not have any piercings or tatoos...

I have a female pastor at my church, and I have to say that in the disciple's times, the woman was generally ignorant and uneducated; Paul was mainly saying that she should keep her questions to herself (during Jesus' teachings).

Don't normally get offended, but you see, I do have a female pastor at my church..

I do ask you this though; Does God not say ALL go out and preach his Gospel? Does this NOT mean women too??You are correct. We all have the comission to preach the Gospel outside. But then again, the scriptures speak of how we are to conduct ourselves inside the congregation.

Consider this... If the Bible says to not commit adultery, was that only for the Hebrew people? If the Bible says to pray for one another and bear one anothers burdens, was that mean't only for the one James was writing his epistle to? Or if Pauls says, I suffer not a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man, was that only mean't for pastor Timothy's congregation only? Just a bit of food for thought there.

xlive_4_godx
Oct 26th 2007, 03:30 AM
Uh... what?

Sorry, meant it the opposite tbh:

"(27) You shall not round the edge of your head, nor shall you destroy the edge of your beard. (28) And you shall not make a cutting for the dead in your flesh, nor shall you make a written tattoo upon you;"

See what I meant? ;)

xlive_4_godx
Oct 26th 2007, 03:36 AM
Sorry, meant it the opposite tbh:

"(27) You shall not round the edge of your head, nor shall you destroy the edge of your beard. (28) And you shall not make a cutting for the dead in your flesh, nor shall you make a written tattoo upon you;"

See what I meant? ;)


The question is, does the Bible teach that men and women have different roles when it comes to preaching the gospel?

What you were reffering to is nothing I was refering to. I said that everyone has the authority to preach the gospel. You are just restating the verse-- women should remain silent. I'm saying it's pretty hard to preach when you cannot talk.

Also, would this refer to if a man is possessed? Should not a woman cast the demon out of him?? Jesus says that we have the authority, and that we should; but if we are saying from scriptures that a womon should also have no authority (in the church I assume), then she SHOULDN'T cast that demon out of him then should she??

^Rhetorical question, of course she should.

Soj
Oct 26th 2007, 04:44 AM
Don't normally get offended, but you see, I do have a female pastor at my church..Hi xlive, have you got the liberty to ask your pastor what she thinks about 1 Timothy 2:12 where it says for a woman not to teach? I'd appreciate to hear what she says.


I do ask you this though; Does God not say ALL go out and preach his Gospel?Yip all Christians, men, women, and children. All Christians are ambassadors for Christ, we represent God on this earth and are to witness to the world the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, but God hasn't ordained for all of us to teach and preach in church services behind a pulpit. The context of what Paul the apostle is saying is concerning teaching other Christians God's word, not simply preaching the gospel to the lost world. :)

always
Oct 26th 2007, 01:11 PM
Let's test your argument.

I'm sure that in the Roman Catholic church there are people who are saved. Not many, but some. They are growing in the knowledge and the love of God. But, does this automatically make the Roman Catholic church a God-honouring, Biblical, wise church? Of course not. They dishonour God with their attitude to Him and to His word.

Now, should we argue pragmatically, like you seem to want to? Or should we look to the Scriptures to see what a church should look like, and move on from there?


not many? and I'm being opinionated:rolleyes:

I do not agree with what the RCC teaches, but I do agree with them that Jesus, lived, died and rose, the gospel, this is the one mind that we the body of Christ all have to agree on.

1Peter 3:8 Finally, all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, ...

the church is inside us, we go to the church building to worship,

again, what you are referring to in the bible was my bro. Paul dealing with a infant church. that would grow toward perfection, are you still in an infant state?

the bible says that in Christ that there is neither Greek or Jew, male or female....

women have been preaching and ministering the gospel, from the start, it was the woman at the well, the[B] first evangelist, that went to the MEN, to tell them about Jesus.

It was Mary Magadalene who went to the disciples, the first to preach the gospel, to doubting MEN

Not to mention Mary who gave life to the Word, Jesus, to a dying world.


Brothers this is not a competition, your focus must remain on Jesus, read and study your bibles, lean not to your own understanding.

Get out of the church building! and build a church in someone lost.

Sold Out
Oct 26th 2007, 01:24 PM
I think a more simple question would be.....

"Just because I can, doesn't mean I should."

Just because a women CAN be a pastor, doesn't mean she should.

All throughout the OT the men were commanded to teach & lead the children spiritually. The Levitical priesthood was men only.

We can bounce scripture back and forth and interpret it different ways, but practically speaking...is it really a good idea for a woman to lead a church congregation in the role of a lead pastor? Especially in light of Titus 2:4 & I Timothy 5:14 where women are told to be in the home. How can a woman be a pastor AND be obedient to the command to be submissive to their husbands and be workers in the home?

It sort of goes along with the drinking thing...while it's not inherently a sin to drink, there's a lot more bad that results from it than good.

always
Oct 26th 2007, 02:52 PM
I think a more simple question would be.....

"Just because I can, doesn't mean I should."

Just because a women CAN be a pastor, doesn't mean she should.

All throughout the OT the men were commanded to teach & lead the children spiritually. The Levitical priesthood was men only.

We can bounce scripture back and forth and interpret it different ways, but practically speaking...is it really a good idea for a woman to lead a church congregation in the role of a lead pastor? Especially in light of Titus 2:4 & I Timothy 5:14 where women are told to be in the home. How can a woman be a pastor AND be obedient to the command to be submissive to their husbands and be workers in the home?

It sort of goes along with the drinking thing...while it's not inherently a sin to drink, there's a lot more bad that results from it than good.


I sure that is what Deborah was trying to get across, to Barak

Jud 4:9 And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.

but Barak did not allow his gender to stand in the way of a victory, he was not the one and he knew it!

In Heb. his name means lightening, Deborah's name means "bee"

It was God and her sting he needed to defeat the Caananites.

Thank God for men of wisdom

Mograce2U
Oct 26th 2007, 03:27 PM
I sure that is what Deborah was trying to get across, to Barak

Jud 4:9 And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.

but Barak did not allow his gender to stand in the way of a victory, he was not the one and he knew it!

In Heb. his name means lightening, Deborah's name means "bee"

It was God and her sting he needed to defeat the Caananites.

Thank God for men of wisdom
(Judg 4:6-8 KJV) And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedeshnaphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the LORD God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun? {7} And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand. {8} And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go.

Barak seems to be a bit of a coward here, not willing to trust the word of the Lord to give him the victory unless Debra is present. That is why women were given the honor instead of him.

always
Oct 26th 2007, 03:34 PM
(Judg 4:6-8 KJV) And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedeshnaphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the LORD God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun? {7} And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand. {8} And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go.

Barak seems to be a bit of a coward here, not willing to trust the word of the Lord to give him the victory unless Debra is present. That is why women were given the honor instead of him.


Exactly, women being reverence as leaders is not a new thing, we should work together, when one is weak the other may be strong

Sold Out
Oct 26th 2007, 03:42 PM
God will use women to accomplish His purpose...that's for sure!

Mograce2U
Oct 26th 2007, 04:54 PM
Exactly, women being reverence as leaders is not a new thing, we should work together, when one is weak the other may be strongI find this is true at work as well - in the male environment I am in, where I am the only American as well as the only Christian (so far as I know, ie.). Since I be it, it falls on me to do what the Lord requires of me.

Soj
Oct 26th 2007, 09:10 PM
I sure that is what Deborah was trying to get across, to Barak

Jud 4:9 And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.

but Barak did not allow his gender to stand in the way of a victory, he was not the one and he knew it!

In Heb. his name means lightening, Deborah's name means "bee"I'm glad you brought this up about Deborah. Have you considered why her name is not mentioned in the lineup in Hebrews and Barak's is? He wasn't the judge, she was (Judges 4:4)! Gideon and Samson were both judges...

Hebrews 11:32 ∂And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:

I think God makes makes a point there which relates to this overall discussion.

amazzin
Oct 26th 2007, 09:51 PM
I moved this thread to Leadership forum.
It's a good thread for this new forum

SemperReformanda
Oct 26th 2007, 11:16 PM
not many? and I'm being opinionated:rolleyes:

I do not agree with what the RCC teaches, but I do agree with them that Jesus, lived, died and rose, the gospel, this is the one mind that we the body of Christ all have to agree on.
Any church that still believes this:


"If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema." Council of Trent, Canon 14

Is not a Christian church promoting any kind of gospel at all.


again, what you are referring to in the bible was my bro. Paul dealing with a infant church. that would grow toward perfection, are you still in an infant state?
Do you have any Biblical evidence to back up this assertion? I could say that Paul was writing to a circus in 1 Timothy and have as much evidence as you have presented.


the bible says that in Christ that there is neither Greek or Jew, male or female....
Correct. Does this mean that there are no longer any gender roles? Are men allowed to start having babies as soon as they become a Christian?


Please back up what you are saying by exegeting the passage that I posted earlier. Otherwise, stop making assertions that are based in no kind of Scriptural evidence at all.

Saved7
Oct 29th 2007, 09:26 PM
Exactly.

There are also reasons found in the following verses:

For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
(1 Timothy 2:13-14)



That's it.:yes:.....

Saved7
Oct 29th 2007, 09:30 PM
I'm glad you brought this up about Deborah. Have you considered why her name is not mentioned in the lineup in Hebrews and Barak's is? He wasn't the judge, she was (Judges 4:4)! Gideon and Samson were both judges...

Hebrews 11:32 ∂And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:

I think God makes makes a point there which relates to this overall discussion.


I'm not following this particular comment, since there were women who WERE in fact mentioned in the "hall of faith", sarah and rahab.:confused

Soj
Oct 29th 2007, 11:33 PM
I'm not following this particular comment, since there were women who WERE in fact mentioned in the "hall of faith", sarah and rahab.:confusedNeither of those women were leaders of God's people like Deborah was, yet when God lists the leaders/judges he inserts Barak's name instead of Deborah. Why do you think that is? I think that Deb was the exception to prove the rule that God's ordained leaders are normally men, so when he put Barak's name in there instead of hers God was making that point.

Lyndie
Oct 30th 2007, 12:35 AM
I feel women should be able to preach and teach. A woman can teach and preach with out being a 'leader' or 'authority'. If not, we better recall all our female missionaries, who are out 'preaching' and 'teaching' about Jesus to other lands. Better get rid of all our Sunday school teachers too, since most are women. If God can use a woman to save an entire nation- Esther- he can use a woman to teach and preach.

Saved7
Oct 30th 2007, 01:13 AM
Neither of those women were leaders of God's people like Deborah was, yet when God lists the leaders/judges he inserts Barak's name instead of Deborah. Why do you think that is? I think that Deb was the exception to prove the rule that God's ordained leaders are normally men, so when he put Barak's name in there instead of hers God was making that point.


Oooh, ok, I follow you; thanks.

Mograce2U
Oct 30th 2007, 01:50 AM
Neither of those women were leaders of God's people like Deborah was, yet when God lists the leaders/judges he inserts Barak's name instead of Deborah. Why do you think that is? I think that Deb was the exception to prove the rule that God's ordained leaders are normally men, so when he put Barak's name in there instead of hers God was making that point.I think that may have something to do with this:

(Rom 11:29 KJV) For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

which draws on this passage:

(Num 23:19 KJV) God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

It was Barak who was called of God, but he wanted Deborah to lead him - which she did. The honor from men went to a woman, but God sees His word fulfilled none the less in Barak whom He called. Therefore in God's hall of fame, Barak is honored despite his weakness - it is what God does according to His word that counts!

always
Oct 30th 2007, 08:52 PM
I feel women should be able to preach and teach. A woman can teach and preach with out being a 'leader' or 'authority'. If not, we better recall all our female missionaries, who are out 'preaching' and 'teaching' about Jesus to other lands. Better get rid of all our Sunday school teachers too, since most are women. If God can use a woman to save an entire nation- Esther- he can use a woman to teach and preach.


Thank you, we have some hung up on these issues (strongholds because of the lack of study) and are blind to the fact that right in front of their eyes, God is causing the rocks to cry out, those that are steadfast

Soj
Oct 30th 2007, 10:17 PM
Thank you, we have some hung up on these issues (strongholds because of the lack of study) and are blind to the fact that right in front of their eyes, God is causing the rocks to cry out, those that are steadfastI think the Body of Christ in general has a huge problem in it's apostacy and departure from the word of God. The Bible is not the authority in many churches and Christian's hearts anymore, it has been replaced by the commandments of men and modern humanistic ideas that are contrary to scripture.

No one has provided any scripture to prove that women are to preach and teach "in the church", only scripture to confirm the opposite, which proves the point I make above.

always
Oct 31st 2007, 12:46 PM
No one has provided any scripture to prove that women are to preach and teach "in the church", only scripture to confirm the opposite, which proves the point I make above.


The scriptures are a necessity, but an understanding of them is required

Prov 4:6 Wisdom [is] the principal thing; [therefore] get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

Mograce2U
Oct 31st 2007, 03:51 PM
The scriptures are a necessity, but an understanding of them is required

Prov 4:6 Wisdom [is] the principal thing; [therefore] get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.Wisdom is gained by understanding what the scriptures are saying so that we might be guided by them in what we then do. Faith also must be what is working in our actions. If God has said that a woman ought not take authority over a man, then wisdom would tell us that a preacher or pastor is not to be her role to assume. Nobody is saying that God does not use women to accomplish His purposes in making disciples; only that the scope of their job is children and other women. The Proverbs 31 woman seems to be a good example to follow too when one has a husband. Notice that it is her husband who sits in the gate - not her.

always
Oct 31st 2007, 03:56 PM
only that the scope of their job is children and other women.


Then why did the woman at the well run back to tell the men?

why did Jesus appear to Mary Magadalene first and tell her to go tell the men he had risen ?

we are all commissioned to spread the gospel to a dying world, if your scope is only children and women that is fine,

but don't hinder those that are called and chosen to do a bigger work

be blessed

Mograce2U
Oct 31st 2007, 04:33 PM
Then why did the woman at the well run back to tell the men?

why did Jesus appear to Mary Magadalene first and tell her to go tell the men he had risen ?

we are all commissioned to spread the gospel to a dying world, if your scope is only children and women that is fine,

but don't hinder those that are called and chosen to do a bigger work

be blessedDelivering the gospel is not the same as making disciples. Neither Mary nor the Samaritan woman were believed when they delivered the good news to the men. It matters not who delivers the message since it is the Holy Spirit who converts the heart. But training up disciples requires one be established in the faith, grounded and mature and be in a position to be heard. Telling a man what he must do is never received well from a woman. Barak is the example. Deborah spoke the words of God to him, yet he didn't believe her either. There is an hierarchy when it comes to teaching disciples, an established order to follow. And Paul tells us why it is needed - because of discernment. A woman who skirts this requirement has left herself without accountability, even showing that she does not apply the word of God to herself first.

Evangelism and missionary work, is not the same thing as training disciples and has different requirements. Unless you fully understand the mind of a man, that is - and what woman can say that she does?

always
Oct 31st 2007, 04:55 PM
,
Unless you fully understand the mind of a man, that is - and what woman can say that she does?


Gal 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.

Mograce2U
Oct 31st 2007, 04:56 PM
Gal 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.Being one in Christ does not make us the same critters!

always
Oct 31st 2007, 04:59 PM
Being one in Christ does not make us the same critters!

but as scripture states it gives us one mind in Christ

phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Mograce2U
Oct 31st 2007, 05:46 PM
but as scripture states it gives us one mind in Christ

phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:That mind was to be a servant, and yet we serve in different ways. It is not a mind that removes our gender from us and all that we think because of it. A woman is not made the same as a man, which is of necessity. Even her body is designed so that she is a receiver of the man to whom she submits.

always
Oct 31st 2007, 05:52 PM
That mind was to be a servant, and yet we serve in different ways. It is not a mind that removes our gender from us and all that we think because of it. A woman is not made the same as a man, which is of necessity. Even her body is designed so that she is a receiver of the man to whom she submits.


Have no problem with that, that is exactly right, but you mean to tell me, that if a man came to you that was lost, you would not have the servitude to minister the gospel to him????????????????????????

You would place him on hold until you could find a man????

Mograce2U
Oct 31st 2007, 06:07 PM
Have no problem with that, that is exactly right, but you mean to tell me, that if a man came to you that was lost, you would not have the servitude to minister the gospel to him????????????????????????

You would place him on hold until you could find a man????You did not read my post. We all are well equipped to share the gospel regardless of gender. This was about teaching disciples.

always
Oct 31st 2007, 07:38 PM
You did not read my post. We all are well equipped to share the gospel regardless of gender. This was about teaching disciples.

The thread is about women ministers, and you were the one that made the statement that women's scope was only extended to children and other women,

that is was inappropriate for a woman to teach a man, would not sharing the gospel be a form of teaching?

Soj
Oct 31st 2007, 08:09 PM
Neither Mary nor the Samaritan woman were believed when they delivered the good news to the men...

Telling a man what he must do is never received well from a woman. Barak is the example. Deborah spoke the words of God to him, yet he didn't believe her either.Excellent rebuttal! :)

always
Oct 31st 2007, 08:14 PM
Excellent rebuttal! :)


Neither Mary nor the Samaritan woman were believed when they delivered the good news to the men...


Telling a man what he must do is never received well from a woman. Barak is the example. Deborah spoke the words of God to him, yet he didn't believe her either.

So ministering is determined by wether or not one believes what you are saying, so much for Noah!

2Tim 4:2Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

If you are going to cheer, on the sidelines, use scripture

Mograce2U
Nov 1st 2007, 01:30 AM
The thread is about women ministers, and you were the one that made the statement that women's scope was only extended to children and other women,

that is was inappropriate for a woman to teach a man, would not sharing the gospel be a form of teaching?No, I don't think so. You do not need a comprehensive knowledge of scripture to share the gospel.

Timothy was put in charge of the church at Ephesus. Paul exhorts him to teach the brethren as their overseer. Timothy was one who knew the scriptures since he was a child, being taught by who? - his mother and his grandmother! This is one on one type teaching which women are supposed to do. It goes right back to Deut 6 about teaching children the word of God in every aspect of life. And also that parents are to teach up a child in the way he should go. A boy does not stay under his mother's tutelage forever, and when he is a man; other men then teach him - about what? about being a man.

always
Nov 1st 2007, 01:46 AM
No, I don't think so. You do not need a comprehensive knowledge of scripture to share the gospel.

Timothy was put in charge of the church at Ephesus. Paul exhorts him to teach the brethren as their overseer. Timothy was one who knew the scriptures since he was a child, being taught by who? - his mother and his grandmother! This is one on one type teaching which women are supposed to do. It goes right back to Deut 6 about teaching children the word of God in every aspect of life. And also that parents are to teach up a child in the way he should go. A boy does not stay under his mother's tutelage forever, and when he is a man; other men then teach him - about what? about being a man.

Yes! I could not agree more, a man teaches a boy to be a man, but that does not mean that a woman can't teach a boy to be a christian man, christianity has precepts, that is what she can teach, the example of course would be from a man

What I see is that you are not seeing that I have no problem with man's authority, that is the divine order that God laid down,

the scripture in Timothy stated that a woman should not usurp authority from the man, "seize"

that is what the problem was in that infant church the women excited about their newfound freedom in Christ were causing confusion. Paul anointed for that time and season, gave good advice.

Do you not feel that the church (body of Christ) should not progress from that time?

when my husband who is head of our ministry set me down and encourage me to study the history of what was going on at that time, I was able to fully accept the calling he saw God had on my life, he was not intimidated, and I no longer denied what I had know for a while, it is not that he is slack in his own calling, but as he puts it "we work together with our focus on lifting Jesus."

I have to please God and not man, and it was and is my prayer that if I was doing anything that was not in his will, that God would reveal it to me. God, my husband then my pastor are my covering, and they have said teach.

Mograce2U
Nov 1st 2007, 02:09 AM
Always,
What do you teach, specifically, ie.?

always
Nov 1st 2007, 01:08 PM
Always,
What do you teach, specifically, ie.?

To men, boys, women and girls(we minister in juvenile detention centers as well)

I teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, that he lived, died, rose and will return.

the history of it, the application of it and the expectations of it.

being a prison ministry we minister to diverse groups of people, it is the only church service a few of them(more than you could imagine) have been in.

I have a gift from God for relating the OT trials to todays trials that the inmates went through and will go through once they are released. My husband helps me with this because he did 8 years and was saved in prison and has been through it, along with a another brother that we minister to inside and after his release,and waiting period, he came to ministry.

We have also another woman who did time and has a beautiful calling to teach and minister.

These are things that we can't boast in ourselves about, it all is of God, to Him we give the glory.

MoGrace, just like there are things that a man can talk to a man about, there are some things that woman can talk to a man about.

but we as women have to stand up for God, and not allow man to keep us bound, where some messed up is when they stepped out on their own, having a ministry with no covering!

Barak was Deborah's covering, that is why she admonished him, about the victory being credited to her, Barak didn't care, his eye was on the victory. Not himself, she could not take what was his.

Men who fight women teaching today should focus on the prize of the high calling and not on themselves, women cannot take from them anything and be in the will of God only when we work together with him as the head are we in his will.

God uses who and what he chooses. I will not be Jonah

Saved7
Nov 30th 2007, 03:48 AM
. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Yet Paul does give a clear explanation of the main reason why a woman is to not teach or seize authority over the man in verses 13 & 14 - the man was first formed and given the authority by God (Genesis 2:18), and the man was not deceived like the woman was in the garden (Genesis 3:13), suggesting that she would be again if she is put in a position of teaching or authority over the man.




Too often we women take offense at the idea that we are to be in submission and not teach in the church. As we know that we have gifts as well. However, we are to use those gifts to teach the younger women, help the newbies grow where we can, and preach the gospel; and what we may be saying or doing wrong, our husbands and pastor are there to correct. But the thing that we women need to remember is this....it is for our PROTECTION.
Verse 14 above came to my rememberance after reading a scripture in Genisis...when my boyfriend and I were studying together one day. The scripture I had read was Genisis 3:16...


Gen 3:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=3&verse=16&version=kjv#16)Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

I highlighted the part that stuck out to me.... when I read the foot notes at the bottom of the page, it said this...."subject to thy husband" about "thy desire shall be to thy husband".

Hmmm, what does the bible tell the husbands to do? To love their wives as Christ loved the church, it also tells them to "honor" their wives as the weaker vessel.:hmm::) Now THAT'S not such a bad thing!!!:spin:

A husband is supposed to be a good thing, as God has been an husbandman to Israel, so too ought our men be to us. Protecting us and guiding us, keeping us from being deceived...how awesome is that!!!!:spin: All grown up and yet I won't have to worry as much about my welfare when I am married, as I do when I am single.:bounce: Phew!!! :ppWhat a great burden that is lifted off my shoulders, thank God for men and for showing us the proper order of things.:pp I pray God's guidance for all you men, be so strong that you can't mess it up. That's a heavy burden you all carry, and I pray more and more of God's grace and strength and wisdom for you all.:hug:


Note....

*I do realize that doesn't eliminate the spiritual responsibility of the woman, just trying to show this in the positive light I think it was meant to be seen in.:)

obeytheword
Dec 19th 2007, 11:46 PM
While I realize many will not hold to what I am going to say - I am afraid I must anyway. Context is everything when interpreting the bible - I am sure everyone would agree with that 100% (I certainly hope so anyway)


The context of the majority of Pauls epistles is correcting a problem that is present. Now, the funny thing is that the vast majority of these problems were not really due to people not loving God, etc - but were due to people being a bit too grounded in and affected by the surrounding culture. There is a REASON that there is a distinction made between the "General Epistles" and the "Pauline Epistles".

One must remember, Paul is not dealing with Jews within Jewish society - Nor is he dealing with Americans in Cleveland, he is dealing with people who knew nothing but pagan rites and rituals up to the point they had the gospel taught to them. Even then, they continue to be surrounded by pagan temples.

Ephesus (The city Timothy was in when Paul wrote the letter) was the center for worship of Diana (or Artemis). She was seen as "The mother of the earth". The Ephesian culture pretty much worshiped Diana and was influenced greatly by Gnosticism. Gnosticism was a rather bad heresy that taught among other things that Eve was the one who first received "true knowledge" from the serpent. The Gnostics saw the serpent as the revealer of truth.

Anyway - enough of that - they were in a culture that had a strong matriarchial sway, and Paul was attempting to put an end to the beginning Gnosticism movement that was infiltrating the church. With this in mind if you read V 11-14 in light of the surrounding culture it paints a somewhat different picture.

11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.


I would speculate Paul is telling the Ephesians to not let the women teach, but to learn in submission and quietness as a counter to the surrounding cultural influences. He wants the women to LEARN the truth prior to teaching anyone. The women afterall would be much more susceptible to bad teaching in that particular society.

Ok - Since it is conjecture on my part, I am sure many of you will simply stand on the "ink" on the page and ignore all else. So I will give a few examples in the new church of women teachers, etc.

Priscilla and Aquilla (or Aquilla and Priscilla). It is generally accepted that the more prominent person be mentioned first. If you will look at the order of their names, you will see in some cases Priscilla is listed first, and in others Aquilla is mentioned first. They each had their roles (note - you need to look at the underlying Greek in some cases - some translations arbitrarily changed the order). But however you slice or dice it, it is obvious Priscilla was a teacher, and instructed Apollos at the very least.

Another interesting one is found in Romans 16:7.

7Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

The context very strongly implies they were a married couple, and the early writings confirmed Junias was a female.

One example of this is here

John Chrysostom (337-407) was the bishop of Constantinople said while talking about Junia "Oh how great is the devition of this woman that she should be counted worthy of the appellation of apostle"

If a woman can be an apostle, then it is rather absurd to say that a woman cannot teach, or be a pastor...

There are honestly many examples like this that one must consider. One MUST be grounded in the word - but one needs to be grounded in the ACTUAL word - i.e. Jesus - and not stand on someones interpretation or mis-interpretation. The new testament was written 2000 years ago in another language in another culture - and as you know, some portions were written specifically to correct issues present at that time. One must understand the context of any writing for it to be valid. Otherwise I could pull up tons of old testament rules and regulations meant for a specific place and time that none of us are probably following.

Be Blessed

Jesusinmyheart
Dec 20th 2007, 12:17 AM
obeytheword is right on with the understanding needed to come to the correct conclusion about these matters.
I have no problem with submitting myself to authority, but i will not give up God given rights and gifts and abilities over the interpretation of men who had an agenda. Granted some teach this stuff in ignorance, as the historical context has been lost.

I do have to wonder though why this stuff isn't taught in christian univeristies to those desiring to be pastors......

Shalom,
Tanja

Mograce2U
Dec 20th 2007, 02:25 AM
obeytheword,
I agree with much of what you are saying about cultural context. EXCEPT, that Paul's example is going back to the very beginning with Eve to make his point. A point that still applies today! It would seem women like Priscilla are more the exception than the rule - and she was ministering with her husband, so that he provides her headship. Culture may change but human nature does not...

obeytheword
Dec 20th 2007, 03:14 AM
obeytheword,
I agree with much of what you are saying about cultural context. EXCEPT, that Paul's example is going back to the very beginning with Eve to make his point. A point that still applies today! It would seem women like Priscilla are more the exception than the rule - and she was ministering with her husband, so that he provides her headship. Culture may change but human nature does not...

I would believe he did that for the specific reason of countering the gnostics who have rather false ideas about Eve. He wanted to point out two things.

1 - Eve was not the Illuminator who received "true wisdom" from the serpent. That was a major heresy in the early church that spread in large part from worship of Diana.

2 - Eve WAS the originator of sin in humanity - not that Adam was really any less guilty, but he was not the originator.


Honestly though, I think that Junia(s) is a more compelling argument.

I just get frustrated when I see anyone take one of the Pauline epistles and stand on one particular phrase that is taken out of its cultural context and wrap their theology around that while denying other evidence in scripture that contradicts their belief. It IS hard to distinguish the real truth, and relying on ONLY the written word. Not allowing the spirit to influence the interpretation will almost always end up with something like this.

Be Blessed

Athanasius
Dec 20th 2007, 03:21 AM
And of these women in Bible college, who insist on their lives that they are called?
If wrong, they seem to be the worst possible people to let into these sorts of institutions.

This thread is only seven pages, normally I'd jump into a discussion. . .But not this one.
I'd rather go pointlessly argue creationism vs. evolution ;)

As for my view? Well, I agree with my free thinking friends, that should be enough said. It should have already been noted that Paul was giving his opinion. Remember, he also thinks it's better to not marry.

Mograce2U
Dec 20th 2007, 04:16 AM
X'elNaga,

As for my view? Well, I agree with my free thinking friends, that should be enough said. It should have already been noted that Paul was giving his opinion. Remember, he also thinks it's better to not marry.Well you won't find me disagreeing with him on that one either! ;)

diffangle
Dec 20th 2007, 04:06 PM
X'elNaga,
Well you won't find me disagreeing with him on that one either! ;)
Kinda goes against the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing tho. :hmm:

AlainaJ
Dec 20th 2007, 05:06 PM
Really interesting topic. I beleive the Bible word for word and therefore, I believe God has a biblical order for things...the home and the church.

However, I knew some very strong Christians who attended chruches where both the man and woman Pastored.
I see that alot in the African American chruch.

All I can say is the women I know were godly and full of the love of God. They knew the scriptures and showed Christ every day.

Their husbands were too and had no issues having a woman Pastor of teacher.......

Just don't know:hmm:

Mograce2U
Dec 20th 2007, 05:49 PM
Kinda goes against the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing tho. :hmm:Yet the multiplication of ourselves is not in producing physical children but in spiritual children. So in the NT we do not find a repeat of that command but one to go and make disciples of all nations!

diffangle
Dec 20th 2007, 10:31 PM
Yet the multiplication of ourselves is not in producing physical children but in spiritual children. So in the NT we do not find a repeat of that command but one to go and make disciples of all nations!
How does that fit with this NT passage...

1 Timothy 4


1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Soj
Dec 20th 2007, 10:49 PM
It should have already been noted that Paul was giving his opinion. Remember, he also thinks it's better to not marry.Not so, Paul actually says it's "better" to marry in the context in which you refer, he says it is "good" to remain unmarried though if possible...

1 Corinthians 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.


X'elNaga,
Well you won't find me disagreeing with him on that one either! ;)


Kinda goes against the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing tho. :hmm:


Yet the multiplication of ourselves is not in producing physical children but in spiritual children. So in the NT we do not find a repeat of that command but one to go and make disciples of all nations!New Testament:

1 Timothy 5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

Of course the commandment to be fruitful and multiply isn't given to us, it was given to Adam first and then to Noah & his sons because they were to replenish the earth!

Mograce2U
Dec 20th 2007, 11:49 PM
How does that fit with this NT passage...

1 Timothy 4

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. I think it fits fine. As Soj points out above, marrying is better than burning - which would certainly be necessary if one cannot contain himself otherwise. Marriage would therefore seem to be the normal course to take, but it is neither commanded nor forbidden by Paul, and he sees nothing wrong with remaining single either.

diffangle
Dec 21st 2007, 01:05 AM
Of course the commandment to be fruitful and multiply isn't given to us, it was given to Adam first and then to Noah & his sons because they were to replenish the earth!
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

If this was only limited to Adam and Eve, does that mean that we shouldn't have dominion over every living thing on the earth?

If every Christian stopped getting married then we'd be a dying breed... is that really better? Who would be here to be witnesses for the future generations? Isn't it good to produce and raise more Christians/witnesses?

Brother Mark
Dec 21st 2007, 01:29 AM
I can't find where God rescinded any command he gave to Adam and Eve. There is still a tree of life, other fruitful trees, and a tree of knowledge that can be eaten from. The command to be fruitful and multiply seems to be still applicable to us in both a physical and spiritual way.

The Parson
Dec 21st 2007, 02:01 AM
I'm looking intently too. Nope, don't see a rescention either. Matter of fact, so much today is dismissed as not for our time, it's a wonder we should even consult the scriptures anymore. Not trying to be contentous, just stating what I preceive.

Soj
Dec 21st 2007, 03:00 AM
If this was only limited to Adam and Eve, does that mean that we shouldn't have dominion over every living thing on the earth?

If every Christian stopped getting married then we'd be a dying breed... is that really better? Who would be here to be witnesses for the future generations? Isn't it good to produce and raise more Christians/witnesses?Marrying and having babies is a good thing, don't get me wrong. I was making a point that the only people who the commandment was given to were those who were to propagate the species, and once they got the ball rolling it was just a natural progression where everyone followed suit.

Forbidding to marry is a doctrine of devils in the last days.

RobbieP
Dec 21st 2007, 03:58 AM
1 Tim 3:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=54&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Tim 3:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=54&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Tit 1:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=56&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

I wonder how somebody explains away the husband of one wife section of these three scriptures and still be a woman Pastor.I recently was seeking a church and found 3 Batpist Churhes in a row that had a women Pasotr..I just don't understand...Who's the bishop and deacon s in this book? I always thought it was the men in the lead ..


God inspired everthing that is said....we often ignore the fact for conveience sake but the bottom line is He is in control and He said...not that I succeed in everything He says but I try not to change or justify it as something else

There are many guidelines He has given to help lead us to Him...

Anybody have any thoughts on the husband to one wife section pof this...

diffangle
Dec 21st 2007, 04:26 AM
1 Tim 3:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=54&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Tim 3:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=54&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Tit 1:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=56&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

I wonder how somebody explains away the husband of one wife section of these three scriptures and still be a woman Pastor.I recently was seeking a church and found 3 Batpist Churhes in a row that had a women Pasotr..I just don't understand...Who's the bishop and deacon s in this book? I always thought it was the men in the lead ..


God inspired everthing that is said....we often ignore the fact for conveience sake but the bottom line is He is in control and He said...not that I succeed in everything He says but I try not to change or justify it as something else

There are many guidelines He has given to help lead us to Him...

Anybody have any thoughts on the husband to one wife section pof this...Considering a deacon is a man it make sense that he would have a wife instead of a husband but what about a deaconess(a women)?

Rom 16:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=16&verse=1&version=kjv#1)∂ I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:

Phebe= Phoibē (Strong's G5402) (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5402&Version=kjv) meaning...

Phoebe = "radiant"
1) a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea, near Corinth

obeytheword
Dec 21st 2007, 08:01 AM
1 Tim 3:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=54&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Tim 3:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=54&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Tit 1:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=56&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

I wonder how somebody explains away the husband of one wife section of these three scriptures and still be a woman Pastor.I recently was seeking a church and found 3 Batpist Churhes in a row that had a women Pasotr..I just don't understand...Who's the bishop and deacon s in this book? I always thought it was the men in the lead ..


God inspired everthing that is said....we often ignore the fact for conveience sake but the bottom line is He is in control and He said...not that I succeed in everything He says but I try not to change or justify it as something else

There are many guidelines He has given to help lead us to Him...

Anybody have any thoughts on the husband to one wife section pof this...

I am certainly not an expert on greek, but I do know a few things I can share that might shed some light on things. Though Greek is radically different than English in many ways, there are a few quirks that are shared, and can make proper translation difficult.

In the Greek, there is no distinction made between "woman" and "wife". The only way to tell the difference is by context alone. The same is true of "man" and "husband". To add to this list of fun things to consider - "man" can and is in many cases does mean "mankind" in general.

Greek has gender specific words. If a word is femanine, then you can pretty much be sure it MEANS exactly that. If it is Male however, it can stand for Male or can be meant as the general "mankind" which means it can be Female also.

That explaination might have not been super clear, but let me give a quick example.

1 tim 2:4-5
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

I believe we all understand that both men and women can be saved, and that Christ is the mediator for both men and women?

With these issues in mine, lets look at 3:11

11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. (NKJV)

11Women must likewise be dignified, (V (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%203%20;&version=49;#cen-NASB-29743V))not malicious gossips, but (W (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%203%20;&version=49;#cen-NASB-29743W))temperate, faithful in all things. (NASB)

Here it is specifically talking about decons still - it is in the verse prior, and the verse after. In the NKJV - the translators have inserted "their" and translated it as "wives" and not "women".

There is no possessive pronoun there, nor even an article, so an interpretation as "likewise the women also," meaning the women who are deacons would be more consistent with the Greek.

Look also at Romans 16:1

1 I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea,

This verse uses the femanine form of the word for deacon (in Greek - the Masculine is diakonos, and the femanine is diakona) It is translated differently than the verses in 1 thes we are looking at in most versions, but youngs literal at least translates them the same. (Here it is translated as servent as opposed to deacon) It is however the femanine version of the exact same word.


As for how I "get around" the passages such as verse 2 and 12. the Greek in those reads literally "one woman man". If this verse were to stand alone, then I would indeed take it at face value. But as Gods word is not in error, I must assume this verse AND romans 16:1 must BOTH be true. I speculate what is meant is Pauls way of calling for sexual purity. If I read it LITERALLY - then a decon MUST be married and MUST have at least 2 children (since the greek for children is plural). He also MUST have only 1 wife now, and never another. i.e. could not be a widower, etc.

I believe he means this in the same sense that he means BOTH women and men as in 1 Tim 2:4-5 I looked at above.


Anyway - I understand much of it is speculation, and open to different interpretations - but to really study scripture I believe you have to get past using just 1 translation.

Each of them have flaws that enter the picture simply because as much as any of us try - it is close to impossible to really not carry our bias into the work of translation. In scripture (new testament) you can identify a female teacher, a female deacon, and also a female apostle that are all approved of by Paul.

In the home each has their roles, I am certainly not advocating anything different. There IS a wonderful beauty of how the gender roles in the home work. Men need respect primarily and Women need love primarily, and guess what? That is exactly what scripture says! If the man IS really showing real love, and cherishing his wife, then she should have no problem submitting, since he will care for her in that level of love.

I believe that Roles in the church however was one of the radical notions the early church exemplified, and honestly was lost before too long just because we were not able to accept it, so we worked to hide the truth.

Galations 3:26-29
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christís, then you are Abrahamís seed, and heirs according to the promise


Sorry for the long post, and as always - this is not an issue to divide on, but certainly one to debate :-)

Be Blessed

Soj
Dec 21st 2007, 11:55 AM
Considering a deacon is a man it make sense that he would have a wife instead of a husband but what about a deaconess(a women)?

Rom 16:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=16&verse=1&version=kjv#1)∂ I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:

Phebe= Phoibē (Strong's G5402) (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5402&Version=kjv) meaning...

Phoebe = "radiant"
1) a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea, near CorinthStrongs concordance is not the Scriptures. There are no women officers in the New Testament. As Robbie has correctly posted, the only two positions given are bishops and deacons. If there were deaconess's it would be in plain black and white English, not hidden in the Greek.

Granted, Phebe and other women in scripture were held in high regard for their faithfulness and labour in the Lord, but they were not leaders of God's people (with the exception of Deborah in the OT).

The scripture stands. I believe the reason why people debate the subject of women ministers is because the church IS in apostacy and moving away from practising God's word, which plainly puts men in the positions of leadership over God's people in the church. This has nothing to do with sexism as some would claim, this is the way God has ordained it.

diffangle
Dec 21st 2007, 03:09 PM
[quote=Soj;1478419]Strongs concordance is not the Scriptures. There are no women officers in the New Testament. As Robbie has correctly posted, the only two positions given are bishops and deacons. If there were deaconess's it would be in plain black and white English, not hidden in the Greek
The Greek isn't hidden, it's the original language of the Scriptures and it's very easy to find the meaning of the Greek with a concordance. Deaconess is in the Scripture... the word servant in that verse is the word diakonos (Strong's G1249) meaning...

a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use



Granted, Phebe and other women in scripture were held in high regard for their faithfulness and labour in the Lord, but they were not leaders of God's people (with the exception of Deborah in the OT).

Yep, Phebe was a deaconess and Junia was a Apostle(a noted/notorious one at that).

Rom 16:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=16&verse=7&version=kjv#7)Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.



The scripture stands.
Yes it does, as I have shown with the above verses.



I believe the reason why people debate the subject of women ministers is because the church IS in apostacy and moving away from practising God's word, which plainly puts men in the positions of leadership over God's people in the church. This has nothing to do with sexism as some would claim, this is the way God has ordained it.

You're certainly entitled to your interpretation. :kiss:

Soj
Dec 21st 2007, 10:03 PM
...Junia was a Apostle(a noted/notorious one at that).

Rom 16:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Rom&chapter=16&verse=7&version=kjv#7)Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.Note the word "kinsmen" in the verse you quoted...Junia was a man!

There are both kinsmen and kinswomen in the Bible, if Junia was a woman then the scripture would make that distinction.

Leviticus 18:17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.

Proverbs 7:4 Say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister; and call understanding thy kinswoman:

diffangle
Dec 21st 2007, 11:28 PM
Note the word "kinsmen" in the verse you quoted...Junia was a man!

There are both kinsmen and kinswomen in the Bible, if Junia was a woman then the scripture would make that distinction.

Leviticus 18:17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.

Proverbs 7:4 Say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister; and call understanding thy kinswoman:
The NT is in Greek originally and the OT is in Hebrew originally, notice there are no kinswomen in the NT. If you check out what that word means in the Greek text, it can apply to both sexes. Kinsmen= syggenēs (Strong's G4773) meaning...

1) of the same kin, akin to, related by blood
2) in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman

Also check out what obeytheword said in their post...


To add to this list of fun things to consider - "man" can and is in many cases does mean "mankind" in general.

Greek has gender specific words. If a word is femanine, then you can pretty much be sure it MEANS exactly that. If it is Male however, it can stand for Male or can be meant as the general "mankind" which means it can be Female also.

That explaination might have not been super clear, but let me give a quick example.

1 tim 2:4-5
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

I believe we all understand that both men and women can be saved, and that Christ is the mediator for both men and women?
Here's a link about how Junia was a womans name...
http://www.geocities.com/abdulmuhib/junia

Soj
Dec 22nd 2007, 12:19 AM
Here's a link about how Junia was a womans name...
http://www.geocities.com/abdulmuhib/junia
Here's a link which casts doubt on the content of your link:

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_first_woman_apostle_so_called

:)

diffangle
Dec 22nd 2007, 12:47 AM
Here's a link which casts doubt on the content of your link:

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_first_woman_apostle_so_called

:)


A.T. Robertson contended that Junias could be an abbreviation of Junianos (p. 172).

Sorry, no offense but that's a stretch to say that the Greek text is abbreviating a man's name... do you know of any other examples in Scripture where anything was abbreviated? Here's what the concordance says about that name...

Iounias (Strong's G2458) (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2458&Version=kjv) meaning...
Junia = "youthful"
1) a Christian woman at Rome, mentioned by Paul as one of his kinsfolk and fellow prisoners

Soj
Dec 22nd 2007, 03:55 AM
Here's what the concordance says about that name...I thought you would have learned by now that I don't believe the concordance defines the scripture. If it's not in the English then it ain't there!

RobbieP
Dec 22nd 2007, 04:48 AM
Well, I certainly got a discussion going:o I eally was just wondering how a lady minister would answer if I threw those three scriptures at her....How does she explain to ...I guess the answer is don't read just those three scriptures.


I don't think there was quite enough support to the opposite but I agree! no reason to divide...I really am just curous...I asked a Catholic minister about not being married once just because I know it says the same thing in all bibles about being MARRIED...

Just a curious girl...I like to better understand where folks are coming from...

diffangle
Dec 22nd 2007, 03:45 PM
I thought you would have learned by now that I don't believe the concordance defines the scripture. If it's not in the English then it ain't there!
Then let's stick with the second hand language... where in the English NT is the word kinswoman?

Mat 4:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=4&verse=19&version=kjv#19) And He saith unto them, Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.

Here where Messiah says "men(anthrōpos (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G444&Version=kjv) Strong's G444)"... He's meaning that only men can be saved?

Mat 6:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Mat&chapter=6&verse=14&version=kjv#14) For if ye forgive men/anthropos their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

Are we suppossed to only forgive men and not women?

Mar 6:12 (http://cf.blb.org/search/getBible.cfm?b=Mar&c=6&v=12&version=KJV#12) And they went out, and preached that men/anthropos should repent.

Do women not need to repent?

Jhn 1:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&verse=4&version=kjv#4) In Him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Is He only the light of men and not women?

:confused

Soj
Dec 22nd 2007, 05:58 PM
...where in the English NT is the word kinswoman?It's not in the NT. You know why? Because the Holy Spirit didn't use the word! If He had used the word we wouldn't be having this debate and it would be clear that Junia was a woman, but he wasn't!

And don't show me examples of the word "men" in scripture to prove your point, that is a different word entirely, show me examples of the word "kinsmen" in scripture where it refers to men and women and you will do this discussion justice.

Ruth 2:20 And Naomi said unto her daughter in law, Blessed be he of the LORD, who hath not left off his kindness to the living and to the dead. And Naomi said unto her, The man is near of kin unto us, one of our next kinsmen.

Leviticus 18:17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.

diffangle
Dec 22nd 2007, 06:31 PM
It's not in the NT. You know why? Because the Holy Spirit didn't use the word! If He had used the word we wouldn't be having this debate and it would be clear that Junia was a woman, but he wasn't!

Sure did use the word syggenēs (Strong's G4773) in Romans 16:7 meaning of the same kin, akin to, related by blood. That can apply to both male and female.



And don't show me examples of the word "men" in scripture to prove your point, that is a different word entirely, show me examples of the word "kinsmen" in scripture where it refers to men and women and you will do this discussion justice.

Why not? It's a perfectly good example of how the English doesn't mean exactly the same thing in the original Greek language. It's showing that the word men/mankind/kinsmen can apply to both sexes. I've shown you what kinsmen (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4773&Version=kjv) means in the original language but you don't seem to want to listen to that.;) Not that you'll listen but I'll post it for others sake... you said show you examples of the word kinsmen/ syggenēs (Strong's G4773) where it refers to a woman. Here's one...

Luk 1:36 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Luk&chapter=1&verse=36&version=kjv#36)And, behold, thy cousin (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Luk&chapter=1&verse=36&version=KJV#36)(syggenes G4773) Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.






Ruth 2:20 And Naomi said unto her daughter in law, Blessed be he of the LORD, who hath not left off his kindness to the living and to the dead. And Naomi said unto her, The man is near of kin unto us, one of our next kinsmen.

Leviticus 18:17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.

Again you're quoting verses from the OT where the original was in Hebrew, the Hebrew language is different from Greek.

Friend of I AM
Dec 24th 2007, 12:24 PM
How does that fit with this NT passage...

1 Timothy 4


1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Sorry, getting a bit off topic. Just wanted to adress this a bit, cause I think your interpretation is a bit off. One who chooses to abstain from marriage, for the sake of serving God - is not following a doctrine of demons. Christ himself, actually advocates being single for the sake of the kingdom.

Matthew 19:12
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

So Paul's testimony is in accordance with that of Christ's. If one chooses to stay single for the sake of devoting themselves to Christ and advancing the kingdom it is a good thing. Still, marriage(between a male and female) is always morally good in God's eyes, as it was commanded by God to "be fruitful and multiply" from the beginning. And as Mograce mentioned, it is better to get married - then to be on fire with lust.

I think where you run into doctrines of demons, is when you have people saying "Marriage is a sin" or "since [insert immoral sexual union here] that goes against God's word can't be justified as a legal marriage - no one should be able to get married." People like this have had their consciences seared with a hot iron - searing away the good spiritual conscience that God has originally instilled them with.

Stephen

diffangle
Dec 27th 2007, 02:35 PM
Sorry, getting a bit off topic. Just wanted to adress this a bit, cause I think your interpretation is a bit off. One who chooses to abstain from marriage, for the sake of serving God - is not following a doctrine of demons. Christ himself, actually advocates being single for the sake of the kingdom.

Matthew 19:12
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

So Paul's testimony is in accordance with that of Christ's. If one chooses to stay single for the sake of devoting themselves to Christ and advancing the kingdom it is a good thing. Still, marriage(between a male and female) is always morally good in God's eyes, as it was commanded by God to "be fruitful and multiply" from the beginning. And as Mograce mentioned, it is better to get married - then to be on fire with lust.

I think where you run into doctrines of demons, is when you have people saying "Marriage is a sin" or "since [insert immoral sexual union here] that goes against God's word can't be justified as a legal marriage - no one should be able to get married." People like this have had their consciences seared with a hot iron - searing away the good spiritual conscience that God has originally instilled them with.

Stephen
Yes, Yahushua talked about those that choose to forego marriage but He didn't say it was worse or better than those who choose to marry... Paul said it was better, Yahushua didn't. Imo, both are equally good, it all depends on what one feels He's calling them to do.

obeytheword
Dec 27th 2007, 03:48 PM
I thought you would have learned by now that I don't believe the concordance defines the scripture. If it's not in the English then it ain't there!

Just have a few quick questions that I think bear mentioning in relation to this quote, and the apparent underlying mindset.

1 - Is the scripture inerrant as originally presented (i.e. in the original language, in the original culture, etc)

2 - Is the work of every scribe who copied the originals inerrant?

3 - Is the work of every translator who worked on the KJV translation inerrant?

4 - Is the work of every translator who worked on the NIV translation inerrant?

5 - Is the work of every translator who worked on the NASB translation inerrant?

I could list every translation, but it is not necessary. The point is, I believe virtually every denomination that is Christian believes #1 is true. I could of course be wrong, but is is a very common (and in my opinion correct) belief.

What about #2? If #2 were true, then we would not have multiple copies of scripture in the original language that had differences - which we clearly do. In most cases, the differences are not huge, but in some cases they are rather profound.

What about 3,4 or 5? Again, different translations are very similar on the core points, but on many of the non-essential issues there are differences in how they read.

To say we ONLY care about what the ENGLISH says equates to believing #1, #2, and also whomever translated the translation you use are ALL inerrant. Is that truly what you believe? If so, which copy of the original, and which translation are the "real" ones?

Pharisees were rather dogmatic about what they believed, and they "stood" on the letter of the law (at least outwardly). For us to sit here and "stand" on the word of God is GOOD. What got them in trouble was standing on the Letter and NOT the spirit. We just need to make sure we are standing on THE REAL WORD - and not standing on a mis-translation. The ONLY way we can know we are really doing that is to filter what we read through and by the spirit. Anyone asking the question about the roles of Women both in the home, and in a church setting needs to do just that. I believe the former is very easy and the intent is easily understood. For the latter, I do not believe this is true.

Be Blessed!

The Parson
Dec 27th 2007, 04:18 PM
Just have a few quick questions that I think bear mentioning in relation to this quote, and the apparent underlying mindset.

1 - Is the scripture inerrant as originally presented (i.e. in the original language, in the original culture, etc)

2 - Is the work of every scribe who copied the originals inerrant?

3 - Is the work of every translator who worked on the KJV translation inerrant?

4 - Is the work of every translator who worked on the NIV translation inerrant?

5 - Is the work of every translator who worked on the NASB translation inerrant?

I could list every translation, but it is not necessary. The point is, I believe virtually every denomination that is Christian believes #1 is true. I could of course be wrong, but is is a very common (and in my opinion correct) belief.

What about #2? If #2 were true, then we would not have multiple copies of scripture in the original language that had differences - which we clearly do. In most cases, the differences are not huge, but in some cases they are rather profound.

What about 3,4 or 5? Again, different translations are very similar on the core points, but on many of the non-essential issues there are differences in how they read.

To say we ONLY care about what the ENGLISH says equates to believing #1, #2, and also whomever translated the translation you use are ALL inerrant. Is that truly what you believe? If so, which copy of the original, and which translation are the "real" ones?

Pharisees were rather dogmatic about what they believed, and they "stood" on the letter of the law (at least outwardly). For us to sit here and "stand" on the word of God is GOOD. What got them in trouble was standing on the Letter and NOT the spirit. We just need to make sure we are standing on THE REAL WORD - and not standing on a mis-translation. The ONLY way we can know we are really doing that is to filter what we read through and by the spirit. Anyone asking the question about the roles of Women both in the home, and in a church setting needs to do just that. I believe the former is very easy and the intent is easily understood. For the latter, I do not believe this is true.

Be Blessed!I would suppose that your premise would be reliant on if God preserves His Word in other languages or not. And I'm not trying to open another can of worms but before the translations came out that questioned the inerrancey of the King James, this question wouldn't of even been asked. So now we have a delima about people even trusting that the Word of God as presented is even the Word of God. What a pitiful delima we have come upon.

RogerW
May 25th 2008, 08:18 PM
Sorry, no offense but that's a stretch to say that the Greek text is abbreviating a man's name... do you know of any other examples in Scripture where anything was abbreviated? Here's what the concordance says about that name...

Iounias (Strong's G2458) (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2458&Version=kjv) meaning...
Junia = "youthful"
1) a Christian woman at Rome, mentioned by Paul as one of his kinsfolk and fellow prisoners

According to the Concordant Version of Sacred Scripture:

Ro 16:7 - Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives and my fellow captives, who are notable among the apostles, who also came to be in Christ before me.

According to my Strongs Concordance as well as my SwordSearcher program: Junia - 2458. Iounias - of Latin origin; Junias, a Christian:--Junias.

Blessings,
RW