-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Its not the court of the gentiles theirs was seperate from the womens court
I would agree except for using the phrase “torn down” waiting to be built back up as if that was the end of the matter. It cuts off the time of reformation. It would be restored to another time.
Like that of the prophetess Deborah, a name meaning the B is respect to bee .The bee is back in town. It’s what reformations do restore to another time period
I suggest restored to the time of Judges before there were kings in Israel like those of the surrounding Pagan religions of the world and the apostate Jews demanded to have an outward fleshly representative. They rejected God as king refusing to worship by faith (the unseen law of God) He endured that hardship until the time of reformation
The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure\parable for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
Heb 9:8
Prohibiting females from approaching God in worship because of a monthly flow is not why there was as separation and women could not be part of the ceremony as a kingdom of priest .It all pointed ahead to a suffering savor signified by circumcision, to represent our bloody husband Christ..... every part of the ceremonial laws pointed ahead today they point back to that one time demonstration of the lamb of God slain from before the foundation of the world. No surprises for God.
The old testament saints walked by the same mutual faith of Christ that worked in them just as it does today reciving the end from the begiining
receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them. 1Pe 1:10
I would agree except for using the phrase “torn down” waiting to be built back up as if that was the end of the matter. It cuts off the time of reformation. It would be restored to another time.
Like that of the prophetess Deborah, a name meaning the B is respect to bee .The bee is back in town. It’s what reformations do restore to another time period
I suggest restored to the time of Judges before there were kings in Israel like those of the surrounding Pagan religions of the world and the apostate Jews demanded to have an outward fleshly representative. They rejected God as king refusing to worship by faith (the unseen law of God) He endured that hardship until the time of reformation
The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure\parable for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
Heb 9:8
Prohibiting females from approaching God in worship because of a monthly flow is not why there was as separation and women could not be part of the ceremony as a kingdom of priest .It all pointed ahead to a suffering savor signified by circumcision, to represent our bloody husband Christ..... every part of the ceremonial laws pointed ahead today they point back to that one time demonstration of the lamb of God slain from before the foundation of the world. No surprises for God.
The old testament saints walked by the same mutual faith of Christ that worked in them just as it does today reciving the end from the begiining
receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them. 1Pe 1:10
And men don't get away with stuff? Please...my husband of 20 years was a habitual cheater...but I felt we could work through anything. Sadly, I finally told him to choose whether he wanted his family or his mistresses. He couldn't give up his other life. See, we do have to learn to be submissive to the right men in our lives. It does say husband's love your wives after all.
I would not say that. But it definitely has reached a height to which it was not to. It has taken the place of what the Elders and Bishops are and were to do. Worse yet it is now a paid position.
If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.
(1Co 9:11-12 KJV)
Can't recall any Apostle accepting money for work in the ministry but according to this text it is fine if they do. But to what extent? Jesus walked for three years with the Apostles ministering full time. He did not have His hand out and neither did the Apostles. Can't find any references to any Elders or Deacons being paid for their ministerial work and they through Christ are to be the overseers of our local congregations.
And as was posted earlier there is only one reference to pastors and it is in relation to it being a Spiritual gift that is to be utilized for edifying the Body of Christ. Other than that the Scripture is silent in relation to us being in the Pastoral position.
The Apostolic Bible Polyglot has an interesting translation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12
The Greek word for wife and woman is the same. Same with husband and man. I don't like their term rest; I think stillness better conveys the meaning of that word.
So was Paul referring to wives when he wrote this, instead of women in general? It makes me wonder because of the context of marriage that's created by the ensuing verses.
Let a wife learn at rest in all submission. And a wife I do not commit to their care to teach, nor to domineer a husband, but to be at rest. 1 Timothy 2:11-12
The Greek word for wife and woman is the same. Same with husband and man. I don't like their term rest; I think stillness better conveys the meaning of that word.
So was Paul referring to wives when he wrote this, instead of women in general? It makes me wonder because of the context of marriage that's created by the ensuing verses.
For Adam first was shaped, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the wife having been deceived, became in violation. But she shall be preserved through the childbearing, if they abide in belief, and love, and sanctification, with discreetness. 1 Timothy 2:13-15
John 20:17-18
17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ”
18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things to her.
Preaching the Gospel?
Romans 16:1-5
Chapter 16
Sister Phoebe Commended
1 I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, 2 that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also.
Greeting Roman Saints
3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, 4 who risked their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. 5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house.
Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia to Christ.
17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ”
18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things to her.
Preaching the Gospel?
Romans 16:1-5
Chapter 16
Sister Phoebe Commended
1 I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, 2 that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also.
Greeting Roman Saints
3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, 4 who risked their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. 5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house.
Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia to Christ.
Like I said, it is NOT masculine, and it never was and never will be! No matter how many complimentarians translate it that way. There is NOTHING masculine about the passage. It is written to everyone in the church in Corinth, which is exactly why Paul made it gender neutral. Paul was a good writer in Greek! He knew how to make something masculine if he wanted. So, why on earth did he leave this passage gender neutral, when he could have easily made it clear, by putting it into masculine language? It would have been so easy to do! But NO, he did not!
As I said before, English does not readily accommodate gender neutral verbs with no defined subject. The choice is to impose the masculine on the text, which all those complimentarians do. Or, to put it in the gender neutral, (thus true to the passage) and let “they” be used as 3rd person singular! Or, we could go to xe and zir, as singular gender neutral pronouns! NOO!! Bad joke!
Besides, Bullinger is the only name besides Wallace I recognize, and what I remembered was that he was lived long ago, different rules of English, and he was heretic. Sure enough, looked it up, and he is.
”In the 19th century, Anglican clergyman E. W. Bullinger was the father of a system of theology that claimed that the gospel of grace was unknown until it was revealed to Paul. He claimed that the church age as we know it did not begin until Acts 28, when an offer to immediately institute the kingdom of God on earth was withdrawn from Israel. Bullinger claimed that only the prison epistles were binding on the church. Thus Bullinger relegated most of Scripture to a category similar to the book of Leviticus: inspired, but not directly binding on Christians in all of its details. One implication of this teaching is that Jesus' own teachings, including the Great Commission, are not binding or applicable to the church. I label as hyperdispensational this and any other doctrine that claims that the gospel as we know it was first given to Paul sometime toward the middle or the end of Acts.[FONT="]In 1938 H. A. Ironside wrote a rebuttal to what was then known as Bullingerism entitled Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth. This book is still a valuable resource for those who have been confused by the false teachings of hyperdispensationalists. Current hyperdispensationalists distance themselves from Bullinger and resent being linked to him.”
Hyperdispensationalism and the Authority of Christ
Seriously, your need to use some reputable sources, and not ones that are strongly biased to men being “in authority.” You are using English to prove your point, over and over! The Greek in this passage i is clearly GENDER NEUTRAL!
I do not care at all how some heretics from the 19th century translate it, or even Daniel Wallace, who is a cousin of my Greek professor, and knows him well, and says even he is starting to come around with regards to the importance of women in the early church, particularly with regards to the scribes being women, not men, in the Byzantine tradition. Yet, all those years people thought men were the scribes, because the “little ladies” couldn’t get the job done, when all the evidence, according to Wallace now points to women doing this important job! Another almost 2000 year old tradition against women toppled!
Then again, I suppose it is hard for you to debate with a woman who is better educated than you in Greek! I used to be all about male pronouns, I thought that is what the Bible said. Then, I started studying 1st year Greek in seminary. My second year Greek with Bill Mounce last year, really showed me the importance of being true to the text, not some stupid “tradition.”
You have completely and utterly failed to show how and why the text is masculine in Greek! Don’t bother quoting that heretic, the unknown people, and even Daniel Wallace, who I do respect, and use his Beyond the Basics: Greek Grammar all the time. But, I do not agree with the complimentarian stance, because the Greek itself does not support it! Especially in this passage! You do not have an exegetical leg to stand on![/FONT]
Not to derail or hijack the thread, but this is the same translation, contextual and interpretation issue that we run into with regard to Jesus' teaching on adultery in Matthew 5.
Jesus said that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. I've read various commentaries which say that the same word for "woman" is also used for "wife". Because we know that the sin of adultery pertains to marriage, then the only type or role of "woman" that Jesus would most likely have referred to is "wife".
I've maintained that whenever submission of women to men is mentioned in Scripture is mentioned, it is almost always in the context of a husband-wife relationship. In other words, I don't believe that women in general should be subject to or in submission to men in general. I know that certain exceptions to this exist (such as daughter to father, female employee to male employer, woman to a police officer or government official, etc.). What appears to be a "power differential" between a man and woman is more often positional as opposed to intrinsic.
It may sound like a political answer, but I honestly don't take a position on the whole "women as pastors" thing. God doesn't expressly forbid it, nor does He expressly command it. I do think however, He allows it in certain circumstances. To use Deborah as an example: I realize that every single event was not recorded in Scripture, but I don't recall reading that she was punished by God for taking what rightfully belonged to a man, or for trying to exercise dominance over any man.
I also think that some of the pushback against what is seen as women usurping authority from men is the rise of what is known as "Churchianity" and the infiltration of feminism into the Church. As is usually the case, I believe that God's proper and designed roles for men and women lie in the middle between feminist Churchianity and the pushback that I'm seeing in this thread.
I think a good resource for male and female roles in the Church is the Christian blogger Dalrock: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/
$0.02 (and then some!)
Jesus said that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. I've read various commentaries which say that the same word for "woman" is also used for "wife". Because we know that the sin of adultery pertains to marriage, then the only type or role of "woman" that Jesus would most likely have referred to is "wife".
I've maintained that whenever submission of women to men is mentioned in Scripture is mentioned, it is almost always in the context of a husband-wife relationship. In other words, I don't believe that women in general should be subject to or in submission to men in general. I know that certain exceptions to this exist (such as daughter to father, female employee to male employer, woman to a police officer or government official, etc.). What appears to be a "power differential" between a man and woman is more often positional as opposed to intrinsic.
It may sound like a political answer, but I honestly don't take a position on the whole "women as pastors" thing. God doesn't expressly forbid it, nor does He expressly command it. I do think however, He allows it in certain circumstances. To use Deborah as an example: I realize that every single event was not recorded in Scripture, but I don't recall reading that she was punished by God for taking what rightfully belonged to a man, or for trying to exercise dominance over any man.
I also think that some of the pushback against what is seen as women usurping authority from men is the rise of what is known as "Churchianity" and the infiltration of feminism into the Church. As is usually the case, I believe that God's proper and designed roles for men and women lie in the middle between feminist Churchianity and the pushback that I'm seeing in this thread.
I think a good resource for male and female roles in the Church is the Christian blogger Dalrock: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/
$0.02 (and then some!)
L
Here is this entire debate in a nutshell. God has issued much greater authority unto man in the society and in the church as opposed to the woman. This is demonstrated within many, many verses in the Bible. However many are not willing to acknowledge these clear differences in authority as defined by God, so they will attempt anything and everything to try to nullify the authority structure God has clearly given. Normally, it is women who do not wish to properly acknowledge God's authority structure due their desire to be equal in authority with man, but there are also some very weak men willing to give up the authority God has given unto them as demonstrated within these pages.