A woman as a Pastor? Does it make it right if there is a need for pastors?
- Thread starter Mary96
- Start date
-
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.
Well! I have seen women pastoring their pastors.
There´s no need to be entitled to be a pastor, unless people and their organizations needed that way.
I have some friends pastoring and their wives are called "pastors" because their thinking their going to die and don´t want to leave their spouses "jobless" but, I have seen how those women worked DAILY to back up their leading husbands.
There´s no need to be entitled to be a pastor, unless people and their organizations needed that way.
I have some friends pastoring and their wives are called "pastors" because their thinking their going to die and don´t want to leave their spouses "jobless" but, I have seen how those women worked DAILY to back up their leading husbands.
Greek 101, at its simpliest does not say this. Any time you have "on" at the end of noun, it means it is masculine or neuter singular in the accusative case - direct object. Because diaknonos is the nominative, or lexical forum, and it is masculine. To be feminine, it would have to change to diaknonen, which it does not, because there is no such word. Women are included in the masculine.
The masculine is the gender of the word. It does not mean "men only." There are three types of nouns in Greek - masculine, feminine and neuter. They are not necessariy associated with the sex of the person. Many other languages in the west are like this, such as French, Spanish and other Romance languages, which use masculine and feminine, and German which uses mascline, feminine and neuter.
As for Phoebe being the only case that diaknonos is translated as "servant" it shows the bias of the translators. Phoebe was a deacon, or minister, just like Paul, Timothy, and others mentioned earlier.
By the way Phoebe is the direct object or accusative in the principal clause. Deacon is the direct object or the accusative case in the subordinate close, "who/which is a servant". Answers the question, who or what. Greek is black and white about cases, and that is one of the things that makes it so easy to parse and to understand.
But at least you tried to look at the grammar, even if you got it totally wrong!
The masculine is the gender of the word. It does not mean "men only." There are three types of nouns in Greek - masculine, feminine and neuter. They are not necessariy associated with the sex of the person. Many other languages in the west are like this, such as French, Spanish and other Romance languages, which use masculine and feminine, and German which uses mascline, feminine and neuter.
As for Phoebe being the only case that diaknonos is translated as "servant" it shows the bias of the translators. Phoebe was a deacon, or minister, just like Paul, Timothy, and others mentioned earlier.
By the way Phoebe is the direct object or accusative in the principal clause. Deacon is the direct object or the accusative case in the subordinate close, "who/which is a servant". Answers the question, who or what. Greek is black and white about cases, and that is one of the things that makes it so easy to parse and to understand.
But at least you tried to look at the grammar, even if you got it totally wrong!
Let me give some of the women out there a heads-up about something.
Christ has been delegated the task of judgment.
†. John 5:22-23 . .The Father judges no one, but has committed all
judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the
Father.
†. Acts 17:31 . . For God has set a day when he will judge the world with
justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men
by raising him from the dead.
Although Jesus Christ is male, he is not the kind of male that most women
are accustomed to. When they stand stark naked to be judged by him, he
will not be impressed by the size of their bosoms nor the silkiness of their
thighs. He'll be interested in one thing, and one thing only: whether their
names are in the book of life or not. If their names are not in the book of life,
he will proceed to have them ingloriously executed in a reservoir of flaming
sulfur where they will undergo a death akin to a foundry worker falling into a
vat of molten iron; and he will not mourn their loss.
†. Isa 13:9 . . Behold, the day of The Lord comes-- cruel; with both wrath
and fierce anger
The Hebrew word for "wrath" in that statement is 'ebrah (eb-raw') which
indicates an outburst of passion. In other words: the wrath of God won't be
weeping big wet crocodile tears while it's slamming people at the Great
White Throne event depicted at Rev 20:11-15; no, they will be terminated
with extreme prejudice; viz: the wrath of God will be furious against them.
(cf. Isa 63:1-6, Rev 19:15)
Webster's defines "fierce" as a behavior exhibited by humans and animals
that inspires terror because of the wild and menacing aspect of fury in attack.
Ferocity is an aspect commonly seen among roaring, snarling lions savagely
attacking prey. There's neither sportsmanship nor sympathy in ferocity; only
sheer terror, brutality, and blood lust.
"cruel" is defined as: disposed to inflict pain or suffering; viz: devoid of
humane feelings
†. Heb 10:27 . . A certain fearful expectation of . . . fiery indignation
"fiery indignation" is quite a bit more severe than ordinary indignation.
"fiery" speaks of someone who is seriously ticked off; and so angry that
they're actually red in the face.
There are women out there in cyberspace la-la land who have been so
conditioned by greeting cards, religious art, Broadway plays, Christmas
carols, and Hollywood movies and nativity scenes that they have no concept
of the magnitude of the lethal tsunami of rage and violence coming to get
them.
In the end, it will be the sweet little baby away in a manger who ruins any
chances condemned women might have had for happiness in the future.
For all eternity, condemned man-haters will grind their teeth with hot tears
and white-knuckled fury that they ultimately lost out on everything because
of one lone male's obsessive control over their lives; and I have no doubt
whatsoever they will entertain years of happy-thoughts dreaming of
mutilating Christ with scalding water, hot steam irons, scissors, forks, and
kitchen knives should they perchance ever manage to get their hands on him.
==========================================
Christ has been delegated the task of judgment.
†. John 5:22-23 . .The Father judges no one, but has committed all
judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the
Father.
†. Acts 17:31 . . For God has set a day when he will judge the world with
justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men
by raising him from the dead.
Although Jesus Christ is male, he is not the kind of male that most women
are accustomed to. When they stand stark naked to be judged by him, he
will not be impressed by the size of their bosoms nor the silkiness of their
thighs. He'll be interested in one thing, and one thing only: whether their
names are in the book of life or not. If their names are not in the book of life,
he will proceed to have them ingloriously executed in a reservoir of flaming
sulfur where they will undergo a death akin to a foundry worker falling into a
vat of molten iron; and he will not mourn their loss.
†. Isa 13:9 . . Behold, the day of The Lord comes-- cruel; with both wrath
and fierce anger
The Hebrew word for "wrath" in that statement is 'ebrah (eb-raw') which
indicates an outburst of passion. In other words: the wrath of God won't be
weeping big wet crocodile tears while it's slamming people at the Great
White Throne event depicted at Rev 20:11-15; no, they will be terminated
with extreme prejudice; viz: the wrath of God will be furious against them.
(cf. Isa 63:1-6, Rev 19:15)
Webster's defines "fierce" as a behavior exhibited by humans and animals
that inspires terror because of the wild and menacing aspect of fury in attack.
Ferocity is an aspect commonly seen among roaring, snarling lions savagely
attacking prey. There's neither sportsmanship nor sympathy in ferocity; only
sheer terror, brutality, and blood lust.
"cruel" is defined as: disposed to inflict pain or suffering; viz: devoid of
humane feelings
†. Heb 10:27 . . A certain fearful expectation of . . . fiery indignation
"fiery indignation" is quite a bit more severe than ordinary indignation.
"fiery" speaks of someone who is seriously ticked off; and so angry that
they're actually red in the face.
There are women out there in cyberspace la-la land who have been so
conditioned by greeting cards, religious art, Broadway plays, Christmas
carols, and Hollywood movies and nativity scenes that they have no concept
of the magnitude of the lethal tsunami of rage and violence coming to get
them.
In the end, it will be the sweet little baby away in a manger who ruins any
chances condemned women might have had for happiness in the future.
For all eternity, condemned man-haters will grind their teeth with hot tears
and white-knuckled fury that they ultimately lost out on everything because
of one lone male's obsessive control over their lives; and I have no doubt
whatsoever they will entertain years of happy-thoughts dreaming of
mutilating Christ with scalding water, hot steam irons, scissors, forks, and
kitchen knives should they perchance ever manage to get their hands on him.
==========================================
Last edited:
I'm trying really hard to understand where you're coming from. I went to Blue Letter Bible and got the following.
Blue Letter Bible says that Diakonos is a masculine/feminine noun. It means one who executes the commands of another, especially of a master.
The word can be used to say:
- A servant with no office.
- The office of Deacon in a church.
- A waiter or someone who serves food and drink.
My question to you is why do you think Roman's 16:1 should be translated as number 2? What is your thought process behind this?
Not to derail the conversation, but there is truth to this. I often hear about like privileged people, like gender privileged people, race privileged people, sexual orientation privileged people, if you fit any of these you are not allowed to talk about any prejudice on you because you are privileged. But the thing is, the people using this whole idea are white people in advanced well off countries. So its almost as if this whole idea is really just for white Christian men. Everyone now has it hard but white Christian men, who are the ones who are responsible for all the worlds woes.
Im not even talking about "discrimination against men". Im talking about the meaningless battle people have over which group of human beings have it the worst in the world. I just go with Gods word, if you are to be hated for anything in this world, be hated for loving God.
I dont like seeing everything become a battle of races or gender or anything like that. I think todays world has really fallen into this. And I used to be this way too. I just want to do what God has asked, He promises everyone of us that He will never put us through anything we cant handle.
Im not even talking about "discrimination against men". Im talking about the meaningless battle people have over which group of human beings have it the worst in the world. I just go with Gods word, if you are to be hated for anything in this world, be hated for loving God.
I dont like seeing everything become a battle of races or gender or anything like that. I think todays world has really fallen into this. And I used to be this way too. I just want to do what God has asked, He promises everyone of us that He will never put us through anything we cant handle.
K
Lol come on over to the "Lets Talk About Gays" thread.I've been talking about repentance and turning from sin and almost got burned at the stake over there.Now I'm roasting in hell over here.lol See that sword cuts both ways.When men stand before God he wont be impressed by the size of er certain things either.Or his hair plugs to impress those ladies with the fake bosoms.He wont be impressed with his resume,how many hours he worked the type of car he drives.If their name isn't in the book of life they took will be tossed into the sulfur.But I do believe God does morn the loss of each soul,even if they chose not to accept him.The Bible says he wishes that none would perish.
Yes the sweet babe in the manger is a God of righteous judgement also.Men who abuse their wives,either mentally or physically will find themselves right beside those women you speak of. You're very imaginative with your visions,perhaps you should go to Hollywood and write some horror stuff for them! I dont agree with feminism.But I dont agree with the male I'm seeing you demonstrate here.Maybe you're just all talk.I just wonder how your wife deals with you.I give her one thing,she has the patience of Job!
Btw Christian men seem to notice things like bosoms and silky thighs.Dont know a lot of men that want to marry a woman that looks like old uncle Harry.Women do what they do to keep men interested.Any Christian councilor will tell a woman if you dont want to lose your husbands interest keep your weight down,wear nice things for him and dress up.Now what are women suppose to do? I can not wait for your answer.
Last edited by a moderator:
