Women cannot have authority in the congregation.
- Thread starter JohnPost1
- 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.
Beam me up brother.
You have no idea of the use of signs. The same with parables or tongues . Signs follow a believer. They as lying wonder lead those who rebel and seek after wonderments rather than faith .(the unseen eternal) .
Yes signs of glory define the roles of two working as one. Neither has a teaching authroity over the other. One is our good teaching Master in heaven .
Two signs equal one authority. Christ in us. . Woman a covering . . .covering the glory of men that represent our unseen head and God did not leave woman without a covering sign the glory her hair. She must cover it or shave it off. Both working together as one representative glory revealed as a parable. The unseen glory of God who has no form is the only glory to be seen, the glory of faith . If man cover his head he loses his representation and is left naked .If woman does not cover her hair a glory it also make the same ceremonial law without effect
You have no idea of the use of signs. The same with parables or tongues . Signs follow a believer. They as lying wonder lead those who rebel and seek after wonderments rather than faith .(the unseen eternal) .
Yes signs of glory define the roles of two working as one. Neither has a teaching authroity over the other. One is our good teaching Master in heaven .
Two signs equal one authority. Christ in us. . Woman a covering . . .covering the glory of men that represent our unseen head and God did not leave woman without a covering sign the glory her hair. She must cover it or shave it off. Both working together as one representative glory revealed as a parable. The unseen glory of God who has no form is the only glory to be seen, the glory of faith . If man cover his head he loses his representation and is left naked .If woman does not cover her hair a glory it also make the same ceremonial law without effect
I agree that the average congregation won't know those words, and it will turn them off. When I preach in my church, my pastor is vehement about me not using Greek and Hebrew. My response is to be very clear if I use them, and also to have some PP slides to break it down. But my congregation is very advanced. We have many retired pastors, missionaries, and those who have gone to Bible school or seminary. But they come to church to be fed, and if they don't understand the words or context, they are not going to learn.
But CC is a different story. The Bible Discussion Forum is to learn the Bible and also discuss it. Certainly, I am a scholar on here. If I am in the Family Forum, or the Women's Forum, I speak differently. That's a very different audience, although some overlap, too. They problem is that people are too proud to think they can learn anything new. Which I find odd, because God is always showing me new things in the Bible. After 40 years of reading it in 5 different languages, and 5 years formal studies.
The thing that always amazes me about the Bible is how rich and deep it is. We can always learn something new, even if it is just something about how to grow. And I know lots of people who are eager to learn more and serve God in this forum. And some take the time to look things up I have said. And sometimes they find reasons to believe I am wrong, which is a good thing. At least they took the time to study.
PS I never say "hermeneutics" without saying interpretation. I'm a teacher from way back! I taught elementary school. I pushed my students to have a hunger to learn. Sometimes I would talk over their heads, but always re-explain it at their level. For those who don't want to learn, their loss!
-
5
-
1
- Show all
praise GOD.. you know taking verses out of context is unwise. I am always reminded that Jesus told a woman the bread belongs to the children not the dogs. Not sure why your just talking about this and women. Back then there was so much more things WOMEN could not do. Why target just this?
Any way this goes no where. Women are out there preaching teaching all over the world for GOD.. that GOD called. So be careful here.. one does NOT want to get in Gods way and then tell GOD who He can and can not use.
-
2
- Show all
My comment following the conversation b/w (what appears to be) understanding scripture through Holy Spirit guidance and by using hermeneutical techniques and, since understanding is a verb and so a form of 'doing' (in this case, 'what seems right'), and related verses speaking to that, to be relevant in this and perhaps all cases of doing. Verses showing how careful we should be when doing anything we might think seems right (such as believing, knowing, thinking, et al), and not necessarily to imply that hermeneutics leads to any of those unfortunate outcomes, if anyone translated it that way, although there is risk either way of not getting it right tho it might 'seem right' , as Ms Angela's account of the conclusion she reached as opposed to the conclusion her professor might've expected tho both employed sound hermeneutical techniques having results similar to two claiming Holy Spirit guidance reaching different conclusions.... I guess my point in attempt is that we should keep an ever present awareness that we are ever seeing through a glass darkly.
That is, until the day we see Him face to face.
Until then, He sees (and knows) our hearts.
That is, until the day we see Him face to face.
Until then, He sees (and knows) our hearts.
praise GOD.. you know taking verses out of context is unwise. I am always reminded that Jesus told a woman the bread belongs to the children not the dogs.Not sure why your just talking about this and women. Back then there was so much more things WOMEN could not do. Why target just this?
Any way this goes no where. Women are out there preaching teaching all over the world for GOD.. that GOD called. So be careful here.. one does NOT want to get in Gods way and then tell GOD who He can and can not use.
EXACTLY. Preach it! This is my one and only motivation for speaking up on this subject.
I've never had a problem with male leadership, nor does it make me bitter. I rejoice seeing a good pastor, I do not discriminate persons based on gender. Coveting position is a deception that gains no one nothing anyway, titles are just titles for organizational sake in church, but we are all servants.
Where I'm coming from, like you said, is that we should fear God, and be very careful before judging His servants!
Rather fear God and be careful, than risk going against God by going against someone whom He chose for a task.
If God chose Jael to take away warrior's glory when a man who was offered that task first was a coward, who is to say that He does not raise a woman here and there when men don't seek Him and don't show interest to develop spiritual leadership qualities and to feed the sheep.
-
1
- Show all
G
I have studied the history of the early Christian Church very intensively. I found that women had leading roles in the Church. Yes, they were even apostles (not to be confused with the twelve apostles we all know). Women have founded and led congregations (house churches), were deacons. According to Norbert Greinacher, now a professor emeritus of Catholic theology at the University of Tübingen, the office of deacon was banned for women in the 6th century.
Women mentioned in the Bible with offices:
Junia
(Romans 16:7)
The Apostle Junia was made a man by Aegidius of Rome (1245-1316) in the 12th century. It was previously known that Junia was a woman. I quote one of the Fathers of the Church:
Phoebe
(Romans 16: 1-2)
She was a deacon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebe_(biblical_figure)
Lydia of Thyatira
(Acts 16: 14-15, 40)
Lydia was therefore the first person on European soil (in the city of Philippi, Greece) to embrace the Christian faith. Not only did she urge Paul and Silas to live with her, but according to verse 40 (Acts 16), the Christian community seems to have gathered in her house from now on. In the Epistle to the Philippians, Paul mentions the special financial help provided by this congregation, which is also credited to Lydia. Thus, she is generally given an outstanding position between patron and community leader.
According to some authors, Mary Magdalene was also an Apostle and led the group of female Apostles.
However, since there is no biblical evidence for this statement, one should consider these statements somewhat cautiously.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I would go as far to say that God does raise women here and there, and now and then, (without regard to any condition of the willingness of men or lack thereof). For example, I know it is often asserted that Deborah was chosen as judge of Israel because there were no (willing? interested? competent?) men at the time, but that could've only have been assumed as there is no direct mention (that I'm aware of) as to the reason for her calling.
-
2
- Show all
I personally agree with you, because I am not convinced that gender of God's servants matters, or any titles... that's all chaff...
But for those who are convinced into the opposite, I appeal to them to at least be slow and careful when judging His female servants because at the very least women are raised when men are unwilling, Jael proves so, and God doesn't change His principles.
But for those who are convinced into the opposite, I appeal to them to at least be slow and careful when judging His female servants because at the very least women are raised when men are unwilling, Jael proves so, and God doesn't change His principles.
-
2
- Show all
S
Yes we can reference many examples in Church history where theologians are disagreeing on an interpretation and both sides are claiming sound hermeneutics.
And yet many of these can be resolved by identifying the hermeneutic rule that is being ignored or violated. Not all, for as you said we see through a glass darkly some differences are much harder than others to resolve due to a lack of biblical information. We simply are not given enough information to make a strong argument.
However, in the example of Angela's rule of Lexical analysis of the Greek word only found in this one place in the New Testament (1 Tim 2:12) she has a stronger argument that the intention is that of a negative taking authority where one has not been given permission and this also matches the words in the English translation, the immediate context, and the theological context of 1 Pet 3 so that from several rules of heremeneutics this does not appear to be about a woman preaching in the church but rather a woman usurping authority over the husband. I see here that hermeneutics wins the argument and exposes the idea of "PULPIT ministry" or "Preaching in the Church" as a clear case of eisegesis (reading into the text what is not there.)
Now there may continue to be a stalemate in agreement between theologians on this verse but proper hermeneutics has not failed, people are just slow to concede to superior hermeneutic arguments.
I don't see how using these same rules, immediate context, lexical, syntactical analysis of the original language, and theological context (comparing 1 Peter 3) by the opposing side would come up with a different solution. Instead they will have to ignore the Lexical analysis presented by the Greek word, and ignore the possibility of the theological context from 1 Peter 3, such as concluding that it is only a coincidence that Peter uses the same wording in 1 Peter 3:3 as Paul uses in 1 Tim 2:11. So if the opposing side says that the Greek words used here should not be too carefully analyzed, and if they also say 1 Peter 3:3 is irrelevant, and if they insist in plugging in phrases like "in the Church" or others such phrases, then I think that using rules of hermeneutics solved this argument and they are just being obstinate because they are defending centuries of erroneous church dogma.
I would also mention that there may be many here on CC who have a world view that no churches allow women to preach or teach but that is not true at all. My fellowship / denomination is 67 million strong and women have been involved in ministry since it began in 1914. We are the fastest growing denomination in the world and the largest missions organization of any evangelical denomination, many of those missions works involve ordained and credentialed women ministers.
In 2008, there were a total of 34,178 Assemblies of God ministers (excluding local church credentials). Of these, 11,544 were senior pastors and 6,730 were female. That was in 2008. I am sure there are more today, I have not looked it up. I would hope it is doubled or tripled since then. And this does not reflect all those nondenominational and charismatic churches that are very similar to the AOG in doctrine who also see the scriptures as endorsing women preachers. I believe the numbers are about 500 million if we include all those. Am I claiming that numbers make it right? No, but many are afraid to question the erroneous interpretation that Paul was forbidding women to pastor in 1 Tim 2:12 because they think that MOST of the church believes that and who are they to go against the crowd. This is no way to decide doctrine. If you are afraid that you are the only one who does not see Paul as saying that, you are not in the minority as you thought you were. That is my point in bringing out this information about how many have seen in the scriptures that women are indeed allowed to preach and to pastor.
So to all those on CC that reads this post now or in the future I hope that broadens your world view on just how many women pastors and other women ministers are actively doing the Lords work while small minds are debating whether they are allowed or not.
And yet many of these can be resolved by identifying the hermeneutic rule that is being ignored or violated. Not all, for as you said we see through a glass darkly some differences are much harder than others to resolve due to a lack of biblical information. We simply are not given enough information to make a strong argument.
However, in the example of Angela's rule of Lexical analysis of the Greek word only found in this one place in the New Testament (1 Tim 2:12) she has a stronger argument that the intention is that of a negative taking authority where one has not been given permission and this also matches the words in the English translation, the immediate context, and the theological context of 1 Pet 3 so that from several rules of heremeneutics this does not appear to be about a woman preaching in the church but rather a woman usurping authority over the husband. I see here that hermeneutics wins the argument and exposes the idea of "PULPIT ministry" or "Preaching in the Church" as a clear case of eisegesis (reading into the text what is not there.)
Now there may continue to be a stalemate in agreement between theologians on this verse but proper hermeneutics has not failed, people are just slow to concede to superior hermeneutic arguments.
I don't see how using these same rules, immediate context, lexical, syntactical analysis of the original language, and theological context (comparing 1 Peter 3) by the opposing side would come up with a different solution. Instead they will have to ignore the Lexical analysis presented by the Greek word, and ignore the possibility of the theological context from 1 Peter 3, such as concluding that it is only a coincidence that Peter uses the same wording in 1 Peter 3:3 as Paul uses in 1 Tim 2:11. So if the opposing side says that the Greek words used here should not be too carefully analyzed, and if they also say 1 Peter 3:3 is irrelevant, and if they insist in plugging in phrases like "in the Church" or others such phrases, then I think that using rules of hermeneutics solved this argument and they are just being obstinate because they are defending centuries of erroneous church dogma.
I would also mention that there may be many here on CC who have a world view that no churches allow women to preach or teach but that is not true at all. My fellowship / denomination is 67 million strong and women have been involved in ministry since it began in 1914. We are the fastest growing denomination in the world and the largest missions organization of any evangelical denomination, many of those missions works involve ordained and credentialed women ministers.
In 2008, there were a total of 34,178 Assemblies of God ministers (excluding local church credentials). Of these, 11,544 were senior pastors and 6,730 were female. That was in 2008. I am sure there are more today, I have not looked it up. I would hope it is doubled or tripled since then. And this does not reflect all those nondenominational and charismatic churches that are very similar to the AOG in doctrine who also see the scriptures as endorsing women preachers. I believe the numbers are about 500 million if we include all those. Am I claiming that numbers make it right? No, but many are afraid to question the erroneous interpretation that Paul was forbidding women to pastor in 1 Tim 2:12 because they think that MOST of the church believes that and who are they to go against the crowd. This is no way to decide doctrine. If you are afraid that you are the only one who does not see Paul as saying that, you are not in the minority as you thought you were. That is my point in bringing out this information about how many have seen in the scriptures that women are indeed allowed to preach and to pastor.
So to all those on CC that reads this post now or in the future I hope that broadens your world view on just how many women pastors and other women ministers are actively doing the Lords work while small minds are debating whether they are allowed or not.
-
2
- Show all
You've touched on an important point. That there can be a kind of 'snobbery' on both sides of the road.
The spiritual among us can trivialize the intellectual as much as the intellectual can trivialize the spiritual.
As the church we should seek balance & perhaps the wisdom of Solomon. A time for all things.
The spiritual among us can trivialize the intellectual as much as the intellectual can trivialize the spiritual.
As the church we should seek balance & perhaps the wisdom of Solomon. A time for all things.
-
3
- Show all
I would agree . . .until we see Him face to face. And add the dark glass that we can see through are the mysteries of faith (the unseen law )made known through the parables. Without them Christ spoke not. And now that we have the perfect word sealed with 7 seals till the end of time with no laws missing by which we could know God more intimately. We can see him face to face or faith to faith. . . all one of the same thing .
Face to face is in the knowledge of knowing Him .God is a Spirit. God is Light. God is love. He has no literal face
1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known
Psalm 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:
Parable teach us how to walk or understand God by faith. The unseen work he works in us to both will and do his good pleasure.
I have been looking at the word "doublet" as a interpreting tool .Anyone have any insight as to how and where it is used the scriptures ?
Face to face is in the knowledge of knowing Him .God is a Spirit. God is Light. God is love. He has no literal face
1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known
Psalm 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:
Parable teach us how to walk or understand God by faith. The unseen work he works in us to both will and do his good pleasure.
I have been looking at the word "doublet" as a interpreting tool .Anyone have any insight as to how and where it is used the scriptures ?
Personally, I do not recall any word, "doublet," let alone as any interpreting tool, but I do not agree that God has no literal face, nor can I having, literally, seen (and having the audacity to say such a thing, extremely fortunate I live in a society where witch trials are outlawed).
When Moses asked to see God's face, the LORD answered him, ".... no man can see me and live!" but I think it is worth noting that 'ha'adam' is the term translated as man here. However, 'ish' is used in other instances (in more favorable circumstances), and this particular term is not used until Adam is given the woman. It is understood in rabbinical teaching that ha'adam represents the rather earthly man and 'ish' the more spiritual or, to my understanding, closer to 'whole' man so to speak.
With that said, 2 Corinthians 4:6 says, "For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' made His light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." This I read, considering that 'with God, all things are possible,' as God's express desire to, indeed, show His face to us, as in answer to the Aaronic blessing prayed over "may the LORD cause His face to shine upon you," so that, if it had not been possible up to that time, His 'absorbing' or overcoming the death that this would've otherwise resulted in man's death. And yet again, does it not cause 'ha'adam's and so doing allows 'ish' to then live, and forever even?
When Moses asked to see God's face, the LORD answered him, ".... no man can see me and live!" but I think it is worth noting that 'ha'adam' is the term translated as man here. However, 'ish' is used in other instances (in more favorable circumstances), and this particular term is not used until Adam is given the woman. It is understood in rabbinical teaching that ha'adam represents the rather earthly man and 'ish' the more spiritual or, to my understanding, closer to 'whole' man so to speak.
With that said, 2 Corinthians 4:6 says, "For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' made His light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." This I read, considering that 'with God, all things are possible,' as God's express desire to, indeed, show His face to us, as in answer to the Aaronic blessing prayed over "may the LORD cause His face to shine upon you," so that, if it had not been possible up to that time, His 'absorbing' or overcoming the death that this would've otherwise resulted in man's death. And yet again, does it not cause 'ha'adam's and so doing allows 'ish' to then live, and forever even?
Personally, I do not recall any word, "doublet," let alone as any interpreting tool, but I do not agree that God has no literal face, nor can I having, literally, seen (and having the audacity to say such a thing, extremely fortunate I live in a society where witch trials are outlawed).
When Moses asked to see God's face, the LORD answered him, ".... no man can see me and live!" but I think it is worth noting that 'ha'adam' is the term translated as man here. However, 'ish' is used in other instances (in more favorable circumstances), and this particular term is not used until Adam is given the woman. It is understood in rabbinical teaching that ha'adam represents the rather earthly man and 'ish' the more spiritual or, to my understanding, closer to 'whole' man so to speak.
With that said, 2 Corinthians 4:6 says, "For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' made His light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." This I read, considering that 'with God, all things are possible,' as God's express desire to, indeed, show His face to us, as in answer to the Aaronic blessing prayed over "may the LORD cause His face to shine upon you," so that, if it had not been possible up to that time, His 'absorbing' or overcoming the death that this would've otherwise resulted in man's death. And yet again, does it not cause 'ha'adam's and so doing allows 'ish' to then live, and forever even?
When Moses asked to see God's face, the LORD answered him, ".... no man can see me and live!" but I think it is worth noting that 'ha'adam' is the term translated as man here. However, 'ish' is used in other instances (in more favorable circumstances), and this particular term is not used until Adam is given the woman. It is understood in rabbinical teaching that ha'adam represents the rather earthly man and 'ish' the more spiritual or, to my understanding, closer to 'whole' man so to speak.
With that said, 2 Corinthians 4:6 says, "For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' made His light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." This I read, considering that 'with God, all things are possible,' as God's express desire to, indeed, show His face to us, as in answer to the Aaronic blessing prayed over "may the LORD cause His face to shine upon you," so that, if it had not been possible up to that time, His 'absorbing' or overcoming the death that this would've otherwise resulted in man's death. And yet again, does it not cause 'ha'adam's and so doing allows 'ish' to then live, and forever even?
I would also say no sign gifts in any shape or form . We walk by faith the unseen.
When Jesus was on trial at the beginning of the ministry he was sent by the father as our scape goat to see if he would trust his own corrupted flesh and blood or would he rely upon his father to strengthen him in his weakness.
In his weakness the temper, the father of lies came giving a various visions to Jesus that did enter his fleshly mind . Some call them out of the body rather than lying spirts working from within.
Three times with three used to denote the end of a matter .(strike three) .Again and again after each new vision .The Son of man Jesus the prophet, apostle, would declare the words the father put on his Son lips . . "it is written" again and again . Therefore the Lord not seen rebuked the spirit of error and it departed . The Son of man had no power to rebuke .
The same kind of mind set is revealed in Colossians 2 .The EVS version is a little more sarcastic but I think sometimes a little tearing of the flesh (sarcasm) can awaken an old warning. like a thorn in the flesh.
Its one of those cases WWJD "what would Jesus do" . Would he say as it is written or worship the fallen angel.
Colossians 2:18 EVS Some people enjoy acting as if they are humble and love to worship angels. They always talk about the visions they have seen. Don’t listen to them when they say you are wrong because you don’t do these things. It is so foolish for them to feel such pride, because it is all based on their own human ideas.
King James says it a little differently . Instead of vision he has seen. The King James declares them a false (not seen ) created by ones own fleshly mind. Not as it is written
Colossians 2:18 King James 18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
I think it would fit the description using two parables having the same spiritual source as a understanding have the same conclusion . One looks ahead the other the fullment . Comparing the spirutual understanding hid in the parable to spiritual understanding .In other word walk by faith the unsen and not after lying wonders
Luke 11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet
The sign was given and fulfilled (three days in the heart of the earth, hell) a living sufferings rescued by God
Luke 11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet
The sign was given and fulfilled (three days in the heart of the earth, hell) a living sufferings rescued by God
-
1
- Show all