Women Pastors? Help me.
- Thread starter DevonS
- 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.
L
stagnation gives life......what kind of mind conceives of such utter dribble? a stagnant one?
all the apostles just did a face palm
stagnation is death
God constantly and consistently speaks of NEW LIFE, a RENEWED MIND and many other things along the same lines
you go ahead and live in a cess pool then but don't blame anyone else if you lack company
John... let's play by your rules for a minute: literal KJV words, no changes or substitutions permitted. I don't see anything in the KJV which states "clearly" that the role of pastor (exact term) should be a man, yet you believe there is. So, you are changing the word of God to fit your desires. Please either back up your statement with a specific quotation from the KJV using the word "pastor" (not "bishop" or any other term) and a clear prohibition of women in that role, or admit that you were wrong in that statement.
L
I almost cant believe a Christian can say something like you did right now 
Its so obviously wrong that it is almost worthless to react.
Its so obviously wrong that it is almost worthless to react.
oh please...don't crush your skirt when you sit on that hard pew
I am not an actor and I don't have an agenda...but you do have an agenda and I am sure you have had plenty of opposition with what you present, so let us not pretend I have somehow insulted your sensitivities
and it is not my fault you do not know what stagnant means
you simply cannot argue the meaning of the word, so therefore, I...gasp gasp...am not a Christian
I've heard it all before
the Irish call it blarney
I love Paul! But the point being made was Paul said Eve was deceived while Adam was not, and so Eve therefore was the sinner, and yet elsewhere we know that because of Adam's disobedience, death and sin entered the world and ALL of creation fell BECAUSE OF ADAM'S SIN, not Eve's. Eve' sin of deception was actually less than Adam's sin of direct disobedience.
Some words that impressed me enough a few years ago, to copy them:
The bible never supports literalism as an accepted method.
There is an important principle for understanding the bible that in itself undermines the literalist's method. That is, we must let the bible interpret itself, whenever possible.
The bible is made up of various books written by several authors who come from many different time periods. These authors have often referenced other books, making the bible a self-referencing text. For example, Paul will often use Old Testament images or prophetic texts to understand what took place in Jesus Christ. The gospel writers did the same by highlighting the various prophecies fulfilled in the life of Christ.
Additionally, Jesus also examined the scriptures, revealing to us how He understood them. Did Jesus read the bible literally? I think the scriptures will show that He did not. And in fact, He did many things when reading the bible that, if done again today, a literalist would quickly call Him a false teacher or a deceiver. A great example for this comes from Luke 4:18-19, 21:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” …And he began to say to them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” (ESV)
Jesus went to the temple and read from the book of Isaiah, chapter 61. But Jesus stopped reading in the middle of a sentence. He does not finish, as Isaiah does, with “…to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God.” Jesus takes this passage and purposefully picks what He wishes to exclude from it. If Jesus were a literalist He would be forced to read the whole text because, according to a strictly literal interpretation of the bible, all texts are inherently correct at face value. A literalist would claim that He has purposefully deceived His listeners, and should instead stick to just preaching the literal word of God. But Jesus took a contextual understanding of the scriptures by leaving off the second half of this verse.
Jesus also preformed another contextual re-understanding of the scriptures when He preached the Sermon on the Mount. He would preach, “You’ve heard it said…But I say to you.” This shows that Jesus commonly corrected the Pharisee’s black-and-white literal understanding of the law with a more contextual understanding that lined up with His Father’s will.
You could say that Jesus had this right, being God, but I would argue that He was showing us how to see past the letter of the law to the spirit of the scriptures. He wasn’t just God in our flesh trying to impress us, He came to heal us and teach us.
Wouldn’t He teach us how to read the scriptures, knowing what an important role they’d play in our future life as the church? I think He did. And I also think this is one of Paul’s points in Galatians 5 when He discussed the letter and spirit of the law. We are to live by the spirit of the law, and not by the literal, rigid letter of the law.
The bible does not take itself literally. Instead, the bible uses context, both cultural and historical, as a means of witnessing to the Word of God. We cannot then take the bible so literally when it has not taken itself literally.
The bible never supports literalism as an accepted method.
There is an important principle for understanding the bible that in itself undermines the literalist's method. That is, we must let the bible interpret itself, whenever possible.
The bible is made up of various books written by several authors who come from many different time periods. These authors have often referenced other books, making the bible a self-referencing text. For example, Paul will often use Old Testament images or prophetic texts to understand what took place in Jesus Christ. The gospel writers did the same by highlighting the various prophecies fulfilled in the life of Christ.
Additionally, Jesus also examined the scriptures, revealing to us how He understood them. Did Jesus read the bible literally? I think the scriptures will show that He did not. And in fact, He did many things when reading the bible that, if done again today, a literalist would quickly call Him a false teacher or a deceiver. A great example for this comes from Luke 4:18-19, 21:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” …And he began to say to them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” (ESV)
Jesus went to the temple and read from the book of Isaiah, chapter 61. But Jesus stopped reading in the middle of a sentence. He does not finish, as Isaiah does, with “…to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God.” Jesus takes this passage and purposefully picks what He wishes to exclude from it. If Jesus were a literalist He would be forced to read the whole text because, according to a strictly literal interpretation of the bible, all texts are inherently correct at face value. A literalist would claim that He has purposefully deceived His listeners, and should instead stick to just preaching the literal word of God. But Jesus took a contextual understanding of the scriptures by leaving off the second half of this verse.
Jesus also preformed another contextual re-understanding of the scriptures when He preached the Sermon on the Mount. He would preach, “You’ve heard it said…But I say to you.” This shows that Jesus commonly corrected the Pharisee’s black-and-white literal understanding of the law with a more contextual understanding that lined up with His Father’s will.
You could say that Jesus had this right, being God, but I would argue that He was showing us how to see past the letter of the law to the spirit of the scriptures. He wasn’t just God in our flesh trying to impress us, He came to heal us and teach us.
Wouldn’t He teach us how to read the scriptures, knowing what an important role they’d play in our future life as the church? I think He did. And I also think this is one of Paul’s points in Galatians 5 when He discussed the letter and spirit of the law. We are to live by the spirit of the law, and not by the literal, rigid letter of the law.
The bible does not take itself literally. Instead, the bible uses context, both cultural and historical, as a means of witnessing to the Word of God. We cannot then take the bible so literally when it has not taken itself literally.
Last edited:
L
Oh mine!!!!! Thats crazy!!! Poor Trofimus! Poor non-native English speaker, he used a wrong word!!!
Poor Trofimus! Poor non-native English speaker, he used a wrong word!!!
if it's that bad, maybe you should just listen? you want us to believe you are an authority, but now you tell us to overlook your mistakes
that's typical of someone who offers no proof other than 'look ma...no hands!'
you are probably not familiar with that expression and certainly not in the way I make mention of it here
sorry...you can't have your cake and eat it too buddy