Scriptures don't teach women are not allowed to teach. Scriptures are clear:
^i^
††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††
DiscipleDave
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.
Scriptures don't teach women are not allowed to teach. Scriptures are clear:
^i^
††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††
DiscipleDave
Stan, your position is so very unreasonable. So you believe that the KJV was out of line with the Greek when Paul spoke of women not being in authority over men in the church. And after all your research you find that Paul did not really tell us that women should not be in authority over men in the church, but on the contrary women should be in authority over men in the church. That's funny, when you studied the Greek why didn't you find that the KJV was too lite on women? There had to be a fifty, fifty chance that Paul was really much worse on women then the KJV described. How very convenient for you that the KJV got it wrong in just the place that you did not want to believe what he wrote. Your life must be full of strange coincidents that all just happen to fall in your favor.
S
Of course there would be an issue because you still do not understand who this is directed at. You refuse to accept the Greek and you refuse to accept any other translation so there really is no teaching you you are basically unteachable. The Greek word here refers to a married woman as does the Greek word referred to a married man.
It is to a specific group of women it is to married women.
I don't come up with it, it's in the context of that section of scripture if you bothered to read it all and not just cherry pick certain verses. Verses 13 & 14 explains the context of Paul's statement because Adam and Eve were the first married couple and it was in the context of that marriage that Eve was deceived and therefore God made it clear that the husband would have the authority in a marriage. This is fully consistent with what God Said to Eve in Genesis 3:16, if you would bother to connect the dots and not just pick individual verses out of context. Again you fail big time at proper biblical hermeneutics.
No Dave you believe what a single scripture says without taking into consideration the whole of the Bible. What you do is called eisegesis. You're not looking to see what God is really telling you you're stopping at that point so the scripture will fit your pre dispositional bias.
That's right, in John 1:14, but again you have a very bad misconception of the Bible. The Bible does not bring us to Jesus, God draws us to him and we either accept the reality of who Jesus is or we don't. I fail to understand how you can actually think a Bible can bring somebody to Salvation when IT clearly says that there's no salvation in any other name but Jesus. The Bible is for believers so we can have a means to more fully discover who Jesus Christ is in our lives.
As far as your website is concerned, if you are this confused on a simple discussion forum, I can just imagine how bad your website is and how full of false teaching it is. One thing for sure is that you would need to study for the rest of your life without your pre-dispositional bias to even begin to understand what God's word is telling you. you are just about as confused as any KJVOer I've ever met in my entire life and that's much longer than yours. I've been studying God's word with the help of the Holy Spirit for longer than you've been alive.
Then I suggest you read John 1 again because the Word and God existed at the same time, always have always will. They had no beginning and will have no end because they don't exist in time. You say you read the word but you fail to understand these basics. Nobody has ever gotten saved by trusting the KJV and if you don't understand that and refuse to accept that then I can't even call you a Christian and you shouldn't be debating on a Christian forum. The KJV is not the only English Bible that's been around for the past four hundred years and you assume wrongfully that because of it people are saved. How utterly ridiculous!
Again whose disciple exactly are you, because you sure don't reflect Jesus Christ at all in your beliefs. Satan has been much more successful at getting people to believe that the KJV is the inspired word of God rather than stop people from reading it. Your posts on this thread are a clear indication of just how successful he has been in that regard. I for one, as a real disciple of Jesus Christ, rebuke you for all the lies you continue to try to pawn off on unsuspecting and gullible people. You don't even know what it really means to blaspheme the Holy Spirit because you think the Holy Spirit is the KJV. What it is, is just another English translation that the enemy has used to fool you into thinking that it got you saved when the real savior continues to knock at your door and you refuse to answer or let him in. I feel quite sad for you.
It is to a specific group of women it is to married women.
I don't come up with it, it's in the context of that section of scripture if you bothered to read it all and not just cherry pick certain verses. Verses 13 & 14 explains the context of Paul's statement because Adam and Eve were the first married couple and it was in the context of that marriage that Eve was deceived and therefore God made it clear that the husband would have the authority in a marriage. This is fully consistent with what God Said to Eve in Genesis 3:16, if you would bother to connect the dots and not just pick individual verses out of context. Again you fail big time at proper biblical hermeneutics.
No Dave you believe what a single scripture says without taking into consideration the whole of the Bible. What you do is called eisegesis. You're not looking to see what God is really telling you you're stopping at that point so the scripture will fit your pre dispositional bias.
That's right, in John 1:14, but again you have a very bad misconception of the Bible. The Bible does not bring us to Jesus, God draws us to him and we either accept the reality of who Jesus is or we don't. I fail to understand how you can actually think a Bible can bring somebody to Salvation when IT clearly says that there's no salvation in any other name but Jesus. The Bible is for believers so we can have a means to more fully discover who Jesus Christ is in our lives.
As far as your website is concerned, if you are this confused on a simple discussion forum, I can just imagine how bad your website is and how full of false teaching it is. One thing for sure is that you would need to study for the rest of your life without your pre-dispositional bias to even begin to understand what God's word is telling you. you are just about as confused as any KJVOer I've ever met in my entire life and that's much longer than yours. I've been studying God's word with the help of the Holy Spirit for longer than you've been alive.
Then I suggest you read John 1 again because the Word and God existed at the same time, always have always will. They had no beginning and will have no end because they don't exist in time. You say you read the word but you fail to understand these basics. Nobody has ever gotten saved by trusting the KJV and if you don't understand that and refuse to accept that then I can't even call you a Christian and you shouldn't be debating on a Christian forum. The KJV is not the only English Bible that's been around for the past four hundred years and you assume wrongfully that because of it people are saved. How utterly ridiculous!
Again whose disciple exactly are you, because you sure don't reflect Jesus Christ at all in your beliefs. Satan has been much more successful at getting people to believe that the KJV is the inspired word of God rather than stop people from reading it. Your posts on this thread are a clear indication of just how successful he has been in that regard. I for one, as a real disciple of Jesus Christ, rebuke you for all the lies you continue to try to pawn off on unsuspecting and gullible people. You don't even know what it really means to blaspheme the Holy Spirit because you think the Holy Spirit is the KJV. What it is, is just another English translation that the enemy has used to fool you into thinking that it got you saved when the real savior continues to knock at your door and you refuse to answer or let him in. I feel quite sad for you.
S
My position is unreasonable? You put your faith an Elizabethan English translation that's over four hundred years old and my position is unreasonable? You have faith in a vernacular you don't really even understand and I'm unreasonable? To go around speaking Elizabethan English in your everyday life? Was the Bible inspired in Hebrew and Greek or was the Bible inspired in Elizabethan English? You would rather believe in God having inspired 50 Church of England clergy influenced by King James to have completed and inspired work rather than God having inspired the men and women who actually wrote the Bible? there are dozens of preeminent Greek Scholars today who do not accept the King James version as anywhere near as accurate as modern-day English versions and there is not one Greek scholar or Hebrew scholar that has ever been a KJV onlyer.
And you have the gall to say that I am very unreasonable? All I can say in response to that is your very brainwashed.
And you have the gall to say that I am very unreasonable? All I can say in response to that is your very brainwashed.
S
I'm not your friend and you contradict yourself all the time. What do you call matters of fact I called garbage and as you've already admitted you wrote that over 23 years ago that means you wrote it when you were in your mid-twenties and obviously somebody in their mid-twenties has absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Please place your call again.
well said I see you point and after u added the rest, I agree. I think when it comes to ministry all in all, God doesnt make a differnce as that mainly depends on the character and gifts he gave that person (for some reason ppl think they can appoint and anoint themselves, i disagree. God calles people into offices and not the people)
Now of course woman and men do have generally in the more physical manner have a different role in relationships etc. as u stated the MAN is the head of the household. then the woman is the head of the children. Woman have roles and men
SO all in all we all arent as multitasking as we would like to be lol
I dont agree with all that eve deceived kauderwelch that keeps getting brought up.. Adam could have said no and he didnt. He didnt take his responsibility so in the end, both failed. But like said its a big topic and I think we can agree to disagree in a few points.. its not like its the first.
Now of course woman and men do have generally in the more physical manner have a different role in relationships etc. as u stated the MAN is the head of the household. then the woman is the head of the children. Woman have roles and men
SO all in all we all arent as multitasking as we would like to be lolI dont agree with all that eve deceived kauderwelch that keeps getting brought up.. Adam could have said no and he didnt. He didnt take his responsibility so in the end, both failed. But like said its a big topic and I think we can agree to disagree in a few points.. its not like its the first.
"We say women can be born again, but there are yet doctrines and dogma in place that deny that they have been truly and completely set free."
This shows up in the teaching that because of Eve, women are more easily deceived than men, and so is it to be truly set free if women are bound by Eve's mistakes? This is to say to women that they cannot be set totally free by walking with God but must have their teeth set on edge because their mother ate sour grapes. But God told them to stop using this phrase and said that from now on each man would be responsible for his own sins and not for the sins of the parent.
You're not starting to defend the other translations are you?
I need to do some more work on the Greek... check which version Angela used and so on. Regardless, I can accept translations which use "he" as inclusive except where extremely clearly male-only because of context. It is only quite recently that vernacular English has moved away from using "he" as both male and neuter pronouns. Some languages have true neuter pronouns, English doesn't. That's why we get the awkward "he/she" said in some literature, especially between about 1990 and 2010.
Unfortunately this thread is becoming more about the KJV than about the question of women in ministry so I think I'll try to stick to the topic. We can discuss the KJV elsewhere (as we have... ).
I need to do some more work on the Greek... check which version Angela used and so on. Regardless, I can accept translations which use "he" as inclusive except where extremely clearly male-only because of context. It is only quite recently that vernacular English has moved away from using "he" as both male and neuter pronouns. Some languages have true neuter pronouns, English doesn't. That's why we get the awkward "he/she" said in some literature, especially between about 1990 and 2010.
Unfortunately this thread is becoming more about the KJV than about the question of women in ministry so I think I'll try to stick to the topic. We can discuss the KJV elsewhere (as we have... ).
You're not starting to defend the other translations are you?
I need to do some more work on the Greek... check which version Angela used and so on. Regardless, I can accept translations which use "he" as inclusive except where extremely clearly male-only because of context. It is only quite recently that vernacular English has moved away from using "he" as both male and neuter pronouns. Some languages have true neuter pronouns, English doesn't. That's why we get the awkward "he/she" said in some literature, especially between about 1990 and 2010.
Unfortunately this thread is becoming more about the KJV than about the question of women in ministry so I think I'll try to stick to the topic. We can discuss the KJV elsewhere (as we have... ).
I need to do some more work on the Greek... check which version Angela used and so on. Regardless, I can accept translations which use "he" as inclusive except where extremely clearly male-only because of context. It is only quite recently that vernacular English has moved away from using "he" as both male and neuter pronouns. Some languages have true neuter pronouns, English doesn't. That's why we get the awkward "he/she" said in some literature, especially between about 1990 and 2010.
Unfortunately this thread is becoming more about the KJV than about the question of women in ministry so I think I'll try to stick to the topic. We can discuss the KJV elsewhere (as we have... ).
Does this mean that if a mans wife leaves him for a reason other than unfaithfulness on his part, he is now limited in how God can use him? He must pay for her sin by being limited by the church?
Or does it mean he must not have more than one wife at a time?
How about if his wife dies and he remarries years later?
Or what if a wife leaves her husband because he is abusive and he never remarries? He can be used in the church because he has only ever had one wife but the man whose wife died and he remarried has never been abusive, yet the church must limit the way he can be used for the good of building up and leading the younger?
You can't rebuild the law, even with the New Testament. The words are spirit and it is the spirit of the words that avails us, not the letter.
Or does it mean he must not have more than one wife at a time?
How about if his wife dies and he remarries years later?
Or what if a wife leaves her husband because he is abusive and he never remarries? He can be used in the church because he has only ever had one wife but the man whose wife died and he remarried has never been abusive, yet the church must limit the way he can be used for the good of building up and leading the younger?
You can't rebuild the law, even with the New Testament. The words are spirit and it is the spirit of the words that avails us, not the letter.
My first wife left me for another man and NO I am not qualified to be a deacon and wouldn't ever try to be one for that reason. How is that punishment on me? It's God's order for things, I don't have authority to IGNORE his requirements and do what I want to do.
None of this has anything to do with the law, a person can go against the wishes and structures of God and still be saved. We are modeling Christ and the church to the world by following these things, why would I go against that model?
Edit: Could Naaman have washed 5 times in Jordan and be healed? Why did God require 7 times, he could have done without dipping any times. God has an order of things to demonstrate his plan to the world through his servants.
None of this has anything to do with the law, a person can go against the wishes and structures of God and still be saved. We are modeling Christ and the church to the world by following these things, why would I go against that model?
Edit: Could Naaman have washed 5 times in Jordan and be healed? Why did God require 7 times, he could have done without dipping any times. God has an order of things to demonstrate his plan to the world through his servants.
Last edited:
I think you are trying to build again a system of law instead of understanding the spirit of the word. The law and the prophets and the entire word is spirit because God is Spirit. And it isn't the letter that avails us but the spirit. And I think men are held back from what God wants to use them for by men using the word as law in this area just as I think women are held back as regards the using of the word as law as regards teaching. Men are seeking to yoke them again by rebuilding a law system instead of the new way of the Spirit. This is my opinion on this matter.
S
You've already proven you can't follow the rationale and I'm sure you're quite able to read the English yourself. Why you don't want the Greek explained to you is beyond me because it is the only language that was inspired by God. English didn't even exist when the Bible was written. If you didn't rely on a 400 year old Elizabethan English translation that you yourself don't fully understand then you wouldn't have to have people explain the Greek to you. Start reading a more accurate Modern English translation and maybe some of those questions will be answered for you. God knows I've tried.
Stan, I study from a Greek & English bible, of course the Greek words have a definition in English, I see no difference in the meaning in 1Cor 14:34-37 and 1Tim 2:11-15 in the Greek as in the English. If you have found a difference then write it out for me to read. I do not need comments, just give me the straight word,please.
S
I'm going to assume it's a Greek/KJV Interlinear? I've already explained these two sections of scripture if you would have read my posts instead of ignoring them so I leave it up to you to go find them and read what I said. If you really believe that Paul is telling women to remain silent in the church then why does he say what he says in verse 39? Do you really believe Paul contradicting himself a few verses later? As far as 1st Timothy 2 is concerned the context that you referred to is about the home and not about the corporate Church setting, so why do you not see the context and just go with what the words say? The woman referred to in v11 is a wife, so if you do study Greek why don't you see that? What do you not see that Paul uses the Adam and Eve relationship in verses 13 & 14 for justification of what he says in verse 11 & 12?