Would you walk out of your church if a woman missionary came to pulpit to speak ?

[oldhermit]

Please feel free , anyone to continue to
answer my question please. Please stay within the confines of the question and pick from either of the two choices given. Thanks.

( The question will not change. That is all I am going to ask ) Thank you.

The inherent problem with using scenarios as a tool for challenging things in scripture is that scenarios are always rooted in one's own desires, whether consciously or unconsciously, to render the biblical text contingent upon the context of the scenario. The scenario will always be presented as a human condition and are always the product of human intelligence. Here is what scenarios are designed to do.
1. Scenarios are an attempt to rationalize human will and behavior.
2. Scenarios will generally ignore the language of the biblical text.
3. Scenarios are used to justify a given human agenda. i.e. The end justifies the means.
4. Scenarios are an attempt to overturn the authority of the Word of God in favor of human will.
5. Scenarios exalt human intelligence above the intelligence of God.
6. Scenarios assume that the language of the biblical text cannot stand against the logical argument.
7. Scenarios assume that scripture will break down in the extreme case.

In short, the use of scenarios never add to our understand of the Word of God.

 

[Mammachickadee]

Hmmmmm .... I wonder if those who would walk out would also walk out if a male pastor said something against the bible?

I would be more likely to leave if ANY pastor says something unbiblical unless it were a wedding ceremony.

 

[MissCris]

The inherent problem with using scenarios as a tool for challenging things in scripture is that scenarios are always rooted in one's own desires, whether consciously or unconsciously, to render the biblical text contingent upon the context of the scenario. The scenario will always be presented as a human condition and are always the product of human intelligence. Here is what scenarios are designed to do.
1. Scenarios are an attempt to rationalize human will and behavior.
2. Scenarios will generally ignore the language of the biblical text.
3. Scenarios are used to justify a given human agenda. i.e. The end justifies the means.
4. Scenarios are an attempt to overturn the authority of the Word of God in favor of human will.
5. Scenarios exalt human intelligence above the intelligence of God.
6. Scenarios assume that the language of the biblical text cannot stand against the logical argument.
7. Scenarios assume that scripture will break down in the extreme case.

In short, the use of scenarios never add to our understand of the Word of God.

Just wanted to add to this, based on my own experience...
8. Scenarios are almost always meant to manipulate others to agree with you.

Don't resort to manipulation, people.

As for the OP- women sharing testimony, okey dokey. Should they stand at the pulpit for this? Er...I really don't know.

 

[APebbleThrown]

I can't believe this conversation is happening in this day and age.

 

[oldhermit]

I can't believe this conversation is happening in this day and age.

Why? Do you believe scripture to be time contingent?

 

[directline2iam]

The inherent problem with using scenarios as a tool for challenging things in scripture is that scenarios are always rooted in one's own desires, whether consciously or unconsciously, to render the biblical text contingent upon the context of the scenario. The scenario will always be presented as a human condition and are always the product of human intelligence. Here is what scenarios are designed to do.
1. Scenarios are an attempt to rationalize human will and behavior.
2. Scenarios will generally ignore the language of the biblical text.
3. Scenarios are used to justify a given human agenda. i.e. The end justifies the means.
4. Scenarios are an attempt to overturn the authority of the Word of God in favor of human will.
5. Scenarios exalt human intelligence above the intelligence of God.
6. Scenarios assume that the language of the biblical text cannot stand against the logical argument.
7. Scenarios assume that scripture will break down in the extreme case.

In short, the use of scenarios never add to our understand of the Word of God.

In short, you apparently haven't realized what you just said as Jesus used many Scenarios which all of which were just the opposite of your defining of what a scenario is or it's designed intentions

 

[oldhermit]

In short, you apparently haven't realized what you just said as Jesus used many Scenarios which all of which were just the opposite of your defining of what a scenario is or it's designed intentions

There is a world of difference between a revealed illustration that proves the legitimacy of scripture and the truths therein and a scenario that has it rooted exclusively in human reason that stands in contrast to scripture. That is the difference between an inspired parable and a rationalized scenario.

 

[directline2iam]

There is a world of difference between a revealed illustration that proves the legitimacy of scripture and the truths therein and a scenario that has it rooted exclusively in human reason that stands in contrast to scripture. That is the difference between an inspired parable and a rationalized scenario.

Originally Posted by directline2iam

In short, you apparently haven't realized what you just said as Jesus used many Scenarios which all of which were just the opposite of your defining of what a scenario is or it's designed intentions

 

[oldhermit]

Originally Posted by directline2iam

In short, you apparently haven't realized what you just said as Jesus used many Scenarios which all of which were just the opposite of your defining of what a scenario is or it's designed intentions

I really do not think you understood the original post. The first point I made was that, "The inherent problem with using scenarios as a tool for challenging things in scripture... ." Jesus NEVER used a parable to challenge anything in scripture. He used parables to illustrate truths that are revealed in scripture. The scenario that has been offered by nathan3 not only questions the viability of the prohibition laid down in 1 Timothy 2:12-15, It even challenges the truth of the prohibition. Show me where Jesus ever used a parable as a tool for challenging things in scripture.

 

[crossnote]

In all of this debate I have not yet seen anyone address the definition laid down in the text for what is regarded as "having authority." It is so easy to understand. Is she speaks, she is exercising authority. It does not matter what she speaks. If she is silent, she is exercising humility. This needs no other defense.

Ok, but what are you going to do with the Scriptures where women have given testimony to other believers?
I think a woman can give testimony without usurping authority over men.

 

[oldhermit]

Ok, but what are you going to do with the Scriptures where women have given testimony to other believers?
I think a woman can give testimony without usurping authority over men.

Are you thinking about the example of Priscilla and Aquila who together teach Apollos?

 

[zone]

Ok, but what are you going to do with the Scriptures where women have given testimony to other believers?
I think a woman can give testimony without usurping authority over men.

but greenster hadta add in "from the pulpit"

 

[Abiding]

I insist on being biblical
so can you tell me what she looks like first?

 

[directline2iam]

I really do not think you understood the original post. The first point I made was that, "The inherent problem with using scenarios as a tool for challenging things in scripture... ." Jesus NEVER used a parable to challenge anything in scripture. He used parables to illustrate truths that are revealed in scripture. The scenario that has been offered by nathan3 not only questions the viability of the prohibition laid down in 1 Timothy 2:12-15, It even challenges the truth of the prohibition. Show me where Jesus ever used a parable as a tool for challenging things in scripture.

I quite do understand the OP and here is a scenario of John using a scenario of Jesus using a scenario:

31Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

 

[oldhermit]

I quite do understand the OP and here is a scenario of John using a scenario of Jesus using a scenario:

31Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Do you not understand the difference between a scenario and someone relating an actual event? Neither John nor Jesus is using a scenario, and even if you wish to stretch the definition of a scenario to include this event recorded in John, Jesus is still not using it as a tool for challenging things in scripture.

 

[iamsoandso]

at the end of the question of whether or not about women pastors,we should explore the area of deacons,bishops,the age of a man who is permitted to teach ect. ,,,,from the same letters of Paul,a few chapters before.,,,,,,,,,,

 

[directline2iam]

Do you not understand the difference between a scenario and someone relating an actual event? Neither John nor Jesus is using a scenario, and even if you wish to stretch the definition of a scenario to include this event recorded in John, Jesus is still not using it as a tool for challenging things in scripture.

sce·nar·i·o
səˈne(ə)rēˌō,-ˈnär-/
noun
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]

• 1.
  a written outline of a movie, novel, or stage work giving details of the plot and individual scenes.
  [COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]
  [COLOR=#878787 !important]"imagine the scenarios for four short stories"[/COLOR]
  [TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
  [TR]
  [TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:[/TD]
  [TD]plot, outline, synopsis, storyline, framework; More
  
  
  
  
  [/TD]
  [/TR]
  [/TABLE]
  
  
  
  
  Originally Posted by directline2iam
  
  
  In short, you apparently haven't realized what you just said as Jesus used many Scenarios which all of which were just the opposite of your defining of what a scenario is or it's designed intentions
  
  
  
  

 

[oldhermit]

at the end of the question of whether or not about women pastors,we should explore the area of deacons,bishops,the age of a man who is permitted to teach ect. ,,,,from the same letters of Paul,a few chapters before.,,,,,,,,,,

Absolutely. As I pointed out in an earlier post, women are not the only ones in the Church who are given functional restrictions.

 

[oldhermit]

sce·nar·i·o
səˈne(ə)rēˌō,-ˈnär-/
noun
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]

• 1.
  a written outline of a movie, novel, or stage work giving details of the plot and individual scenes.
  [COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]
  [COLOR=#878787 !important]"imagine the scenarios for four short stories"[/COLOR]
  [TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
  [TR]
  [TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:
  [/TD]
  [TD]plot, outline, synopsis, storyline, framework; More
  
  
  
  
  [/TD]
  [/TR]
  [/TABLE]
  
  
  
  
  Originally Posted by directline2iam
  
  
  In short, you apparently haven't realized what you just said as Jesus used many Scenarios which all of which were just the opposite of your defining of what a scenario is or it's designed intentions

I think it is time to bring our conversation to an end. You are simply being deliberately obtuse and I have absolutely no patience for this type of nonsense. One more time I will attempt brake the grammar down to its lowest common denominator so that you can grasp the basic concept. Scenarios that challenge the truth of scripture - BAD. Parables that uphold the truth of scripture - GOOD!

 

[Angela53510]

One more time for those who do not know Greek!!

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Tim. 2:12

"διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ’ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ." 1 Tim. 2:12

The word here for authority is Authentein, αὐθεντεῖν. This world does NOT mean Authority!! It means domineering or murdering.

The normal word for the authority that comes from God is exousia. For example:

"Πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω, οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ θεοῦ, αἱ δὲ [SUP][a][/SUP]οὖσαι [SUP][b][/SUP]ὑπὸ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν" Romans 13:1

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." Romans 13:1

This whole debate is based on wrong exegetics of the word authentein. It is used ONCE in the entire Bible, and the only way to even talk about it is to compare extra Biblical sources, which is never a good source to make a doctrine out of.

I have many books on this, scholarly ones I have posted here before about this debatable word. Before someone accuses me of making it up. This is just basic Koine Greek, which certain members of this forum ignore on thread after thread about women.

Authentein - appears once, probably means domineering and in context of the Ephesian culture and society.

Exousia - Authority which comes from God. Appears many times, but not in 1 Tim. 2:12

I won't even get into the word "quiet" or "teaching" or I will be here another hour, and I would like to have a few moments of my day not spending all my time fighting the ignorance of people who pull a verse out of context and language and then make a doctrine that "excludes all women then and for 2000 years" NOT!!

As for this missionary women in the OP, it is amazing that women missionaries can go and save the world, preaching and converting thousands, but they are not welcome in western culture because of a constant mistranslation of two scriptures. Bad hermeneutics to make a doctrine out of two verses with doubtful words.

It reminds me of the story of Lottie Moon, who was called to go to China from the Southern Baptists. The men in her day also scorned her, but the call of God was so strong she went anyway, and tens of thousands were saved. She came back and was only allowed to talk to women.

BUT - the men decided the money collected in her name was a good thing, and a good portion of missionary funds for the SBC come from the Lottie Moon Fund. Apparently a woman cannot give her story, teach or preach in front of men, but you can use her name to collect literally millions of dollars to send more missionaries abroad!