-
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.
From John146's posted link.
This is such a insightful article, I want to post some of it(it is not all of it).
Colossians 3:18-19
"It wasn't very often in the OT that women such as Tamar took matters in their own hands where they put their lives at serious risk for the sake of another and her example should stand out in the OT as a prime example to all women - not that the cultural situation will ever likely be the same that a woman should think that she can commit what she did with the same justification!
But Tamar became the mother of the Christ (Mtw 1:3) along with three other women (Mtw 1:5-6) who would all have been disqualified from such a thing by the statements which appear in the Mosaic Law (see here under Part Two). But it was their faith which justified their actions and redeemed them from the condemnation which would have fallen upon them by the written statutes.
Jumping forward several hundred years, we should also notice Rahab (Joshua 2:1-21, 6:22-25), a prostitute by trade who hid the two spies sent by Joshua to report back to him concerning the lie of the land, the strength of the cities and people settled there. Heb 11:31 comments on her that it was 'by faith' that she saved her own life because she welcomed the spies, a reflection of her belief that YHWH was about to give the land into Israelite hands.
Faith is also attributed to the mother of Moses who hid the baby for three months while the Pharaoh was seeking to kill all the males born to the Hebrews in the land of Egypt. Their faith seems to be tied up by the writer to the Hebrews (Heb 11:23 Pp Ex 2:2) with the fact of the child's 'beauty' but there would appear to be the inference also that they trusted in YHWH's promise that he would deliver them from out of the house of bondage (Gen 15:12-16)."
This is such a insightful article, I want to post some of it(it is not all of it).
Colossians 3:18-19
"It wasn't very often in the OT that women such as Tamar took matters in their own hands where they put their lives at serious risk for the sake of another and her example should stand out in the OT as a prime example to all women - not that the cultural situation will ever likely be the same that a woman should think that she can commit what she did with the same justification!
But Tamar became the mother of the Christ (Mtw 1:3) along with three other women (Mtw 1:5-6) who would all have been disqualified from such a thing by the statements which appear in the Mosaic Law (see here under Part Two). But it was their faith which justified their actions and redeemed them from the condemnation which would have fallen upon them by the written statutes.
Jumping forward several hundred years, we should also notice Rahab (Joshua 2:1-21, 6:22-25), a prostitute by trade who hid the two spies sent by Joshua to report back to him concerning the lie of the land, the strength of the cities and people settled there. Heb 11:31 comments on her that it was 'by faith' that she saved her own life because she welcomed the spies, a reflection of her belief that YHWH was about to give the land into Israelite hands.
Faith is also attributed to the mother of Moses who hid the baby for three months while the Pharaoh was seeking to kill all the males born to the Hebrews in the land of Egypt. Their faith seems to be tied up by the writer to the Hebrews (Heb 11:23 Pp Ex 2:2) with the fact of the child's 'beauty' but there would appear to be the inference also that they trusted in YHWH's promise that he would deliver them from out of the house of bondage (Gen 15:12-16)."
From John146's posted link.
Colossians 3:18-19
"There are other examples in the OT, too, where women showed themselves to be of greater wisdom and spiritual perception than their husbands or, in one particular case, of all the men of her city.
The wife of Manoah reacts favourably to the angel that appears to her, announcing to her the birth of Samson who would begin to deliver Israel from the hand of the Philistines (Judges 13:2-7 - we will return to this passage in a few moments) and it's her also who has to calm her husband down because he seems to think that they're about to die because of their second encounter (Judges 13:21-23). Her spiritual perception of the mind of God is striking and her interpretation of the situation demonstrates that women must have often had more spiritual insight into matters than those who 'had the rule over them'.
Abigail is another who averts a civil war (I Samuel 25:1-42) by putting right what her husband, Nabal, does in offending David and his growing band of military men. A short time before, Michal had also been wise enough to urge David to depart from their house that he might save his life (I Sam 19:11-17) when it seems not to have occurred to him that there was any danger."
Colossians 3:18-19
"There are other examples in the OT, too, where women showed themselves to be of greater wisdom and spiritual perception than their husbands or, in one particular case, of all the men of her city.
The wife of Manoah reacts favourably to the angel that appears to her, announcing to her the birth of Samson who would begin to deliver Israel from the hand of the Philistines (Judges 13:2-7 - we will return to this passage in a few moments) and it's her also who has to calm her husband down because he seems to think that they're about to die because of their second encounter (Judges 13:21-23). Her spiritual perception of the mind of God is striking and her interpretation of the situation demonstrates that women must have often had more spiritual insight into matters than those who 'had the rule over them'.
Abigail is another who averts a civil war (I Samuel 25:1-42) by putting right what her husband, Nabal, does in offending David and his growing band of military men. A short time before, Michal had also been wise enough to urge David to depart from their house that he might save his life (I Sam 19:11-17) when it seems not to have occurred to him that there was any danger."
Again...
"4. Ministers
There are also instances where women are seen to be ministers to God - we'll look at the subject of 'prophets' below but, here, we want to note a couple of instances where there's clearly a ministry by women to God.
It's mentioned in the set up of the Tabernacle that there were women who ministered in the Tabernacle and who stood at the door of the tent of meeting (Ex 38:8), a set up which seems to have continued for a great many years after the nation's entry into Canaan (I Sam 2:22) but which wasn't commanded by the Law.
And there's also specific instructions concerning the vow of the Nazirite (Num 6:2) that the legislation was equally applicable to both men and women. I've dealt with the subject of the Nazirite on a separate web page and noted there that the commitment of the individual concerned was actually of far greater stringency than that which applied to the Aaronic priesthood and that their availability to do the will of God wasn't restricted by the regulations of service which the priests had to follow. They are, therefore, more like a type of the new covenant believer than the OT priesthood.
That women were allowed to take upon themselves the vow of a Nazirite has to be qualified, however, for Num 30:6-9 comments that a husband can annul the vow of his wife because she's under his authority and Num 30:1-5 observes that a father could also annul his daughter's vow because she's under his protection until she's married."
"4. Ministers
There are also instances where women are seen to be ministers to God - we'll look at the subject of 'prophets' below but, here, we want to note a couple of instances where there's clearly a ministry by women to God.
It's mentioned in the set up of the Tabernacle that there were women who ministered in the Tabernacle and who stood at the door of the tent of meeting (Ex 38:8), a set up which seems to have continued for a great many years after the nation's entry into Canaan (I Sam 2:22) but which wasn't commanded by the Law.
And there's also specific instructions concerning the vow of the Nazirite (Num 6:2) that the legislation was equally applicable to both men and women. I've dealt with the subject of the Nazirite on a separate web page and noted there that the commitment of the individual concerned was actually of far greater stringency than that which applied to the Aaronic priesthood and that their availability to do the will of God wasn't restricted by the regulations of service which the priests had to follow. They are, therefore, more like a type of the new covenant believer than the OT priesthood.
That women were allowed to take upon themselves the vow of a Nazirite has to be qualified, however, for Num 30:6-9 comments that a husband can annul the vow of his wife because she's under his authority and Num 30:1-5 observes that a father could also annul his daughter's vow because she's under his protection until she's married."
Yet again...
"5. No marital permission
There are also occasions when God chose to use women to bring about his purposes without asking the permission of the husband. We might say that He had every right to because His will shouldn't be opposed by mere humans - but there's another issue at stake here for, should the husband have refused to let his wife fulfil the calling of God, he would have been opposing God Himself, regardless of cultural acceptability.
It would be going too far to insist that any of the husbands associated with the following women were 'conscientious objectors' to what God wanted to do through their wives but it's important to note that God chose to bypass the accepted husband-wife authority structure that He had brought into being through the Fall in order that His will might be done.
Indeed, in the case of Deborah the prophetess, we see that she was raised up over the authority of her husband and even over the authority of her contemporary men because God was using her as a judge of Israel (Judges 4:4). Objectors to this set up might insist upon interpreting the mention of her husband as being solely to identify who she was and that her husband was long since dead - that is, she was a widow and under no marital obligations."
"5. No marital permission
There are also occasions when God chose to use women to bring about his purposes without asking the permission of the husband. We might say that He had every right to because His will shouldn't be opposed by mere humans - but there's another issue at stake here for, should the husband have refused to let his wife fulfil the calling of God, he would have been opposing God Himself, regardless of cultural acceptability.
It would be going too far to insist that any of the husbands associated with the following women were 'conscientious objectors' to what God wanted to do through their wives but it's important to note that God chose to bypass the accepted husband-wife authority structure that He had brought into being through the Fall in order that His will might be done.
Indeed, in the case of Deborah the prophetess, we see that she was raised up over the authority of her husband and even over the authority of her contemporary men because God was using her as a judge of Israel (Judges 4:4). Objectors to this set up might insist upon interpreting the mention of her husband as being solely to identify who she was and that her husband was long since dead - that is, she was a widow and under no marital obligations."
And some more...
"6. Prophetesses
The largest group of women mentioned in the Bible who were used by God to make His will known to His people were the prophetesses of which at least six can be identified (Deborah - Judges 4:4, Miriam - Ex 15:20, Huldah - II Kings 22:14, II Chr 34:22, Noadiah a false prophetess - Neh 6:14, an unnamed prophetess - Is 8:3 and Anna - Luke 2:36 if we might accept her as belonging to the OT order).
Little needs to be said about these characters - as, indeed, there's very often little which accompanies their mention - but there are some general observations which may be of interest.
We've already seen above how Deborah was raised into a position of authority over the men of her own generation, not only because she was judge of the nation but because she also gave specific directions to Barak which he submitted to without any need for a confirmation through a 'male' source.
Huldah is also a prophetess who is believed without any confirmation being sought (II Kings 22:14-20, II Chr 34:22-28) and one wonders why she was consulted when there was a male prophet by the name of Jeremiah in the land who was already declaring the word of God to the nation (Jer 1:1-2) - one only wonders, that is, if male ministry is accepted as being of a superior nature to that of women and that a man's voice should always be preferred over that of a woman.
It's also certain that she was 'under the authority' of her husband (II Kings 22:14, II Chr 34:22) but that she was also acting independently of him, declaring to the king the words which she was hearing from the throne of God. It's quite something to realise that the response of the king who was the ultimate authority throughout all the land was to submit himself to the message and to respond positively to it (II Kings 23:1ff, II Chr 34:29ff)."
"6. Prophetesses
The largest group of women mentioned in the Bible who were used by God to make His will known to His people were the prophetesses of which at least six can be identified (Deborah - Judges 4:4, Miriam - Ex 15:20, Huldah - II Kings 22:14, II Chr 34:22, Noadiah a false prophetess - Neh 6:14, an unnamed prophetess - Is 8:3 and Anna - Luke 2:36 if we might accept her as belonging to the OT order).
Little needs to be said about these characters - as, indeed, there's very often little which accompanies their mention - but there are some general observations which may be of interest.
We've already seen above how Deborah was raised into a position of authority over the men of her own generation, not only because she was judge of the nation but because she also gave specific directions to Barak which he submitted to without any need for a confirmation through a 'male' source.
Huldah is also a prophetess who is believed without any confirmation being sought (II Kings 22:14-20, II Chr 34:22-28) and one wonders why she was consulted when there was a male prophet by the name of Jeremiah in the land who was already declaring the word of God to the nation (Jer 1:1-2) - one only wonders, that is, if male ministry is accepted as being of a superior nature to that of women and that a man's voice should always be preferred over that of a woman.
It's also certain that she was 'under the authority' of her husband (II Kings 22:14, II Chr 34:22) but that she was also acting independently of him, declaring to the king the words which she was hearing from the throne of God. It's quite something to realise that the response of the king who was the ultimate authority throughout all the land was to submit himself to the message and to respond positively to it (II Kings 23:1ff, II Chr 34:29ff)."
More...
"Before we move on, we need to briefly consider the fivefold ministry gifts of people in Eph 4:11 which mentions apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers and ask ourselves whether any of them are represented in the OT by the women mentioned.
Both apostles and evangelists are particularly NT in origin and we can put these to one side immediately. Of the other three, 'prophets' can be immediately seen to be applicable to women. 'Pastors' are represented in the OT chiefly through Deborah in her function as 'judge', giving justice to the nation (both men and women), but there are indications that, for example, Miriam exercised some sort of pastoral role towards women because the women followed her in celebration over the defeat of the Egyptians.
The subject of 'teachers' is somewhat of a grey area because the word only occurs in the RSV in the historical books in I Chr 25:8 and then it seems to refer solely to the Levites. And it was this tribe which were commissioned with the teaching of the nation about the ways of God (Deut 33:10) so that any other teachers which could have been raised up were largely in the form of prophets and prophetesses who brought a living message to their hearers which told them exactly where they stood in relationship to God."
"Before we move on, we need to briefly consider the fivefold ministry gifts of people in Eph 4:11 which mentions apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers and ask ourselves whether any of them are represented in the OT by the women mentioned.
Both apostles and evangelists are particularly NT in origin and we can put these to one side immediately. Of the other three, 'prophets' can be immediately seen to be applicable to women. 'Pastors' are represented in the OT chiefly through Deborah in her function as 'judge', giving justice to the nation (both men and women), but there are indications that, for example, Miriam exercised some sort of pastoral role towards women because the women followed her in celebration over the defeat of the Egyptians.
The subject of 'teachers' is somewhat of a grey area because the word only occurs in the RSV in the historical books in I Chr 25:8 and then it seems to refer solely to the Levites. And it was this tribe which were commissioned with the teaching of the nation about the ways of God (Deut 33:10) so that any other teachers which could have been raised up were largely in the form of prophets and prophetesses who brought a living message to their hearers which told them exactly where they stood in relationship to God."
I realize I have already over posted. I hope I have not destroyed this thread.
This stuff is just so good...
Just go and read it in it's entity.
Last one. I promise.
"Conclusion
(and explanation of the entire verse)
When all's said and done, the translation/paraphrase that was read out is certainly possible but, in my opinion, unlikely.
It seems best to understand that part of Gen 3:16 to be saying that the husband was given authority in any future marriage relationships and, because of this loss of co-sovereignty, the wife would have a desire for her husband that would tend to keep the partnership together.
And, more so, that even the extreme pain in childbirth (the judgment of the first part of the verse) that would be now increased and that could pull a wife away from her husband would be overcome because of the desire to remain united to him.
This seems the best way to interpret the verse. The problem with Foh's interpretation is that it takes a part of a verse and interprets out of context. The second half is seen to almost stand alone and have no connection with what precedes it. But its unity must be maintained - the RSV goes some way to bring the verse into a single unit when it uses the word 'yet' between the two halves. So, the verse (my italics) runs
'I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you'
The 'curse' or, better, the judgment on sin (as the word 'curse' is only used in connection with the soil and the snake) is then seen to be the greatly increased pain in childbirth that, although naturally providing some revulsion to a continued marital relationship, is balanced by a desire of the wife for her husband.
The statement that the husband is to rule over the wife is not strictly speaking a judgment but stands as a balance - in fact, because of the nature of the sin committed, that the husband now has sole rule in the marriage rather than the previous co-sovereignty is more akin to a protection being laid upon the wife that what she may decide to do would not negatively influence the marriage partnership.
This comes across quite strongly in the Law in one specific place. Both men and women were allowed to take upon themselves the Vow of the Nazirite in the Law (Num 6:2) but, even so, specific statutes were given elsewhere to underpin the vow that a woman might make.
Num 30:6-9 comments that a husband could annul the vow of his wife because she was under his authority and Num 30:1-5 observes that a father could also annul his daughter's vow because she was under his protection until she was married (she appears to have been treated as a minor until the day of her marriage).
The passage does note, however, that a widow's vow must stand, the reason being that she has no greater authority which can overrule her. This is an important point which should be given its full weight. It appears that a woman was expected to be under the authority of men from the time of her birth until the day of her death - that is, she was a child in the father's house and had to respect and honour her parents in all matters (as the sons also were expected to do) until the time of her marriage when her husband would then have the rule over her.
She went from being a minor to a wife - when she became a widow, she was independent of protective male authority.
If there had ever been a woman who hadn't married and who had somehow moved away from the family household to live independently (though culturally this wasn't what happened because women weren't accepted as being able to support themselves except through such shameful professions as prostitution), there would be no obligation on them to obey any man.
This is why the widow, who's tied to neither familial nor marital obligations, is free to vow without it being revoked by man. Therefore, the set up of Creation is seen in that man and woman remain co-equal - but the statute demonstrates that a young woman residing in her father's house - and a wife - were to be 'ruled over' as a mark of protection against sin, and that this comes about because of the nature of the offence that brought about the Fall.
A husband's 'rule' can no longer be considered to be dominance or subjugation where a man gets his will done always - but a set up that has come about to protect the wife from sin. If ever a husband exercises 'rule' over his wife to bring about her harm and not to protect her from committing sin, then the husband has stepped away from his God-given authority.
As such, the only judgment on sin of Gen 3:16 that's laid upon the woman is that the pain of childbirth would be greatly increased - the second half of the verse should be considered more of a blessing to protect the wife both in marital and Divine relationships."
This stuff is just so good...
Just go and read it in it's entity.
Last one. I promise.
"Conclusion
(and explanation of the entire verse)
When all's said and done, the translation/paraphrase that was read out is certainly possible but, in my opinion, unlikely.
It seems best to understand that part of Gen 3:16 to be saying that the husband was given authority in any future marriage relationships and, because of this loss of co-sovereignty, the wife would have a desire for her husband that would tend to keep the partnership together.
And, more so, that even the extreme pain in childbirth (the judgment of the first part of the verse) that would be now increased and that could pull a wife away from her husband would be overcome because of the desire to remain united to him.
This seems the best way to interpret the verse. The problem with Foh's interpretation is that it takes a part of a verse and interprets out of context. The second half is seen to almost stand alone and have no connection with what precedes it. But its unity must be maintained - the RSV goes some way to bring the verse into a single unit when it uses the word 'yet' between the two halves. So, the verse (my italics) runs
'I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you'
The 'curse' or, better, the judgment on sin (as the word 'curse' is only used in connection with the soil and the snake) is then seen to be the greatly increased pain in childbirth that, although naturally providing some revulsion to a continued marital relationship, is balanced by a desire of the wife for her husband.
The statement that the husband is to rule over the wife is not strictly speaking a judgment but stands as a balance - in fact, because of the nature of the sin committed, that the husband now has sole rule in the marriage rather than the previous co-sovereignty is more akin to a protection being laid upon the wife that what she may decide to do would not negatively influence the marriage partnership.
This comes across quite strongly in the Law in one specific place. Both men and women were allowed to take upon themselves the Vow of the Nazirite in the Law (Num 6:2) but, even so, specific statutes were given elsewhere to underpin the vow that a woman might make.
Num 30:6-9 comments that a husband could annul the vow of his wife because she was under his authority and Num 30:1-5 observes that a father could also annul his daughter's vow because she was under his protection until she was married (she appears to have been treated as a minor until the day of her marriage).
The passage does note, however, that a widow's vow must stand, the reason being that she has no greater authority which can overrule her. This is an important point which should be given its full weight. It appears that a woman was expected to be under the authority of men from the time of her birth until the day of her death - that is, she was a child in the father's house and had to respect and honour her parents in all matters (as the sons also were expected to do) until the time of her marriage when her husband would then have the rule over her.
She went from being a minor to a wife - when she became a widow, she was independent of protective male authority.
If there had ever been a woman who hadn't married and who had somehow moved away from the family household to live independently (though culturally this wasn't what happened because women weren't accepted as being able to support themselves except through such shameful professions as prostitution), there would be no obligation on them to obey any man.
This is why the widow, who's tied to neither familial nor marital obligations, is free to vow without it being revoked by man. Therefore, the set up of Creation is seen in that man and woman remain co-equal - but the statute demonstrates that a young woman residing in her father's house - and a wife - were to be 'ruled over' as a mark of protection against sin, and that this comes about because of the nature of the offence that brought about the Fall.
A husband's 'rule' can no longer be considered to be dominance or subjugation where a man gets his will done always - but a set up that has come about to protect the wife from sin. If ever a husband exercises 'rule' over his wife to bring about her harm and not to protect her from committing sin, then the husband has stepped away from his God-given authority.
As such, the only judgment on sin of Gen 3:16 that's laid upon the woman is that the pain of childbirth would be greatly increased - the second half of the verse should be considered more of a blessing to protect the wife both in marital and Divine relationships."
Matthew 28:16-20 (KJV)
[SUP]16 [/SUP]Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [SUP]17 [/SUP]And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. [SUP]18 [/SUP]And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto ME in heaven and in earth. [SUP]19 [/SUP]Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [SUP]20 [/SUP]Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
EVERY christian is a disciple. EVERY christian has this charge.
WHY would Jesus say this without respecter of persons IF women were to be excluded? And don't give me that 'preach, yes, but not be a "designated" preacher' bit, either..... Everyone was called to declare the Gospel..... with no respecter of persons WHO preaches it or WHO receives it.
"Designated" preachers were called by man..... in the beginning it wasn't so.
Now we live in a society where only "certain" people (men) preach, & the church believes they're the only ones meant to do it. What garbage we swallow nowadays..... unproven traditions of the so-called "elders" of the RCC. Protestantism inherited the garbage from the RCC..... it's nowhere in the NT.
These novices first use their "favorite" scripture to get their wives under submission; then use the SAME SCRIPTURE to keep them from preaching the Gospel to the public. What else will they use it for? They don't even know the difference between huper & hyper.
IMO, there's too many novices lifted up in pride & arrogance thinking only THEY should have the control. Hypocrites they are, refusing women ministers in their churches, as if THEIR WORD was law.
There's a woman on here whose knowledge & understanding exceeds most men here by 300%. If you're so right, WHY ISN'T your education greater than hers? IF God didn't want her preaching, why did He allow this? Your incompetence & ignorance to top her gives you away..... your "anointing" isn't breaking the yoke. If your doctrine was so, God would honor His word & MAKE YOU THE HEAD, wouldn't He?
PROVE YOUR POINT WITH EVIDENCE..... I'm sick of your vain words with no profit.
3 John 1:9-10 (KJV)
[SUP]9 [/SUP]I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. [SUP]10 [/SUP]Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.
Sound familiar? There's nothing new under the sun.
[SUP]16 [/SUP]Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [SUP]17 [/SUP]And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. [SUP]18 [/SUP]And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto ME in heaven and in earth. [SUP]19 [/SUP]Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [SUP]20 [/SUP]Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
EVERY christian is a disciple. EVERY christian has this charge.
WHY would Jesus say this without respecter of persons IF women were to be excluded? And don't give me that 'preach, yes, but not be a "designated" preacher' bit, either..... Everyone was called to declare the Gospel..... with no respecter of persons WHO preaches it or WHO receives it.
"Designated" preachers were called by man..... in the beginning it wasn't so.
Now we live in a society where only "certain" people (men) preach, & the church believes they're the only ones meant to do it. What garbage we swallow nowadays..... unproven traditions of the so-called "elders" of the RCC. Protestantism inherited the garbage from the RCC..... it's nowhere in the NT.
These novices first use their "favorite" scripture to get their wives under submission; then use the SAME SCRIPTURE to keep them from preaching the Gospel to the public. What else will they use it for? They don't even know the difference between huper & hyper.
IMO, there's too many novices lifted up in pride & arrogance thinking only THEY should have the control. Hypocrites they are, refusing women ministers in their churches, as if THEIR WORD was law.
There's a woman on here whose knowledge & understanding exceeds most men here by 300%. If you're so right, WHY ISN'T your education greater than hers? IF God didn't want her preaching, why did He allow this? Your incompetence & ignorance to top her gives you away..... your "anointing" isn't breaking the yoke. If your doctrine was so, God would honor His word & MAKE YOU THE HEAD, wouldn't He?
PROVE YOUR POINT WITH EVIDENCE..... I'm sick of your vain words with no profit.
3 John 1:9-10 (KJV)
[SUP]9 [/SUP]I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. [SUP]10 [/SUP]Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.
Sound familiar? There's nothing new under the sun.
I disagree with your view, and here's why: There are many cultures that were not based on the "Adam and Eve" story, but instead had other creation stories for their culture. Some of these stories involve women in a more elevated way. However, matriarchies (women-led cultures) have been very few and far between.
The subjugation of women (and children, and the handicapped, etc.) has always been due to perceived vulnerability and weakness. So, because in ancient times there was a greater need for physicality in day-to-day living, men were perceived as superior due to their greater physiological strength. Also, in the absence of any enforced social order, MIGHT actually does make RIGHT. Without enforced laws, for example, stronger people can mistreat weaker people and benefit from it. I don't think it's shocking for anyone to say that the history of humankind is the history of the pursuit of self. If you are only concerned about meeting your own needs and desires, you won't hesitate to do anything to make that happen--including manipulating and subjecting the weak. This, btw, STILL happens. Laws cannot force people to be moral. For example, while it's *morally right* to pay workers a living wage, insure safe conditions, etc., there are plenty of companies that engage in legal but immoral shenanigans to increase the profit margins of a few at the expense of the masses. You even (unfortunately) see this within Christianity as well. The vast majority of televangelists make their exorbitant incomes off of the backs of the poor, sick, and disenfranchised.
However, when you look at the bible as a whole, it is very clear that God has a heart for the weak, poor, sick, and disenfranchised. His agenda is for these groups to be cared for by those who are stronger, richer, and more able. Part of the measure of any civilization (if you look through Christian lenses) is how that culture takes care of its most vulnerable members. This is why there are verses about how rape should be handled, for example. (Verses that might seem harsh to modern readers, but that were actually exercising justice at that time). There are lots of examples of God elevating and valuing females in the bible--ultimately culminating in the birth of the Savior from an impregnated woman. Jesus consistently valued women in his ministry. The NT has lots of examples of women actively working with the Apostles to build the church.
In my opinion, the reason we have laws protecting the women and the weaker members of society is a manifestation of the Christianizing of the world. (The WHEAT does grow with the tares). For example, children were once considered the "property" of parents. Parents could mistreat and abuse children in many ways without consequence. Now, we have lots of laws to help protect children from abuse. The same is true for women. Women used to be property owned first by their fathers and then by their husbands. Now, women (in the Western world, especially) have political agency, they can own property and businesses, they have access to education, and can achieve comparable incomes to males in most fields.
If a person's philosophy is that women are less valuable than men, it's easy to misquote or misinterpret scripture to prove that. However, that really has nothing to do with God's clearly revealed perspective. So, if someone wants to stand on "Eve sinned first" as a reason to malign or mistreat women, ultimately that person will stand before God to answer for it.
Matthew 28:16-20 (KJV)
[SUP]16 [/SUP]Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [SUP]17 [/SUP]And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. [SUP]18 [/SUP]And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto ME in heaven and in earth. [SUP]19 [/SUP]Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [SUP]20 [/SUP]Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
EVERY christian is a disciple. EVERY christian has this charge.
WHY would Jesus say this without respecter of persons IF women were to be excluded? And don't give me that 'preach, yes, but not be a "designated" preacher' bit, either..... Everyone was called to declare the Gospel..... with no respecter of persons WHO preaches it or WHO receives it.
"Designated" preachers were called by man..... in the beginning it wasn't so.
Now we live in a society where only "certain" people (men) preach, & the church believes they're the only ones meant to do it. What garbage we swallow nowadays..... unproven traditions of the so-called "elders" of the RCC. Protestantism inherited the garbage from the RCC..... it's nowhere in the NT.
These novices first use their "favorite" scripture to get their wives under submission; then use the SAME SCRIPTURE to keep them from preaching the Gospel to the public. What else will they use it for? They don't even know the difference between huper & hyper.
IMO, there's too many novices lifted up in pride & arrogance thinking only THEY should have the control. Hypocrites they are, refusing women ministers in their churches, as if THEIR WORD was law.
There's a woman on here whose knowledge & understanding exceeds most men here by 300%. If you're so right, WHY ISN'T your education greater than hers? IF God didn't want her preaching, why did He allow this? Your incompetence & ignorance to top her gives you away..... your "anointing" isn't breaking the yoke. If your doctrine was so, God would honor His word & MAKE YOU THE HEAD, wouldn't He?
PROVE YOUR POINT WITH EVIDENCE..... I'm sick of your vain words with no profit.
3 John 1:9-10 (KJV)
[SUP]9 [/SUP]I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. [SUP]10 [/SUP]Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.
Sound familiar? There's nothing new under the sun.
[SUP]16 [/SUP]Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [SUP]17 [/SUP]And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. [SUP]18 [/SUP]And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto ME in heaven and in earth. [SUP]19 [/SUP]Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [SUP]20 [/SUP]Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
EVERY christian is a disciple. EVERY christian has this charge.
WHY would Jesus say this without respecter of persons IF women were to be excluded? And don't give me that 'preach, yes, but not be a "designated" preacher' bit, either..... Everyone was called to declare the Gospel..... with no respecter of persons WHO preaches it or WHO receives it.
"Designated" preachers were called by man..... in the beginning it wasn't so.
Now we live in a society where only "certain" people (men) preach, & the church believes they're the only ones meant to do it. What garbage we swallow nowadays..... unproven traditions of the so-called "elders" of the RCC. Protestantism inherited the garbage from the RCC..... it's nowhere in the NT.
These novices first use their "favorite" scripture to get their wives under submission; then use the SAME SCRIPTURE to keep them from preaching the Gospel to the public. What else will they use it for? They don't even know the difference between huper & hyper.
IMO, there's too many novices lifted up in pride & arrogance thinking only THEY should have the control. Hypocrites they are, refusing women ministers in their churches, as if THEIR WORD was law.
There's a woman on here whose knowledge & understanding exceeds most men here by 300%. If you're so right, WHY ISN'T your education greater than hers? IF God didn't want her preaching, why did He allow this? Your incompetence & ignorance to top her gives you away..... your "anointing" isn't breaking the yoke. If your doctrine was so, God would honor His word & MAKE YOU THE HEAD, wouldn't He?
PROVE YOUR POINT WITH EVIDENCE..... I'm sick of your vain words with no profit.
3 John 1:9-10 (KJV)
[SUP]9 [/SUP]I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. [SUP]10 [/SUP]Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.
Sound familiar? There's nothing new under the sun.
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
God gifts men to the church as the scripture shows. Men by the leading of their own will ignore scripture and establish what seems right to them.
All are indeed witnesses but only some are gifted by God to preach to the church. Scripture cannot be broken and the Holy Spirit will give to those willing to receive it wisdom in this matter.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
![rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-smiley-emoticon[1].gif](/data/attachments/31/31495-c5111728b4d808f1ccfa49715dc9ae77.jpg)
I know this is a joke, but it's based on a myth that people believe is true. People have a significant capacity to misreport and yet be convinced they are right, so a lot of people will say, "I know women speak more than men." However, it's not accurate. Based on a study done across universities in Texas, Mexico, and Arizona men and women speak about the same number of words a day (around 16k). Interestingly enough, the CHATTIEST person in the study was a MAN who spoke 47,000 words a day.
Additionally, have you ever noticed that a lot of humor is based on putting someone else down? (Some comics make their living off of putting themselves down for audiences).
Additionally, have you ever noticed that a lot of humor is based on putting someone else down? (Some comics make their living off of putting themselves down for audiences).
