Women Pastors? Help me.

[jerry2465]

and

Genesis 3:16 is basically giving males the position of authority and leadership. If men have been given authority and leadership then that means that a woman can't lead.

[h=1]Genesis 3:16English Standard Version (ESV)[/h] [SUP]16 [/SUP]To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to[SUP][a][/SUP] your husband,
but he shall rule over you.”

 

[StanJ]

Sorry, I showed the Scripture. 1. Tim 2,12-14; f.e. Genesis 3,16 f.e. If you ignore this. What to do? Its your choice. And the consensus of whom you mean?
But your right. I am blind to see your truth. Better to trust God words then yours!

It is quite obvious you don't understand the scripture and are relying on your own predispositional bias because it is indeed better to trust God's word rather than your understanding.

 

[StanJ]

How does quoting this verse add to the discussion?

It's not meant to add to the discussion, it's meant to eliminate discussion by people that don't really understand what Paul was saying and refuse to leave the comfort of their predispositional bias.

 

[Dino246]

and

Genesis 3:16 is basically giving males the position of authority and leadership. If men have been given authority and leadership then that means that a woman can't lead.

Genesis 3:16English Standard Version (ESV)

[SUP]16 [/SUP]To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to[SUP][a][/SUP] your husband,
but he shall rule over you.”

So, with this logic, you believe that it is God's will that women suffer in childbirth, perhaps the more the better? And, therefore, any mitigation of suffering in childbirth is sinful?

Show me how this makes any sense if God is "slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness"?

It is logical and consistent with God's nature to explain that these things are consequences of sin. It is neither logical nor consistent with God's nature to conclude that they are what God ever wanted. Men in their sinfulness rule over women. Your position is merely a confirmation of that sad fact.

 

[jerry2465]

So, with this logic, you believe that it is God's will that women suffer in childbirth, perhaps the more the better? And, therefore, any mitigation of suffering in childbirth is sinful?

Show me how this makes any sense if God is "slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness"?

It is logical and consistent with God's nature to explain that these things are consequences of sin. It is neither logical nor consistent with God's nature to conclude that they are what God ever wanted. Men in their sinfulness rule over women. Your position is merely a confirmation of that sad fact.

I don't argue with the bible, I simply obey, I would recommend you do the same. You are not arguing with me or anyone else who reads the bible for what it says, you are arguing with God and potentially leading others into sin.

Once again

[h=1]1 Timothy 2:12English Standard Version (ESV)[/h] [SUP]12 [/SUP]I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.


This verse is so simple that a 3rd grader could tell you the meaning. I don't know if your just having problems with your reading or your understanding? This is VERY VERY VERY VERY simple, its not complicated at all, just try really hard and concentrate on the words, I have confidence that if you go slow enough that you can get it.

 

[jerry2465]

I know that your not finished, you think that if you just get the last word in that somehow you are winning, but thats now how it works at all. Anyone who is capable of reading can understand easily what this is saying, but only those who want to twist the bible try and say that its not saying that women cant Biblicaly be a preacher during service.

 

[Dino246]

I know that your not finished, you think that if you just get the last word in that somehow you are winning, but thats now how it works at all. Anyone who is capable of reading can understand easily what this is saying, but only those who want to twist the bible try and say that its not saying that women cant Biblicaly be a preacher during service.

I have no interest in "having the last word". I will overlook your insults. Drop your ad hominem junk. I asked you a direct question about your logic, and you dodged it. Try answering instead.

 

[StanJ]

I don't argue with the bible, I simply obey, I would recommend you do the same. You are not arguing with me or anyone else who reads the bible for what it says, you are arguing with God and potentially leading others into sin.

This verse is so simple that a 3rd grader could tell you the meaning. I don't know if your just having problems with your reading or your understanding? This is VERY VERY VERY VERY simple, its not complicated at all, just try really hard and concentrate on the words, I have confidence that if you go slow enough that you can get it.

Well first of all that's not true because that's exactly were you're doing here, you're arguing with what you think the Bible says and yet you fail to read it in context with the background history involved. Do you go to a congregation where there are no female voices heard?

If it's so easy that a third grader could tell the meaning then how come you don't? Did you not know that the ESV requires a grade 10 school education to understand? The NIV only requires a grade 7 or 8 level. Sounds to me like you should be reading the NIV instead of ESV. By the way, do you know what context is? Have you ever read 1st Peter 3:15? Did you understand it?

 

[StanJ]

and

Genesis 3:16 is basically giving males the position of authority and leadership. If men have been given authority and leadership then that means that a woman can't lead.

Genesis 3:16English Standard Version (ESV)

[SUP]16 [/SUP]To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to[SUP][a][/SUP] your husband,
but he shall rule over you.”

You really don't understand the English of the ESV do you? Genesis 3:16 Says nothing about Authority and Leadership. and yet you still insert those words into the scripture. is that the way you read all scripture, by inserting your own words?
Here read what it says in the NIV because it's a lower grade level and maybe you'll understand it better.
[FONT=&quot]“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] with painful labor you will give birth to children.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Your desire will be for your husband,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] and he will rule over you.”[/FONT]

 

[wolfwint]

You really don't understand the English of the ESV do you? Genesis 3:16 Says nothing about Authority and Leadership. and yet you still insert those words into the scripture. is that the way you read all scripture, by inserting your own words?
Here read what it says in the NIV because it's a lower grade level and maybe you'll understand it better.
[FONT=&quot]“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] with painful labor you will give birth to children.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Your desire will be for your husband,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] and he will rule over you.”[/FONT]

Stan you should answer with Scripture and not attack the person. It seems me that you are useing a different hermeneutic position then we do which take the word as it was meant and was understand from the people. 2
1.Tim 2,12-14 is clear understanable and found the reason why woman should not have authority in genesis 3. Of course you can discuss it away, like people today are discussing away that homosexuality is sin, ore discuss away that Mary was a virgin. But please accept that not all having this view. In these days it seems me that even Christians are following more the timespirit, then the Holy Spirit.
Sorry for my bad English. I hope you can understand what i am wrighting.

 

[wolfwint]

Regarding Genesis 3:16, do you see it as a command? If so, what in the text supports this view? If you see it as a statement of consequence, as what God says will happen but not necessarily what He wants to happen, then why reference it to support the complementarian position?



How does quoting this verse add to the discussion?

Ok, maby I have should start earlier in Genesis 3. Paul gave in 1.Timothy 2, 12- 14 the reason why woman should have no authority about man. And the reason you find in Genesis 3.

 

[jerry2465]

So, with this logic, you believe that it is God's will that women suffer in childbirth, perhaps the more the better? And, therefore, any mitigation of suffering in childbirth is sinful?

Yes it is his will (gen3:16 "To the woman he said,“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;"). God caused women to have pain in child bearing just like he caused the serpent to be on his belly all of his days and cursed is the ground because of Adam.


Show me how this makes any sense if God is "slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness"?

It is logical and consistent with God's nature to explain that these things are consequences of sin. It is neither logical nor consistent with God's nature to conclude that they are what God ever wanted. Men in their sinfulness rule over women. Your position is merely a confirmation of that sad fact.

I agree, they are consequences of sin. Consequences usually are punishments in one form or another.

I do apologize for what I said last night though, I have no right to speak to anyone in that way. I'm sorry about what i said.

 

[jerry2465]

StanJ, I have zero problems understanding, thank you though for your concern.

 

[p_rehbein]

James 3:13) [FONT=&quot]Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.[/FONT]
14[FONT=&quot] .) But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.[/FONT]
15[FONT=&quot] .) This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.[/FONT]
16[FONT=&quot] .) For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.[/FONT]
17[FONT=&quot] .) But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.[/FONT]
18[FONT=&quot] .) And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.[/FONT]

 

[jerry2465]

James 3:13) Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
14 .) But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
15 .) This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
16 .) For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
17 .) But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
18 .) And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

It also says in James 3:

[h=1]James 3:2English Standard Version (ESV)[/h] [SUP]2 [/SUP]For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body.


I will be the first to admit that I'm not the perfect man, and I would hope that everyone else can recognize their imperfections as well. I do try though to be gentle and caring, but I am still human.

[h=1][/h]

 

[StanJ]

Stan you should answer with Scripture and not attack the person. It seems me that you are useing a different hermeneutic position then we do which take the word as it was meant and was understand from the people. 2
1.Tim 2,12-14 is clear understanable and found the reason why woman should not have authority in genesis 3. Of course you can discuss it away, like people today are discussing away that homosexuality is sin, ore discuss away that Mary was a virgin. But please accept that not all having this view. In these days it seems me that even Christians are following more the timespirit, then the Holy Spirit.
Sorry for my bad English. I hope you can understand what i am wrighting.

First of all I wasn't addressing you in this post and second of all I did use scripture and have used scripture repeatedly.
What about 1 Tim 2:15? Do you believe what it's telling you in plain English?

 

[StanJ]

StanJ, I have zero problems understanding, thank you though for your concern.

That is not factual for obvious and very apparent reasons.

 

[jerry2465]

That is not factual for obvious and very apparent reasons.

I could say the exact same thing about you, but I'm going to drop this thread, because again the whole thing is pointless and no progress is being made at all.

 

[StanJ]

I could say the exact same thing about you, but I'm going to drop this thread, because again the whole thing is pointless and no progress is being made at all.

Not even close. I've exegeted the scripture to show it relates to a husband and wife relationship as God shows in Genesis 3. You impose your bias against women on the scripture despite the fact it is directed at a husband and wife scenario.

 

[jerry2465]

I have no bias against women at all, but I also know how to read. Have a nice day, I'm out.