Are women allowed to Preach?

[Stunnedbygrace]

It is completely nonsensical that God's words to Eve in Genesis 3:16 are commands in the same sense of the Levitical laws or ten commandments. Why didn't God say to Adam, whom He addressed moments later, that he shall rule over his wife? Further, why would God "command" that women suffer in childbirth? Do you consider that women who receive epidurals are committing sin in doing so?

I hope not. If that is truly what you believe, you need to give your head a shake.

Consider that Genesis 3:16 is a statement of certain consequence, not of commandment. God cursed the ground and the serpent; he told Adam and Eve what the consequences of their actions would be.

Therefore, "he shall rule over you" is what would happen. The history of men ruling harshly over women in all cultures is fulfillment of this. As Christian men, we should be proclaiming redemption to Eve's descendants, not adding to their suffering.

Oh...this is very good. You have explained this well.
It's what 7 and I were just talking about, sort of...making scripture bend to what you see and how you see...

If someone is just really law based in their thinking, everything is a command to them, even what is clearly a consequence and not a command.

Good job!

 

[garee]

1 Cor 13:8 three actions of the Holy Spirit changed.

The Holy Spirit is still working in the hearts of men bringing them to Christ. John 16:8-11

The Holy Spirit is still filling born again believers to serve and testify of the saving grace of Christ.

Of course its not the first time I have said this.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Hi Rodger, my home church (Plymought Brethern)where a first heard the gospel and attended for 25 years.They honor their tradtion of man that woman are not to teach men in that way, and hold it open that women veil thier hair as a representitive glory, of His unseen glory as part of the same cerimonimonial law. Like a shadow we canot judge one another. They are not moral laws that govern the whole world.

Its one of those doctrines that sometimes get revisted and some change.It wil not effect the gospel but more how do we hear God as he gives us the increase.

The Holy Spirit is still working in the hearts of men bringing them to Christ, the one infalible teacher. to put our faith in the things seen is no faith.

I would suggest to study to see how the word "good teacher", (Rabbi Master) is used and does it aply to a woman or a man?
.




The word teacher must be definied"

Do we need a man or a woman to theach us in that way?

 

[notuptome]

Ah, okay. Yeah, not worth a whole thread if all you have is one verse for your doctrine. Thanks for answering me though.

Well I gave you more than one but you really are not interested anyway. Of course it's way more than you all have for women preachers.

It would be argumentative to point out the product produced by women preachers. I concede that there are many lousy men preachers but that simply underscores that God does not anoint those He has not called to the ministry.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

I have seen a little of the spirit of what Paul spoke in the verses being talked about. For those not ready to bear it yet, it will just sound ridiculous. But to those who are ready to bear it, they will understand.

Do you remember when Paul said: do you really think God was talking about oxen there?

This is the same as that. We are all the woman, the bride, of Christ. None of us as that woman, are to usurp the role of Holy Spirit as the teacher. Do you really think he was talking about any obedience of flesh? How so if the flesh is always against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh? Did laws given for the flesh ever work? If so, why must the flesh die and the spirit live?

Some will understand this and be ready to bear it.

And furthermore, if you insist that paul really was talking about a command for the flesh rather than there being spirit in his words, you run into the problem of why what he says about being silent in church doesn't match up with what he says about women prophesying. And if paul doesn't match up with paul, there's a problem with calling his letters scripture.

So if he doesn't permit a woman to speak but to listen quietly, do you think paul is placing women under himself OR under the Holy Spirit that he was speaking by? If the latter, then he was speaking to everyone, not just women, but women meant the church/bride, and what he was saying in spirit was that he didn't permit the church to interrupt and speak and ask questions while the Holy Spirit was speaking through someone, but to listen to the Holy Spirit speaking and to not usurp the authority of the Spirit (and especially not to argue, that would be worse than interrupting to ask a question!)

Additionally, if we know the word of God is spirit because God is Spirit as the verse says, then what IS the spirit of those verses by paul on women remaining silent or on women having a covering/authority over them? Because if the word is spirit, have you really understood it if you are insisting that a portion of it is not spirit but flesh and humanly understood?​

Or else, just go back to insisting the word is for the flesh that will die rather than for the spirit that will live.

​

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Well I gave you more than one but you really are not interested anyway. Of course it's way more than you all have for women preachers.

It would be argumentative to point out the product produced by women preachers. I concede that there are many lousy men preachers but that simply underscores that God does not anoint those He has not called to the ministry.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Unless you edited your answer to me after I read it, to add two more scriptures, then no, you only gave the one.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

And furthermore, if you insist that paul really was talking about a command for the flesh rather than there being spirit in his words, you run into the problem of why what he says about being silent in church doesn't match up with what he says about women prophesying. And if paul doesn't match up with paul, there's a problem with calling his letters scripture.

So if he doesn't permit a woman to speak but to listen quietly, do you think paul is placing women under himself OR under the Holy Spirit that he was speaking by? If the latter, then he was speaking to everyone, not just women, but women meant the church/bride, and what he was saying in spirit was that he didn't permit the church to interrupt and speak and ask questions while the Holy Spirit was speaking through someone, but to listen to the Holy Spirit speaking and to not usurp the authority of the Spirit (and especially not to argue, that would be worse than interrupting to ask a question!)

Additionally, if we know the word of God is spirit because God is Spirit as the verse says, then what IS the spirit of those verses by paul on women remaining silent or on women having a covering/authority over them? Because if the word is spirit, have you really understood it if you are insisting that a portion of it is not spirit but flesh and humanly understood?​

Or else, just go back to insisting the word is for the flesh that will die rather than for the spirit that will live.

​

But the problems just keep growing if you do that, because there are lot more discrepancies like...from now on we see no man according to the flesh and...there is now no more male or female. And this is in addition to the problems already noted.

 

[Mem]

I meant nowhere is a Proof that Phoebe served in the Church with the Word. So you cant Count her mentioning as Servant as a Proof that she had preached.

That is the context of the entire chapter. It is you that is assuming that she does not, because she is a woman.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Having what you see with your eyes be confirmation of scripture is good!!

What isn't good is seeing with your eyes that the Holy Spirit does not seem to work as powerfully as He did and so saying it is fact that He doesn't, and then finding scriptures to prove that what you see is His will. Because that is just trying to conform scripture to what your eyes see, instead of what your eyes seeing confirming scripture.

So if it's true that we don't see the Spirit working as powerfully, I wouldn't search for scripture other than to see why it is so and try to gain back what we've lost. I wouldn't just assume it's His will to not work as powerfully.

Has my own rambling not made sense...?

God confirms the preaching of HIS word

I believe the Holy Spirit is working as hard as ever in the hearts of those who want God and search for God as the Bible says, with their whole hearts

I don't ask to see anything. The heart is fickle anyway

 

[Mem]

It is completely nonsensical that God's words to Eve in Genesis 3:16 are commands in the same sense of the Levitical laws or ten commandments. Why didn't God say to Adam, whom He addressed moments later, that he shall rule over his wife? Further, why would God "command" that women suffer in childbirth? Do you consider that women who receive epidurals are committing sin in doing so?

I hope not. If that is truly what you believe, you need to give your head a shake.

Consider that Genesis 3:16 is a statement of certain consequence, not of commandment. God cursed the ground and the serpent; he told Adam and Eve what the consequences of their actions would be.

Therefore, "he shall rule over you" is what would happen. The history of men ruling harshly over women in all cultures is fulfillment of this. As Christian men, we should be proclaiming redemption to Eve's descendants, not adding to their suffering.

I would go as far to say that spiritually weaker men rule with the only other advantage, brute, to make up for his lack of the ability to rule (over his flesh) spiritually. And, these are indeed, then in (spiritual) reality, the weaker vessel in comparison to the women who continue to endure this with her spirit intact.

 

[hornetguy]

But the problems just keep growing if you do that, because there are lot more discrepancies like...from now on we see no man according to the flesh and...there is now no more male or female. And this is in addition to the problems already noted.

And here we have SBG carrying on a conversation with herself! THAT'S why we don't need women preachers! LOL

They never shut up!

JK sis.... just yankin your chain.... gotta insert some giggles in here somewhere...

 

[Dino246]

Well Lucy, I never once said that you were looking to control any men. I'm not looking to control any of you women here either. I just gave you the verses of the Bible that say a woman is not be a minister. I am not attempting to jump through the screen and "make" you young ladies go by anything, I just gave you the truth of what the Bible says.

Don't forget Lucy, those verses I posted regarding women being completely silent in the church were the words of God and the Bible. They were not my words. Personally I probably should not do this, but I would bend that just a bit to allow for a woman to whisper someone sitting beside her a question in church. I am also not opposed to women singing in the choir in church. I just will not bend God's word so much as to agree that a woman should be a minister in the church. I believe that to be far worse bending of His word than the other and I won't go that far.

Regarding the bolded parts, please read my post #756, page 38 of this thread.

 

[Dino246]

You and I (and others who present the Word in this context) will be told that those were just Paul's mysogynistic opinions which should be disregarded by enlightened women today. Oh, and don't forget that the *cultural norms* of those days are no longer valid. And never forget that women are smarter than men regardless of anything that Paul says. Oh, and don't forget Blondie and Dagwood either, since they represent the norm:

I don't recall anyone presenting this argument in this thread, or any thread like it, so you're employing a straw man fallacy.

If you think the cultural norms of Roman-era Greece are still valid, you need to get out more. Be thankful that they aren't.

Regarding Dagwood and Blondie, over the past 50 years there has been a distinct shift in the presentation of male and female roles in family-comedy entertainment. Now the sensible wife and the bumbling husband are the norm in that genre, but that has nothing to do with Christian families.

 

[Dino246]

You're right, I can find it very easily in the Law where it says for women to "subject" themselves. Be glad to show it to you as you requested.

Titus 2:5 [SUP]5[/SUP]to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

1 Timothy 2:11-15 [SUP]11[/SUP]A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. [SUP]12[/SUP]I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. [SUP]13[/SUP]For Adam was formed first, then Eve. [SUP]14[/SUP]And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. [SUP]15[/SUP]But women will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Submission is the same as subjecting

Ephesians 5:22 [SUP]22[/SUP]Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the LORD.

Again submitting is the same as subjecting

Is that enough for you ? If not, I'm sure I can find several other verses to add. It is within the Bible numerous times.

This is about the worst example of hermeneutics I've seen on this site (and I've seen some doozies!).

First, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Paul to have been referring to letters that he had not written yet!

1 Corinthians was one of his earliest, written roughly around 54 AD. The other letters you reference were written about ten years later. (source: https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/paul/timeline.cfm)

Second, Paul NEVER refers to his own writings as "Law" though he does refer numerous times to the Levitical/Mosaic Law.

Third, Paul's writings are not considered "Laws" at all in the same sense that Moses' writings are. Perhaps you need to read Galatians more closely.

 

[Locutus]

I think there was cultural aspect and current time aspect to Paul's statement that I don't believe is binding for all generations.

Just as Paul's advice on marriage was to remain single in the current circumstance, but no longer valid advice.

1 Cor 7:26 I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is.

 

[melita916]

So this thread is still going? Ooy!

 

[loyaldisciple]

Our society has been teaching us many wrong things for a very long time. When one starts out on the wrong track it is rather difficult to get back on the right track. Also when a train is on the right track and then somehow is derailed onto a wrong track, again it is hard to return to the right track. The people here that are following what God and Paul has said can talk from now until the end of time and they are not likely going to change the minds of some of these people here that are lost in their own desires.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

And here we have SBG carrying on a conversation with herself! THAT'S why we don't need women preachers! LOL

They never shut up!

JK sis.... just yankin your chain.... gotta insert some giggles in here somewhere...

Rumor has it that she has a knuckle sandwich with your name on it. Lunch after the service in the alley behind the church.

 

[loyaldisciple]

I think there was cultural aspect and current time aspect to Paul's statement that I don't believe is binding for all generations.

Just as Paul's advice on marriage was to remain single in the current circumstance, but no longer valid advice.

1 Cor 7:26 I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is.

That is the problem with most folks. They try to "think" instead of just following what the scripture says.

 

[loyaldisciple]

This is about the worst example of hermeneutics I've seen on this site (and I've seen some doozies!).

First, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Paul to have been referring to letters that he had not written yet!

1 Corinthians was one of his earliest, written roughly around 54 AD. The other letters you reference were written about ten years later. (source: https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/paul/timeline.cfm)

Second, Paul NEVER refers to his own writings as "Law" though he does refer numerous times to the Levitical/Mosaic Law.

Third, Paul's writings are not considered "Laws" at all in the same sense that Moses' writings are. Perhaps you need to read Galatians more closely.

It is no surprise you are confused. That is because you don't agree with God and therefore He has not gifted you with the knowledge to understand.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

That is the problem with most folks. They try to "think" instead of just following what the scripture says.

It does make it difficult for blind guides and dictators to find followers when people keep THINKING doesn't it? What a nuisance!