Are Women Not Allowed to Preach in Every Case?
- Thread starter vashweb2
- 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.
You said that
Paul also said thinks like:
Paul's words....."Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ."
And finally......."Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us"
You and I both ought to follow Paul's example, in doctrine and practice. If Paul doesn't permit something, we shouldn't either.
Paul also said thinks like:
Paul's words....."Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ."
And finally......."Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us"
You and I both ought to follow Paul's example, in doctrine and practice. If Paul doesn't permit something, we shouldn't either.
-
2
- Show all
Again, wisdom and discernment should be utilized, especially true in the understanding of scripture. The way Paul phrased, "I do not permit" are there for a reason. He also said that it is wise not to marry. Are you married? Would you say that it is a sin to marry or unwise in all circumstances? I see a lot of "I want" in the verses you provided. He says "I want younger widows to get married" but in another place says that it is unwise to get married. Quite a conundrum.
No, it doesn't. It says the woman was deceived; one specific woman, not "women" in general. It's talking about Eve only. There is nothing that can be taken from that verse and applied generally to all females.
Your assertion is contrary to biblical truth. If Deborah bore no authority, then neither did Barak. She could not have conveyed authority without having it in the first place. They were both judges.
Wow. Not only is your comment irrelevant to mine, but it is incorrect as well.
More ignorance. Go and look up the definition of "effeminate". It has nothing at all to do with a man's wife.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with godly women leading.
Your ignorance on these matters is astounding. You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but rest assured that it is not founded on a correct understanding of Scripture.
Your assertion is contrary to biblical truth. If Deborah bore no authority, then neither did Barak. She could not have conveyed authority without having it in the first place. They were both judges.
Wow. Not only is your comment irrelevant to mine, but it is incorrect as well.
More ignorance. Go and look up the definition of "effeminate". It has nothing at all to do with a man's wife.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with godly women leading.
Your ignorance on these matters is astounding. You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but rest assured that it is not founded on a correct understanding of Scripture.
-
1
- Show all
Yea the woman was deceived and the man was not. This is why Paul cites Adam and Eve and says it is forbidden for women to teach. This is why Paul forbids woman to take authority over a man, and not just Paul, but God says the woman is to be subject to the man in Genesis also. The precept goes back to Genesis. Apostle Paul is not incorrect nor is he stating his personal advice, but what he has written is well founded n the Bible. Paul does this a lot in his letters where he refers back to the Torah and to the Old Testament explaining them and displaying the overall continuity of the belief in Jesus.
Deborah told Barak to take authority over the army, and he did.
No, your comment was that I never heard of Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, and Queen Victoria. I know about all three of those wicked women. I mean my goodness, how did Indira Gandhi get in there when she worshipped demons and practiced witchcraft openly?
Effeminate definition is having the characteristics of a woman. So yes, men that are run by their wives are effeminate, they are acting in the satanic disorder that is so very contrary to God's good order.
Well I haven't shared my opinion yet. Nor am I ignorant of the Bible, I have read the entire thing multiple times, which is frankly more than most people can say.
EDIT: Also as far as women leading in the Bible, there is one case in the whole Bible where a woman usurped the authority and led the people, and that is Athaliah.
Deborah told Barak to take authority over the army, and he did.
No, your comment was that I never heard of Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, and Queen Victoria. I know about all three of those wicked women. I mean my goodness, how did Indira Gandhi get in there when she worshipped demons and practiced witchcraft openly?
Effeminate definition is having the characteristics of a woman. So yes, men that are run by their wives are effeminate, they are acting in the satanic disorder that is so very contrary to God's good order.
Well I haven't shared my opinion yet. Nor am I ignorant of the Bible, I have read the entire thing multiple times, which is frankly more than most people can say.
EDIT: Also as far as women leading in the Bible, there is one case in the whole Bible where a woman usurped the authority and led the people, and that is Athaliah.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
No, he doesn't. Read it again.
Read it again without your bias blinders on. There's more going on in that passage than you have seen.
God doesn't say that in Genesis. If you think otherwise, you're welcome to post the Scripture.
She could not have done so if she did not have authority over him.
Irrelevant to the subject.
Fallacy: non sequitur.
Your opinion is abundantly clear.
Good for you, sincerely. However, it's not more than I can say.
Irrelevant. There are many bad male leaders in Scripture; does this mean men should not lead? No. Your reasoning is inconsistent.
Read it again without your bias blinders on. There's more going on in that passage than you have seen.
God doesn't say that in Genesis. If you think otherwise, you're welcome to post the Scripture.
She could not have done so if she did not have authority over him.
Irrelevant to the subject.
Fallacy: non sequitur.
Your opinion is abundantly clear.
Good for you, sincerely. However, it's not more than I can say.
Irrelevant. There are many bad male leaders in Scripture; does this mean men should not lead? No. Your reasoning is inconsistent.
- As for marriage, No i am not, and with good reason: I don't struggle sexually and I have no need of a helper. My joy is complete in Christ. Through contentment, I can do all things through Christ.
"But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord" =fact.
Paul says he wants us to be free from concern because its good for us. It is the same with all of his "I want's"....they are consistent with what God wants.
2. As for widows, younger and more energetic widows would have a more difficult time resisting the temptations connected with idleness. With the congregation supporting them, their time normally given to maintaining a living would be free. Instead of giving this time to the service of Christ in visitation and counseling, younger widows would be more susceptible to going about from house to house and becoming idlers … gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. Too much time with not enough to do is dangerous for anyone except those too old to get into trouble. Hence Paul’s counsel was that younger widows should not take the vow and be added to the list (1 Tim 5:11); instead they should marry, raise a family, manage their homes, and by being thus occupied give the enemy no opportunity for slander.
Its not a conundrum. Both "I want you to remain (single) as I am" and "I want younger widows to get married" are given for our spiritual growth. His "I want"s are consistent with The Bible and God's desire for our sanctification.
All right let's read it again then:
1 Timothy 2:11-15
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Actually this is a good idea to reference the Genesis episode where God himself says that woman is to be subject to the man since this is of course the basis of Paul's statements in 1 Timothy 2.
Genesis 3:16
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Well you are the one that brought up Indira Gandhi to personally attack me as stupid or whatever, so if now you decide it is irrelevant now because she was a pagan witch, that's just fine with me frankly.
It is not a non sequitur, you asked for the definition of effeminate, so I gave you the definition.... again.
Not my opinion still.
Well I would think if you have read the Bible in fullness also that you shouldn't be stumbling on such an elementary thing such as the correct role of the woman.
Well it is not irrelevant, Athaliah is the only woman in the whole Bible that ever attains to authority. There is no other woman in the whole Bible that ever attains to authority. The story of Athaliah, though she is indeed evil, is an important story and relevant to your assertion about women in leadership in the Bible as she is pretty much the only example in the entire Bible.
1 Timothy 2:11-15
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Actually this is a good idea to reference the Genesis episode where God himself says that woman is to be subject to the man since this is of course the basis of Paul's statements in 1 Timothy 2.
Genesis 3:16
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Well you are the one that brought up Indira Gandhi to personally attack me as stupid or whatever, so if now you decide it is irrelevant now because she was a pagan witch, that's just fine with me frankly.
It is not a non sequitur, you asked for the definition of effeminate, so I gave you the definition.... again.
Not my opinion still.
Well I would think if you have read the Bible in fullness also that you shouldn't be stumbling on such an elementary thing such as the correct role of the woman.
Well it is not irrelevant, Athaliah is the only woman in the whole Bible that ever attains to authority. There is no other woman in the whole Bible that ever attains to authority. The story of Athaliah, though she is indeed evil, is an important story and relevant to your assertion about women in leadership in the Bible as she is pretty much the only example in the entire Bible.
God does not subject the woman to the man. He tells her that as a consequence of sin, "he will rule over thee." If it were a command, it would have been phrased as "You shall subject yourself to your husband", or, to the man, "You shall rule over your wife".
Trace the discussion and you'll see why it's irrelevant. Maybe.
Though you provided the correct definition, your application does not follow from it, so it is a non sequitur.
Your willful rejection of Deborah's role makes this whole statement just stupid.
Well we're making a little progress here. So you can see then how what Paul says in Timothy are related, how the woman was in the transgression because old Satan deceived her but Adam was not deceived. How the woman is to be subject to her husband and how she might be saved in child-bearing. This shows well how this is not just Paul's personal opinion, this is a precept that goes back to Genesis and the two scriptures are very connected.
Lol I mean I trace it back to you making the reference to the three wicked women. So if it is irrelevant then understand it's you that brought it up, I'm just responding, especially since you want to forge it into personal attack on me. Though this one I let slide because it amused me so much that you picked a pagan sorceress as a virtue signal.
Well the application does follow from it, men that are run by women are effeminate and not acting their role as men. They have been turned upside down by Satan, they are acting against the natural order of God.
Deborah's role was to tell Barak to lead the army up to fight Sisera and the wicked race of the Canaanites. That is what happened, and God delivered victory to Israel that day I should add as well, praise God.
Lol I mean I trace it back to you making the reference to the three wicked women. So if it is irrelevant then understand it's you that brought it up, I'm just responding, especially since you want to forge it into personal attack on me. Though this one I let slide because it amused me so much that you picked a pagan sorceress as a virtue signal.
Well the application does follow from it, men that are run by women are effeminate and not acting their role as men. They have been turned upside down by Satan, they are acting against the natural order of God.
Deborah's role was to tell Barak to lead the army up to fight Sisera and the wicked race of the Canaanites. That is what happened, and God delivered victory to Israel that day I should add as well, praise God.
You seem to think that the "but he will rule over you" (Gen 3:16) is a result of the fall. No.....Eve now having the desire to have authority over her man is the result of the fall.
"your desire will be for your husband, but (adversative conjunction) he will rule over you".
God had already given Adam authority over every living creature. The way he exercised his authority was by naming every living thing (that breathes)..."whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name" (Gen 2:19).
Guess who named Eve.........Adam (Gen 2:23)
"This one shall be called woman,
Because this one was taken out of man"
"your desire will be for your husband, but (adversative conjunction) he will rule over you".
God had already given Adam authority over every living creature. The way he exercised his authority was by naming every living thing (that breathes)..."whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name" (Gen 2:19).
Guess who named Eve.........Adam (Gen 2:23)
"This one shall be called woman,
Because this one was taken out of man"
-
1
- Show all