Are WOMEN Pastors Biblical??

Certainly if the objective is to make Gods word say something that it does not say in order to prop up a preconceived notion.

The Pharisees perverted an entire nation by corrupting Gods word.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I am at peace with what the Bible says about only men being pastors, and I think Paul's statement in 1 Timothy further supports this. I have no issue with this personally. In practical terms, where I struggle is defining "man" in terms of when does a boy become a man in the church? The reason is because at my church, pretty much all the teachers of Sunday school for middle school and below are women, including me. I think this is just the way it always has been, and honestly men aren't exactly lined up to do it. I think this is perfectly justified by the Bible and also by the circumstances at my church. But where it gets confusing for me is at what age are boys too old for women to be teaching them if we go strictly by 1 Timothy? This can really become an issue in high school and college ages.

As I said earlier in this thread, the pastor is only one position in the church. I think women obviously have a lot to offer in terms of teaching and setting examples in the church even if they are not a pastor.

I am well aware of what "for" means.

However, I don't accept the simplistic interpretation, because to me, it doesn't make sense. Consider this: outside of Paul's statement, how would you ever come to the conclusion that Adam's prior creation would have anything to do with females teaching males, let alone precluding it? It simply does not follow, and Paul's use of "for" does NOT "make it logical" (that would be circular reasoning). There is no causal connection between prior creation and authority! Plants don't have authority over animals, and animals don't have authority over Adam!

Within the cultural context, female leaders from the mystery cults were coming to Christ, and dragging in the false teaching that Eve was formed before Adam. Some of these women (perhaps only one, hence "a woman") were teaching these false beliefs to other Christians, and possibly seducing (authentein) their male students. Paul would be saying, in essence, "I don't allow an untaught female disciple to teach false beliefs or seduce a male, for the truth is that Adam was formed first, not Eve. Instead, a woman must sit quietly and learn the truth of the gospel." What is the result? A properly-instructed female who is then capable of teaching others, male or female.

Your judgment is your personal opinion also, you hypocrite.

You are incapable of refuting my position. Instead, you slander me, including me with "carnal believers" who "appear just like unbelievers".

Either address my position, or don't address me at all. Your slander is wholly inappropriate.

There is no common ground upon which to discuss the matter. You deny the word of God so there is no basis from which to create constructive discussion.

All you have is the woke card and I don't play that game.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Well if you men were boys, your moms would be sending you to your rooms for being so ugly to each other.

What a great hermeneutic. My question remains...why is verses 13-14 the reason Paul gave for verse 12?
I have considered these. If I were to ignore this clarifying passage, then I would lose clarity as to God's natural design for leadership.
Paul never said the creation of animals is relevant to this subject. But He did say that the creation of humans is relevant (because the church is comprised of humans).
Although this happened to be true at the time, Paul did not give cultural reasons for verse 12. He gave theological reasons for verse 12.


Imperative: I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
Theological Reason #1 it was Adam who was first created and then Eve.
Theological Reason #2 it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

So my question remains...
Why did Paul give these reasons for this imperative he has given us?

Your entire argument is circular. You are beginning with the assumption that your conclusion is the right one.

We can deal with that accusation afterward if you'd like. But before we move on to new aspects of this subject, how about you answer the question I have been asking you since my first post? Please take your time; I am not in a hurry.

Why are verses 13-14 the reasons Paul gave for verse 12?

I explained my position in my previous reply to you. I don't believe that verses 13-14 are directly causal reasons for verse 12, so I have no answer as to why they are.

Since you believe that my position is based on a "woke card", how about you demonstrate that with actual evidence. Explain what sources influenced my conclusions, how they originate from "woke" culture, and how my position denies the word of God.

I won't hold my breath. I am well aware of your propensity to make baseless accusations and to ignore calls for evidence.

Once again, if you can't address my position (without making ad hominem comments), don't address me at all.

You have admitted 2 things concerning your understanding of this critical verse:
1. "I don't accept the simplistic interpretation, because to me, it doesn't make sense."
2. "I have no answer as to why they are".

This is why I exhaustively defined "for" when I introduced this. You say you understand the meaning of "for", yet you say there is no causal relationship between vs 12 and 13-14. Furthermore, you can't make sense of verse 13-14 because you chose to believe that there is no causal connection.

I suggest reconsidering your reasoning and position. Accept the text for what it says, even if you don't understand why. But if you want to understand why, study this passage and find its explanation within the Bible, not culture. Perhaps I can point you in the right direction:

Within the family dynamic and the collective body, we are meant to reflect the marriage between Christ and His bride.
Does the bride teach or exercise authority over Christ? No
Does Christ teach and exercise authority over the bride? Yes
Does the bride lead Christ? No
Does Christ lead the bride? Yes
Is Christ the head of the bride? Yes
Is the bride the head of Christ? No
Does the bride submit to Christ? Yes
Does Christ submit to the bride? No
Was Christ made for the bride? No
Was the bride made for Christ? Yes
the list goes on and on...
This Biblical model extends beyond "Christ and the bride" to the structure of the corporate body and the family dynamic. This is the Biblical foundation of the roles of men and women. And our obedience to His design is the most effective witness to the world and ultimately glorifies Him more.

Good for you my friend! You have just "Rationalized" yourself into what YOU want to believe.

1 Timothy 3:1-2 .......
"This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach".

Outstanding. I was actually not in fear at all but thanks for the info.

Again.......I did not have any input to those Scriptures. I just read them and believe them as they are written.

Personally....I am just not smart enough to try and tell others what God meant to say. I just accept what He did say!

This is all true. However, the "bride" is the Church.

Does the Church lead Christ? No
Does Christ lead the Church? Yes
etc.

The Church is comprised of both men and women.
Even if the pastor is female, Christ leads the Church/bride.

Yes, you got that part correct. It's not that I don't understand the verses; rather, it's that your explanation of them is nonsensical.

There is no "why they are causal" when I don't believe that they are causal. It's quite straightforward.

Either you haven't read my explanation closely enough, or you didn't understand it.

That is not what I said.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I will accept the text as I understand it, which makes perfect sense to me logically, causally, textually, and contextually.

All relevant, somewhat, to a marital relationship, but irrelevant to general relationships between males and females within the Church. You seem to assert that all Christian males have authority over all Christian females. Is that what you believe?

yes, I know the bride is the church. I used the term "bride" because I was referencing the marriage of the Lamb. "Bride" seemed like a more appropriate term for the topic because I was referring to the parallels between our future marriage to Christ...and the current marriage(s) between a man and a woman. As I have already said, the divine marriage pattern of authority and leadership is consistently applied to the family structure and the church's structure throughout the Bible.

They also told Jesus he was wrong for healing on the sabbath. Because it was against God's word. They thought they had the word of God on the subject.

Like .. You can't preach... your a woman... and your usurping authority over a man when you preach. .. Pharisees. They think they have the word of God but they don't.

Ok, then please make sense of it in context. Since you know, tell me, Do you believe there is a relationship between vs 12 and vs 13-14?
If no, then tell me why Paul connected them with "for".
If yes, then tell me why vs 12 is followed by vs 13-14.

(not in reference to this conversation...just tell me what your understanding of these verses in context. This is all I have been wanting from you the whole time. Teach me the meaning of these verses as if I had no idea what they meant)

I read them. They are grounded in cultural norms of the time, not in the Word. Paul used Scripture to back up his imperative to us, referring to Adam and Eve. It may have happened to be culturally relevant for other reasons. But this command to us is ever-binding to all generations of the Church because Paul derived it from the Hebrew Scriptures.
To clarify, no I do not believe that. And that is not true. I have only pointed out the divine structure of leadership in a family and in a church congregation (just as Christ and the bride). They are to be lead by men; since elders teach and lead the church, and women cannot teach and lead men, women cannot be elders. This aligns with the model of Christ and the church. It is our design, our purpose, and our obligation in glorifying our lovely Groom.

I have done all this already, in my previous post.

My understanding is based on a situation happening at the time and place, not "cultural norms". I am refusing to divorce the passage from the context in which it was written. Within that context, the passage makes perfect sense. Without that context, it doesn't make sense.

Marriage is indeed a picture of Christ and the Church. The Church is not a picture of Christ and the Church.