Are WOMEN Pastors Biblical??

Error, these all thing do not happen at one or at the same time.
so are you saying God lied when he throught his apostle Peter siad this, Acts 2:16 "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;"
THAT RIGHT THERE KILLED ANY THING YOU SAY IS NOT WHAT JOEL SPOKE OF.

Acts 2:17 "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:"Acts 2:18 "And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:"

Acts 2:19 "And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:"
Acts 2:20 "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:"
THERE IT IS BEFORE, BEFORE, BEFORE, THE LORD .... COME. so you;re reprove by the bible.

Acts 2:21 "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

so when people erfuse to believe the bible, leave them alone.

PICJAG.
101G.

Major, did you ever read?

Luk 4:
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book,

He was reading from Isaiah:

Isa. 61:
1 The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed and qualified me to preach the Gospel of good tidings to the meek, the poor, and afflicted; He has sent me to bind up and heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the [physical and spiritual] captives and the opening of the prison and of the eyes to those who are bound,
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord [the year of His favor] and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn,

Why did Jesus not quote the ENTIRE passage, including what is bolded? It is very simple: Jesus next statement:
Luk 4:21...Today this Scripture has been fulfilled while you are present and hearing.

Jesus quoted ONLY that portion of the passage that was being fulfilled that day.

The point? PART Of this Isaiah prophecy was fulled when Jesus was walking the earth - perhaps 30 AD. Yet, the very next phrase of this prophecy has yet to be fulfilled: it is not time for God's vengeance to be poured out.

I think you know this, so I suspect you only want to disagree.

That is like somebody folding their arms when Jesus turned water into wine and saying "that was great but why is there no opening the eyes of the blind and healing the cripples?"

God is not working to your timetable, you can be sure that before this age ends all those signs will be accomplished.

Why then do christians differ so greatly in experience? this has been a feature of church history, often remarked upon by such men as Wesley and Spurgeon.

What occurs during times of great awakenings and revival?

101G.......Do you not understand that you are manipulating the Scriptures for your own interpretation??????

Joel said that ALL OF THOSE things would happen in the LAST DAYS!

Pentecost was not the LASR DAYS as we have now lived 2000 years without the appearance of Christ the 2nd time.

Acts 2:17-19 is what Joel said would take place AT THE SAME TIME in the LAST DAYS. Those things did not happen at Pentacost.

You do not see that because YOU do not want to see it!!!!

I do not normally do this much detail in explinations as most people are aware of the obviouse. But for YOU I say that ................
I think it would be helpful to list these events in order to felicitate a comparison with Joel 2 which tells us that there will be .....

1) “a rushing mighty wind”

2) “cloven tongues, like as of fire”

3) “filled with the holy ghost”

4) “began to speak in other tongues”

Now let us examine the prophecy of Joel which Peter quoted that day.

Acts 2:17-18 is a record of Peter quoting the prophecy from Joel 2 that is said by many to have been “partially fulfilled” at the celebration of the feast of weeks.....
“And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, ‘I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy and your young men shall see visions and your old men shall dream dreams. And on My servants and on My handmaidens I will pour out in those days of My spirit and they shall prophecy‘”.

Below is the list of things prophesied in the passage quoted from Joel.

1) “I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh”

2) “Your sons and daughters will prophesy”

3) “your young men will see visions”

4) “your old men shall dream dreams”

5) “My servants and on My handmaidens I will pour out in those days of My spirit and they shall prophecy“.

Even the most cursory comparison of the events of Acts 2 with the prophecy of Joel 2 will reveal that there is only one thing in common--------- the spirit of the Lord was poured out.

But, as we look in the Old and New Testaments, we shall see that even that is not really a commonality. I say that because the Bible makes it clear that the holy spirit was poured out on individuals for a very specific purpose. So, when we read, for example that Samson was filled with the spirit in order to defend himself from an attacking lion, it is not the same as when Bezalel was filled with the spirit to make artistic designs for the tent of meetings.

When Peter quoted Joel chapter 2, he began with the words, “And it shall come to pass in the last days“. Joel was a bit more specific. In Joel 2:28, which is the beginning of the prophecy Peter quoted, we read, “And afterward I will pour out my spirit….”. Peter’s phrase, “the last days” is correct, of course. But Joel is more specific as to when in the last days they might see the things quoted, i.e. dreams and visions. Let us therefore, examine Joel two to see if we might learn more about when to expect these signs.

Joel 2:1 begins with a prophecy concerning the “day of the Lord”. “…….for the day of the Lord cometh, it is nigh at hand”. The prophecy concerning the day of the Lord continues through verse 11, But with verse 12 there is a break in the prophecy about the day of the Lord, and we read in verse 12, “Therefore also now, saith the Lord, turn ye even to Me, with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping and with mourning”. This plea for repentance continues through verse 17. In verses 18-27 we read what will be the consequence of Israel’s repentance. We read in verse 26, “….never again will My people be ashamed”. This tells us that these verses speak of the millennium.

To recap what has been presented thus far: verses 1-11 are about the day of the Lord. Verses 12 through 17 are a plea to Israel to repent. Verses 18 through 27 speak of the millennium.


Joel’s prophecy had nothing in common with the events of Acts 2, except that in both, men were filled with the holy spirit. But the signs of that filling were totally different and therefore even that similarity is nullified.

Nope. In the context of which that was spoken/written I do not believe that the word "ordain" is a correct translation or rendering. If Paul ordained her then he would have been the first minister in church history (including OT times) at that time to do so. But Paul was not into breaking with any customs of the church, he walked orderly and kept the Law.

I repeat this, and this is biblical: no women were ordained in the church. As much as some dream up otherwise.

EXPERIENCES have nothing to do with salvation.

That is a Pentecostal denominational teaching that you have bought into.

Men and women over all the ages of time have done great things when the Holy Ghost has come upon them!

Consider what Moses, and Davis, and Sampson did. How did Antipas do what he did or Stephen?

Who says experience has nothing to do with salvation? YOU? your church?

Paul says true religion is Righteousness, Peace and Joy and fellowship with God. Jesus has a great deal to say about peace and joy and love.

Moses, David Samson
Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Deborah, Esther and Ruth

... thank the Lord Esther did keep silent.

Who says experience has nothing to do with salvation? YOU? your church?

Paul says true religion is Righteousness, Peace and Joy and fellowship with God. Jesus has a great deal to say about peace and joy and love.

Moses, David Samson
Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Deborah, Esther and Ruth

... thank the Lord Esther did keep silent.

Perhaps you should do a little more study on "last days."

Hebrews 1:2
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

1 Pet. 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

You can argue and disagree until the rapture, but Peter said "this is that..." I think He was speaking by the Holy Spirit.

But, by this logic, you will find it hard to prove that any gentile male believers were ever ethēka (as in Jesus explains He chose AND "ethēka" the 12 ISRAELITE disciples to bear fruit John 15) or as you put it, "ordained", in scripture.

Not really sure what these points prove but I shall persevere with this logic to its natural conclusion for the sake of being thorough.

Paul didn't like to break with tradition and kept the law as you say, (though he clearly did not impose it upon Gentiles, not did the other apostles - ACTS 15 IS PRETTY CLEAR).

I would say he was in a fix by this account - in Jerusalem for sure - a fix that would ensure he didn't even bother to try and ordain a female or any gentile believer.

He may have been free to do so in God's eyes, but as you have so clearly explained, he was a Jew, of and to the Jews, so he would not have offended them needlessly by putting a non-proselyte gentile in any authoritative role with the congregation of believers.

It can be said that Non-Israelite believers may well have been encouraged to seek an office clearly at other points in the bible - if those passages applied to them - but were they ever actually ethēka in the bible - anywhere?

Certainly Christ never ordained one, and Paul, the jewish law abiding citizen couldn't have ... or could he? Did he?

It was likely more offensive than ordaining a woman to the Jewish people. I have looked for an example of him breaking with traditions to do so, certainly not in Jerusalem, but at present I cannot find one.

So, if it does not mean chosen, but something rather different as you seem to infer, we have a dilemma... unless we all join a jewish Orthodox Church. Only then can we be hopeful that at least one or some of the elders could.. possibly ... be ethēka.

Because, we cannot be sure anyone else could be ethēka if it isn't found clearly and indisputably in the bible as far as I understand your point.

I think however that your evidences cause more confusion than clarity on the matter given the above conclusions we could come to if we extend the use of the points you made to other issues.

I don't know why you change tracks. I have not contended that any non-proselyte gentile was ordained during biblical times. So it's argumentum ex silentio, an argument you make in the absence of me stating anything of which you argue. That itself makes a poor ground for discussion.

And I wonder what case you are actually trying to make? That converted gentiles are categorically to be excluded from being ordained to offices in the church? That would be another discussion entirely. Or are you by any chance confusing sex/gender with ethnicity? If so, why? Not the same topic.

I don't also get what you want to hammer home by talking about joining "jewish orthodox 'churches'" and stuff. Confusing.

Husband definitely is a man, which I have already said on this this thread! This is specifically directed to men, in a culture where polygamy was accepted and practiced. Men were not to have more than one wife, the passage is self-explanatory.

So does it mean women should not be pastors? No! It means that Paul did not have to address the women on this issue, because polyandry (one woman, multiple husbands) was not a practice in Roman or Greek society, so God didn't have to set a rule for the women. They already had only one husband.

The fact that no male nouns or pronouns appear in the passage in Greek is extremely important. It means that men have been mistranslating this passage to suppress or limit women. It means certain people on this thread who constantly quote the KJV, which has been wrongly translated, therefore basically supporting their position with a lie!

Further, there are many other words translated wrong, punctuation in the wrong places, which again was King James forcing his translators to translate the way he wanted it, not the original Greek! Even the very late, corrupted manuscripts do not have male nouns or pronouns in these supposed passages which say man. Yet, somehow many Bibles have the masculine nouns and pronouns in their translations, which is not faithful or true to any of the Greek manuscripts!

My church has a woman as an assistant pastor, and she is so much better than our senior male pastor, who is a heretic. Our woman pastor has great theology, no "open theology" nonsense for her, like the man pastor preaches! Women are not excluded from being pastors and preachers anywhere in the Bible. There is no verse that says "women cannot be pastors!" In fact that opposite! As many have shown with. All the women God used in ministry.

Most of you men won't read what I write, nor simple explanations which rely on good exegesis of Greek, within the context of the verse. Instead, they rely on wrong English translations. Seriously, there is no point in me explaining how "authentein" which is translated "exercise authority" or even "usurp authority" is simply wrong. Yet they have "proven their point" by using a bad English translation! Authentein is a hapax legomena, only used once in the Greek NT. You can't compare it to other uses in Scripture. But you can look at the word "authority" all the other times Paul uses it to mean "authority over." Romans 13 uses the word "exousia" along with many other places. Authority = exousia! So why did Paul use a completely different and rare word in 1 Tim. 2:12. He uses an infinitive, authentein, not a verb and a noun. Contemporaneous readings reveal many possible meanings, but "to domineer" is the most common use.

Paul says a woman is not to domineer a man. That makes a lot of sense! Paul was writing to Timothy in Ephesus, which had the temple of Artemis or Diana, one of the 7 wonders of the world, the woman priestesses ran the city, and dominated the men. If these woman came to the church in Ephesus, and tried to boss everyone around, of course Paul would tell Timothy not to let the women dominate. Christians should never dominate one another. Rather, we all need to be mutually submissive, as Paul says in Ephesians.

"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." Eph 5:21

But, I tire of these obstinate men. They are not teachable, and their hearts are hard and legalistic. I know what God has called me to do. So I am doing it, regardless of the opinions of a few uneducated men!

THE BIBLE my friend.

Ephesians 2:8-9.............
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

How can a man of your age and Christian experience miss something as simple and clear as this just so that you can stay with in your denominational teachings.????????

Moses was a murder
David broke every commandant given by God
Sampson was brash, rejected his parents and demanded they GET Delilah for him.

Are you real sure you want to include them in the list of your Righteousness ones.

Well Angela, your argument with polygamy is not very streng. In the antic Rom and greec was manly monogamy the Form of marrige. You find seldom polygamy and you find also polygyny ( one wife - with more men) f.e. in Sparta. That Paul mentioned in 1. TIM and also in Titus man/husband of one wife can also meant he should not divorced and marryed another woman.
That the text is speaking from male and not female you already agreed with.
So there is no place for to suggest that a female is Adressed in this text. F.e. how she should be one who is able to rule the household. Which was in this time among Christians and because of this also today ( what many not agree with) the role of the man.
If the greec origin Text then useing feminine words? Then please Show me were. I dont know any bibletranslation which is not understanding it in this way that the text is adressing only male.
If there is no feminine nouns ore pronouns in this text to find, then it would ne only speculation and wishthinking that a woman is adressed in this text.

Angela, it is not the question that a woman can better preach ore teach then a male ore not. It is not the question of ability. This was in the bible never the issue.
The issue is the creation order first man, then woman. Jesus is the head of the man, man is the head of the wife. This is not a a question of quality!
And I not read only one bible, like KJV, i read Elberfelder, Luther, New Genfer Bible.

I know that today, i speak for germany msny churches changes their view and accepting that woman can also be pastors.
But only because the majority is doing it, is no reason to do it also.
The bible in this is clear. And this I believe.
Why should the bible teach woman should be no Pastors, if this was already clear and not a discussion theme in the churches?

Hopefully, you meant to say that Esther did NOT keep silent.

Sure they were righteous, righteousness is the free gift we are talking about.

No one is blaming women exclusively for all the perversions of mankind. No one.

Excellent post and I wholeheartedly agree. For me also the witness of the Church Fathers is very important. As well what the apostolic succession teaches. There is a very clear statue about this issue. I see no need for revising these historical facts.

Angela, it is not the question that a woman can better preach ore teach then a male ore not. It is not the question of ability. This was in the bible never the issue.
The issue is the creation order first man, then woman.