I wouldn't say all women haven't read their bible. I've met women who I would LOVE to take classes from, one imparticular who seems to know more than all the men in my church 30 and younger combined, but both her and I understand that isn't her role. Thats why I try to talk to her 1 on 1 as much as I can!
Teachers and Pastors both speak, but one speaks of direct relation to what God revealed to them (prophet) and one teaches and leads (Pastor). There is a difference.
Name one female teacher with verses supporting. Priscilla didn't teach unless your bible says something mine does not.
First off, yes Jesus did treat them differently, but he never allowed them to teach. Granted he never didn't but that wasn't his job in the Body. HIs job was to spread his name, and save us while on this earth. It was the 12 whose jobs were to set up and help run the churches after his death (as well as other things, but thats a big one). That's why Pual stated this.
So a few things here. One he knew the dangers of both men and women. Both were persecuted. By your logic of women being persecuted to death so Paul told them not to preach then no one should have preached because both genders were persecuted to death.
Your right paul=paul, but pauls words that made it into the bible=god's words.Yes, you are bashing specific women when you say they can not be called by God to pastor a church.
No, I'm not calling Paul a liar. I am just saying that Paul does not = God. Paul=Paul.
No, I don't put anyone on 'ignore,' you can though, and, no, I don't detest even ONE WORD of God's words. The Lord leads.
Your posts are insanely hurtful to women and you choose to, hey, here's a word for you, IGNORE that fact. That's the only thing inane, bro.
I'vebeen completely respectful of you, you've taken things the wrong way, starting with my nic for you, phil
---------------------==========------------------
I'm not disciplining you, phil, don't be silly. I just said that the Lord 'disciplines His own,' and, you WILL be disciplined for things that you say that hurt others. The verses about tying a 'millstone around one's neck' for doing wrong things to God's children comes to mind. 'Course, that's some discipline. Hey, think of the bright side, at least, you're with Him, just, as I said, the rewards, once you die, will be good and bad. YOU get both from God at the Bema Seat .
I have no desire to speak authority over you nor you me. You should practice what you preach, because telling me I have a long time before ready for 'meat' etc. is your trying to put your opinionated authority over me.
It's amazing how stuffed up one's mind can become, thinking that God can never call a woman to pastor a church just because they think Paul's words are absolute and that God would never do something out of the ordinary that was absolutely for His will being done, like, for example, using a woman to pastor a church that was not getting fruit from a man's leadership. God knows, God cares, God acts. And, as I've told tuck a few times now, He acts above and beyone and OVER your authority of what you think He should do.
The words of the bible are inspired by God. They are all GOd's word. If we are going to pick and choose what is God's opinion and what is man's then by that logic we could ditch 90% of the bible.INstead of "I do not suffer a woman to teach or have authority over a man but to be silent."
Do you think, tuck, we could say, "God does not suffer a woman to teach or have authority over a man but to be silent." ???
And, if Paul was saying that, would Paul be wondering if he was speaking for God, I wonder? Job spoke for God and.... How did that turn out for Job? Not good, huh, read chapter 38 on as God speaks to Job about who is boss and who ain't .
Didn't God come into the picture of Job's wallowing and say, 'Who is this that darkens my counsel?' Wasn't he speaking to Job? So, does God allow us to have our own opinions? Like Paul has an opinion here about women. I mean, true, God's words in the bible are holy inspired, all for 'proof', and 'correction,' and, even, "rebuke," but......is Paul speaking of a personal situation preference here. I mean, he is, we know that, afterall, Paul says, 'I suffer not...' This tells us, indeed, Paul, and, NOT God, and, not Jesus in His red-letter words is speaking here. It IS Paul, tuck.
So, yes, there is an option. "I (Paul) do not suffer a woman to teach..." or, the option is "God does not suffer a woman...."
This is a post I made earlier that won't be answered by the person it is directed to, but applies to here too with the "It only applied to that situation" concept.
I'm confused about how your story of gays applies in mix with your opinion. We agree God could make a book, but disagree on women teaching.
1. sorry I was not thinking and realized I shouldn't have called you that like 10 minutes after I sent that. I do apologize.
I apologized and explained the dude comment.
You misunderstand somewhat, Please reread it the part before "I have heard it all before". If Paul meant for it to be temporary he would have said. Some people seem to think it makes women less, it does not, they have an equal right to Jesus and His kingdom as any man, except for john the baptist maybe
The thing about the gays is just because something good comes from it doesn't make it right.. Like if I cheat on my wife of 31 years, but I tell the woman about Jesus and she is saved does that make my cheating right.
