Female pastors, ok or not?

[Ariel82]

AntiTroll post (just bumping up normal threads)

 

[CeileDe]

Trolls, Where? Call to arms. Man the towers; Archers ready your bows.

Sorry, was bored

 

[BeyondET]

Bro, you're wasting your time an energy with that one IMHO.

Thank you for showing me how you feel about me, Indeed noted.

 

[BeyondET]

Ah, so you admit you are twisting words and scripture?

Fight tooth and nail all you want, no doubt you won't allow yourself to have a normal debate without all the antics thrown in.

 

[BeyondET]

That is so sad, so typical. Those people have no shame at all. Conscience seared? I don't know. Thank God He is longsuffering. If one of them heard the truth and got converted, I would be happy, but the problem is they've been (usually is the case) "preached into heaven." Now just "try to get them lost."

You are correct Jesus is long suffering, Jesus doesn't think people are a waste of time, how many people do you know who know His view about people?

 

[preacher4truth]

yeah. I'm just waiting for you to post something I don't agree with. This agreeing today has given me a headache lol. jk

Cool, I am here to please: We should expose false teachers according to Scripture, and warn others. Titus 1:13; 2 Timothy 3&4; Jude; 2 Peter; 2 John (especially 1:9)

 

[CeileDe]

Fight tooth and nail all you want, no doubt you won't allow yourself to have a normal debate without all the antics thrown in.

N fighting here. I can have a normal debate but you have yet to prove anything about Mary preaching. You interpretation, and that is all it is, is faulty.

 

[CeileDe]

Cool, I am here to please: We should expose false teachers according to Scripture, and warn others. Titus 1:13; 2 Timothy 3&4; Jude; 2 Peter; 2 John (especially 1:9)

lol. Well you know, I don't totally disagree with it, but I don't believe false teachers are around every corner. I guess I just like to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are just ignorant or just have had bad mentors? I would rather have a discussion with them and see if they believe the biblical teaching of salvation. People can still be saved and have terrible doctrine. At least that is the way I believe.

 

[BeyondET]

N fighting here. I can have a normal debate but you have yet to prove anything about Mary preaching. You interpretation, and that is all it is, is faulty.

I can accept your view about my opinion 100 percent, that's normal debating,

 

[CeileDe]

I can accept your view about my opinion 100 percent, that's normal debating,

YES!!! We agree on something. lol sounds good.

 

[dcontroversal]

Yes indeed preached on the coming resurrection, after it happened Jesus told Mary to preach that indeed it has happened to the others, big difference.

a. Never said that he didn't
b. This is not in an assembly capacity worship service....IE he did not tell her to be the Bishop of or Pastor the church in Jerusalem

 

[Ariel82]

Lol y'all are funny

CeileDe you got them both to agree and disagree with you. Quite a feat for one day.

 

[CeileDe]

Lol y'all are funny

CeileDe you got them both to agree and disagree with you. Quite a feat for one day.

I know right? I might need to go eat something from all the energy I spent lol.

 

[preacher4truth]

lol. Well you know, I don't totally disagree with it, but I don't believe false teachers are around every corner.

You should get out more. Wait, nevermind, there's enough on this forum, you don't even have to risk going anywhere.

But there is this, it doesn't matter if they're around every corner, or not around every corner.

That's not the protocol. We are to follow Scripture, not a clichè that grants excuses or belittles our duty.

The mandate is to expose heresies, not make excuses and concessions. It is rather odd though that when mentioned in a thread on that topic, you went on the attack of those exposing them by offering a Scripture, out of context mind you, to ridicule them.

As stated, and I say this man to man, you need some more 2 Timothy 2:15.

I guess I just like to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are just ignorant or just have had bad mentors? I would rather have a discussion with them and see if they believe the biblical teaching of salvation. People can still be saved and have terrible doctrine. At least that is the way I believe.

Anyone preaching the WoF false Gospel, those you see on TV, hear on radio? Yes, they're ignorant of the truth. They've been doing it for years. 2 Peter 2 describes them as well as Titus 1. The texts don't allow them a loop hole, rather it condemns them and the instruction to expose them is right there.

We are not to leave people in their ignorant and terrible doctrines, they are to be brought out of deception.

 

[BeyondET]

YES!!! We agree on something. lol sounds good.

For sure my friend, we don't have to agree on everything, but it's important to not think of others as a waste of time.

Jesus died on the cross because He never once thought of people as a waste of time. I'm making this point because you know why, and that is important to me as well. Not that I'm offended by the statement about me, but that person is truly blessed because that is important to know IMO how people should treat others male or female and not to throw them aside as trash or a waste. God uses all people from the brightest to the least brightest, from the strong to lead the weak or the weak to lead the strong.

 

[BeyondET]

a. Never said that he didn't
b. This is not in an assembly capacity worship service....IE he did not tell her to be the Bishop of or Pastor the church in Jerusalem

Indeed you are correct, in the four gospels the life and teachings of Christ, you won't find Jesus using the words bishops or pastors.

 

[CeileDe]

You should get out more. Wait, nevermind, there's enough on this forum, you don't even have to risk going anywhere.

But there is this, it doesn't matter if they're around every corner, or not around every corner.

That's not the protocol. We are to follow Scripture, not a clichè that grants excuses or belittles our duty.

The mandate is to expose heresies, not make excuses and concessions. It is rather odd though that when mentioned in a thread on that topic, you went on the attack of those exposing them by offering a Scripture, out of context mind you, to ridicule them.

As stated, and I say this man to man, you need some more 2 Timothy 2:15.



Anyone preaching the WoF false Gospel, those you see on TV, hear on radio? Yes, they're ignorant of the truth. They've been doing it for years. 2 Peter 2 describes them as well as Titus 1. The texts don't allow them a loop hole, rather it condemns them and the instruction to expose them is right there.

We are not to leave people in their ignorant and terrible doctrines, they are to be brought out of deception.

You know, if it wasn't for the internet or even these forums no one would even be having these discussions. Before the internet did you focus more on God and witnessing to people or did you have times where you were searching out heretics or false teachers?

Yeah I would maybe see a preacher on tv who said something I didn't agree with or what not, but I really never had serious debates or discussions about them. The discussions I did have was about the Word and we went door to door witnessing to people. Yes False Doctrines did come up in Bible Studies but we never actually brought up any preachers or people themselves.

I guess it is just a brave new world now

 

[notuptome]

Indeed you are correct, in the four gospels the life and teachings of Christ, you won't find Jesus using the words bishops or pastors.

All that we have today is patterned off the Jewish structure of worship. This was taught by the apostles because it was taught to them in their families and heritage.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[BeyondET]

All that we have today is patterned off the Jewish structure of worship. This was taught by the apostles because it was taught to them in their families and heritage.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I don't see it that way, here's why Jesus did adhere to the Jewish structure, this was the structure of the old covenant. Abided by these thus without sin, but Jesus came to create a new covenant which isn't based on the Jewish structure of worship.

 

[maxwel]

Well, I am a woman pastor, and believe me when I say, I tore the Bible apart, studied the Greek, read 50 books on the subject, prayed hard and then came back to what Paul was actually saying to Timothy, etc.

1 Tim. 2:12, the Word "exercise authority" is "authentein" in Greek- αὐθεντεῖν. It is a hapax legomena. That means it appears only once in the Bible. Now, normally the word "exousia" is used for the word "authority." For example, in Matt 28, when Jesus says he has been given "all authority." Or when Paul write to submit to those in authority in Romans 13:1-3, the word is exousia.

Further, in fact, the word translated "exercise/usurp authority" is a non-indicative verb - a present infinitive, to be exact. So, to be truthful to the text of that word, one should translate it "to .... something." And "to... authority" doesn't work. Because "authority" is a noun. So, what some translators have done, is add a verb, an extra word which is not in the text, in order to make it reflect the translators' biases. This is very dishonest in a functional translation, and pretty much all modern versions, and older ones like KJV, have to push this dishonest translation, which has been used to keep women out of ministry for pretty much 400 years. To say nothing of following the man made traditions of the Roman Catholic Church Very sad!

So, because "authentein" is not found anywhere else in the Bible, it cannot be compared with the usage in other uses in the Bible. What has to be done, is compare what the word means in contemporaneous sources. So, in other words, what do texts that use the word around that time say the word is. In fact, there are as many as 50 uses. But the major one seems to be "to domineer." So, here we have an infinitive, a word which Paul is using over "usurping authority" (what a blatant sexist translation, if there ever was one!) So, fitting in "to dominate" and pulling out "exercise authority" we have a very good use of the word in the sentence, which also makes sense in terms of this Pastoral Letter.

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to domineer a man; but, to be in quiet." 1 Tim. 2:12 Modified ESV

Truly, why would Paul use this word, when he could have just written "to usurp authority," and everyone would have known what he was saying? Why would God lead him in this, of all places, to have a one use word?Probably because he didn't want this private letter to Timothy to be a universal statement. He was addressing the situation in Ephesus, where the priestesses of Artemis were known to be domineering, and were quite probably causing problems in Timothy's church. Paul also adds some doctrine, because in the mystery religions, women were created first. He wanted Timothy to understand the order of creation, so that he could speak to these women, and explain how and why they were wrong, and to get Timothy to stop these women from domineering in the congregation, which they must have being doing. Paul must roll his eyes every time Jesus points out another complementarian or church not allowing a woman pastor, because of this wrong translation.

In fact, I was discussing this with my Greek prof, who is a complimentarian, and he had me read his Word Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. It was almost 40 pages long. Some attention was paid to the "silent" part, which you will notice above is translated "quiet" which is what it actually means. (Rabbinical students were instructed to "learn in silence." These women were getting the incredible opportunity to learn in silence, which the rabbis had never allowed them to. My prof, also got deeply into the order of creation, from the last part of this passage.

But, in the end, he admits that the entire discussion hinges around the translation of "authentein."He said he decided it means "to exercise authority." He also acknowledged other scholars disagreed with him. Well, I'm not in the realm of the scholarship of the type of people he was speaking about, but still, having to add a verb and a preposition to make the sentence make sense, is really a dishonest way for anyone to translate.

Now, if someone wants to be complementarian, go right ahead. However, try and be consistent in your translation. It should be something like this:

"I do not permit a woman to teach or authority a man; but to be in quiet." 1 Tim. 2:12 Modified ESV

That is the word for word from the Greek! If you want to believe that for some reason God wants to block more than 50% of the church from the pulpit, Go ahead and translate the infinitive verb "authentein" as authority, a noun. Add a few words if you find that isn't working for you. (There is no word "over" either! I just looked at that. So, a dishonest translation that has to add 3 words to make it work? Something doesn't smell right to me!)

There is a terrible misogyny in the conservative evangelical church, in the western world, which in my opinion, is why the church is not growing. In third world countries the churches are exploding. In China, women lead most of the underground churches, as they do in many church plants. Chinese men do not want the job. And these women are on fire for God. And if someone tells them they cannot preach, they would show the incredible fruits their ministries are bearing.

I do find it interesting in a society which defends male superiority, that the church is dying. The church is having no influence on the world. Our societies are going down the tubes. But in these countries where women can fulfill their call to ministry, the fruits are abundant.

"By their fruits you will know them!" Matt. 7:16-20

I'm going to poke Angela with a few pointed questions.

Before I do, I want to say that I love and respect her.
I also want to say that I consider her an astute, and serious student of the bible, as well as a fine Christian woman, and if I disagree with her on a few little things, that does not mean I disagree with her on most things.

She has my utmost respect.

Below I am not dealing with her intentions, her character, or her academic qualifications...
I'm only dealing with some straightforward propositonal logic.



1. We're only going to examine a few of the historical and societal statements.


2. I suspect that, as all of us are prone to do, she may be incorporating some assertions which she, in good faith, obtained from some trusted sources... but which ultimately may be thin on their original sources and original data.

If this is what has occurred, I'm not intending to disparage her in any way; I'm simply pointing out that sometimes we may need to investigate things more fully.


3. "In China, women lead most of the underground churches"
I would need to see verifiable evidence of this... and I think this would be very hard to obtain.


A. If they are "underground churches", then by definition it seems it would be hard for anyone to gain this kind of information, especially in a broad and comprehensive way.

B. To get this information:
--> First, someone, somewhere, has to actually know exactly how many underground churches there are, as the word "most" signifies more than 50% of a specific number.
--> Next, someone, somewhere, has to have verifiable, documented records of ALL underground pastors, in the ENTIRE COUNTRY, in ALL POSSIBLE DENOMINATIONS.
--> Last, how exactly does anyone get verifiable, documented records of all pastors, in the entire country, in all possible denominations, in a category of church called "underground", which by definition is TRYING TO EXIST SECRETLY.

C. I'm going to assert that although there may be some kind of "vague" or "general" evidence, that no COMPREHENSIVE and VERIFIABLE evidence actually exists.
--> If you're going to use words like "most", which refer to ACTUAL NUMERICAL PERCENTAGES, then that actually REQUIRES the ability to obtains COMPREHENSIVE and VERIFIABLE evidence.

D. I'm going to further assert that not only does this evidence not exist, but that it is IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN, by definition, because there is no way to measure or account for the POTENTIALITY of "hidden underground churches" which are out there, and which nobody knows about, and which are NOT part of some larger organization.

* The best you're going to be able to do is say, "certain organizations report xyx", but there is probably no way to verify if that information is even accurate, and there is certainly no way to account for underground churches which are outside of those reports.

* Therefore, this propositon falls...
because it is built on evidence which by definition cannot be comprehensive, and even if this proposition were true, there would be NO WAY to actually prove it was true, and therefore it cannot be used to support any claims.


4. We could go on, pointing out more logical problems with the assertions about Chinese underground churches, but I think point #3 above gives the general idea... we're probably making a lot of assertions about things for which there is no evidence which is both verifiable and comprehensive.

* Therefore, all or nearly all propositions about Chinese underground churches fall...
either because they CANNOT be supported by evidence which is both verifiable and comprehensive as outlined in #3 above, or because they are based in hyperbole as outlined in #5 below.



5. "There is a terrible misogyny in the conservative evangelical church, in the western world,"
This isn't any sort of verifiable statement of fact; this is just opinion, and a very emotional weighted opinion at that.



A. When a proposition is sheer opinion, that doesn't necessarily make it false, but it should, nevertheless, be separated from factual data.

B. When we're using words like "terrible"... that's a word which doesn't really mean anything, it's just hyperbole.
It's good rhetoric for persuasion, but that's all, it doesn't mean anything; it has no measurable or provable significance, and thus is has no significance.

C. The word "misogyny" is just as nebulous as the word "terrible."
It can be used, arbitrarily, to refer to pretty much anything... thus, it too is relegated to the world of hyperbole.
It represents nothing which can be proven, measured, or numbered... it's just hyperbole.

* Therefore, this whole proposition falls...
It falls under the weight of hyperbole, opinion, and zero facts or evidence, and zero potential facts or evidence, because... even if evidence were presented, it would be impossible to prove anything conclusive as: we can argue WITHOUT RESOLUTION as to whether or not that evidence is actually "terrible", or whether or not that evidence is actually "misogyny", and whether or that evidence is statistically significant and thus has any real bearing.



6. "I do find it interesting in a society which defends male superiority, that the church is dying."
This is a logical non sequitor which is based on a faulty premise... we have no proof that society "defends male superiority", and even if it does, it does not logically follow that a dying church is the result of the stated premise.


A. First of all, "male superiority" is another bit of hyperbole... it cannot be measured, or weighed, or proven.
It can, and is, defined many different ways, to the point it is virtually meaningless... it is nothing but an emotional buzzword used in feminist social movements.
The word can mean anything... therefore... it means nothing.
It's utter hyperbole.

B. If such a thing as "male superiority" could be defined in a way in which everyone could agree (which it cannot and will not) then we would STILL have to actually go out and try to measure everything in society by that particular definition.
None of this has been done, or can be done.

C. If we could both define "male superiority" in a way in which all would agree, and we could also measure all things in society by that definition (neither of which has been done, or can be done) then we would STILL have to define what PRECISELY it means to "defend it." And this would also be defined an infinite variety of different ways... and could yield no conclusive results.

D. If A, B, and C could be empirically proven (which they have not and cannot, because they're only dealing with hyperbole, which by definition cannot be measured) then it still WOULD NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW that the "church is dying" because of the premise.

* Thefore this proposition falls...
because the phrase "defends males superirority" is full of so much inherent hyperbole, and is so vague and meaningless, there are an entire host of different ways in which it can be PROVEN to be without meaning, and therefore without any kind of necessary causitive power to do ANYTHING. The proposition also falls because even if that phrase could be proven true (which it logically cannot) then it STILL would not necessarily follow that the "church is dying" because of the premise... it simply does not follow.



Angela,

Love you and appreciate you.
But I had to defend my gender,
even though I like women much better...
and they smell so nice.

: )