-
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.
- Status
C
The Bible limits women to not be PASTORS. The Bible tells women, in Titus 2, to teach younger women. So you have to look at the role of women in the church. Paul statement on silence, you have to look at the definition of silence: it is to "keep one's seat" to not be disruptive, to not usurp authority over men, but this was a matter of "everything was to be done with order" not disrupting. All women, as well as men, need to be soberminded, but Paul was not saying that women could not speak. He was talking about decent and orderly behavior of "keeping one's seat". Timothy clearly limits women from pastoring, but that is not the same thing as teaching women or speaking. If you limit a woman's verbal capacity, then you have 3/4 of your congregation dysfunctional. Women are to submit as well as all Christians, submission is the servant heart of every Christian, male or female. Paul sent Phebe to the church and told her to tell them her need. Jesus never dismissed any woman from speaking to him. Look at the definitions before you make a blanket statement that the thoughts and prayers of a woman cannot be heard in her church, but she is do so in sobermindedness and discretion.
Because this non-essential issue has not really mattered to me one way or the other, I probably will not vote. Besides, I do not see any option above that fits what I think.
So let me write it here.
Women can teach in the church, women can hold the office of a pastor if that women is not usurping authority. The issue for me is not one of position but one of submission. If my pastor asks me to stand up on a Sunday morning and preach, I would do it. I would not be usurping any authority if I was asked by the authority over me to do it. Whether or not a man would listen, only shows the heart of the man because God's word is the same, coming from a man, coming from an ass/donkey, or coming from a female. The tool he uses matters not, the authority in the Word is what matters.
T
T
So let me write it here.
Women can teach in the church, women can hold the office of a pastor if that women is not usurping authority. The issue for me is not one of position but one of submission. If my pastor asks me to stand up on a Sunday morning and preach, I would do it. I would not be usurping any authority if I was asked by the authority over me to do it. Whether or not a man would listen, only shows the heart of the man because God's word is the same, coming from a man, coming from an ass/donkey, or coming from a female. The tool he uses matters not, the authority in the Word is what matters.
T
T
S
When a builder takes on building a house the tools he uses to accomplish that task is extremely important. The wrong tools simply will not suffice or do the work that needs to be done and you run into problems. The man is an initiator and the woman is a responder. She is made in every way to respond to the man because God made her that way, physically, physiologically, biologically and reproductively. That is why the head of every woman is the man and the head of every man is Christ. The woman does not need to be a pastor and would not be called by God to be one. She can care for the flock of God in many different ways in her own family and in the lives of those in her local church. But the role and office of preaching and teaching has been given to the man because he is the initiator and God has made him to be just that. Adam was formed first and then the woman. God did not say to the woman that is was not good for her to be alone but He said that to the man and gave the woman to the man.
Question: "Women pastors / preachers? What does the Bible say about women in ministry?"
Answer: There is perhaps no more hotly debated issue in the church today than the issue of women serving as pastors/preachers. As a result, it is very important to not see this issue as men versus women. There are women who believe women should not serve as pastors and that the Bible places restrictions on the ministry of women, and there are men who believe women can serve as preachers and that there are no restrictions on women in ministry. This is not an issue of chauvinism or discrimination. It is an issue of biblical interpretation.
The Word of God proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12). In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created and the way in which sin entered the world (2 Timothy 2:13-14). God, through the apostle Paul, restricts women from serving in roles of teaching and/or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors, which definitely includes preaching to, teaching, and having spiritual authority over men.
There are many “objections” to this view of women in ministry. A common one is that Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated. However, 1 Timothy 2:11-14 nowhere mentions educational status. If education were a qualification for ministry, the majority of Jesus' disciples would not have been qualified. A second common objection is that Paul only restricted the women of Ephesus from teaching (1 Timothy was written to Timothy, who was the pastor of the church in Ephesus). The city of Ephesus was known for its temple to Artemis, a false Greek/Roman goddess. Women were the authority in the worship of Artemis. However, the book of 1 Timothy nowhere mentions Artemis, nor does Paul mention Artemis worship as a reason for the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.
A third common objection is that Paul is only referring to husbands and wives, not men and women in general. The Greek words in the passage could refer to husbands and wives; however, the basic meaning of the words refers to men and women. Further, the same Greek words are used in verses 8-10. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing (verse 8)? Are only wives to dress modestly, have good deeds, and worship God (verses 9-10)? Of course not. Verses 8-10 clearly refer to all men and women, not only husbands and wives. There is nothing in the context that would indicate a switch to husbands and wives in verses 11-14.
Yet another frequent objection to this interpretation of women in ministry is in relation to women who held positions of leadership in the Bible, specifically Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah in the Old Testament. This objection fails to note some significant factors. First, Deborah was the only female judge among 13 male judges. Huldah was the only female prophet among dozens of male prophets mentioned in the Bible. Miriam's only connection to leadership was being the sister of Moses and Aaron. The two most prominent women in the times of the Kings were Athaliah and Jezebel—hardly examples of godly female leadership. Most significantly, though, the authority of women in the Old Testament is not relevant to the issue. The book of 1 Timothy and the other Pastoral Epistles present a new paradigm for the church—the body of Christ—and that paradigm involves the authority structure for the church, not for the nation of Israel or any other Old Testament entity.
Similar arguments are made using Priscilla and Phoebe in the New Testament. In Acts 18, Priscilla and Aquila are presented as faithful ministers for Christ. Priscilla's name is mentioned first, perhaps indicating that she was more “prominent” in ministry than her husband. However, Priscilla is nowhere described as participating in a ministry activity that is in contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Priscilla and Aquila brought Apollos into their home and they both discipled him, explaining the Word of God to him more accurately (Acts 18:26).
In Romans 16:1, even if Phoebe is considered a “deaconess” instead of a “servant,” that does not indicate that Phoebe was a teacher in the church. “Able to teach” is given as a qualification for elders, but not deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). Elders/bishops/deacons are described as the “husband of one wife,” “a man whose children believe,” and “men worthy of respect.” Clearly the indication is that these qualifications refer to men. In addition, in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9, masculine pronouns are used exclusively to refer to elders/bishops/deacons.
The structure of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 makes the “reason” perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with “for” and gives the “cause” of Paul’s statement in verses 11-12. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because “Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived.” God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a “helper” for Adam. This order of creation has universal application in the family (Ephesians 5:22-33) and the church. The fact that Eve was deceived is also given as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men. This leads some to believe that women should not teach because they are more easily deceived. That concept is debatable, but if women are more easily deceived, why should they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are supposedly more easily deceived)? That is not what the text says. Women are not to teach men or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. As a result, God has given men the primary teaching authority in the church.
Many women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching, and helps. Much of the ministry of the local church depends on women. Women in the church are not restricted from public praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), only from having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and to proclaim the gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15).
God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers, or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership—in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching men or having spiritual authority over them. This logically would preclude women from serving as pastors/preachers. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with God’s plan and His gifting of them.
Answer: There is perhaps no more hotly debated issue in the church today than the issue of women serving as pastors/preachers. As a result, it is very important to not see this issue as men versus women. There are women who believe women should not serve as pastors and that the Bible places restrictions on the ministry of women, and there are men who believe women can serve as preachers and that there are no restrictions on women in ministry. This is not an issue of chauvinism or discrimination. It is an issue of biblical interpretation.
The Word of God proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12). In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created and the way in which sin entered the world (2 Timothy 2:13-14). God, through the apostle Paul, restricts women from serving in roles of teaching and/or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors, which definitely includes preaching to, teaching, and having spiritual authority over men.
There are many “objections” to this view of women in ministry. A common one is that Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated. However, 1 Timothy 2:11-14 nowhere mentions educational status. If education were a qualification for ministry, the majority of Jesus' disciples would not have been qualified. A second common objection is that Paul only restricted the women of Ephesus from teaching (1 Timothy was written to Timothy, who was the pastor of the church in Ephesus). The city of Ephesus was known for its temple to Artemis, a false Greek/Roman goddess. Women were the authority in the worship of Artemis. However, the book of 1 Timothy nowhere mentions Artemis, nor does Paul mention Artemis worship as a reason for the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.
A third common objection is that Paul is only referring to husbands and wives, not men and women in general. The Greek words in the passage could refer to husbands and wives; however, the basic meaning of the words refers to men and women. Further, the same Greek words are used in verses 8-10. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing (verse 8)? Are only wives to dress modestly, have good deeds, and worship God (verses 9-10)? Of course not. Verses 8-10 clearly refer to all men and women, not only husbands and wives. There is nothing in the context that would indicate a switch to husbands and wives in verses 11-14.
Yet another frequent objection to this interpretation of women in ministry is in relation to women who held positions of leadership in the Bible, specifically Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah in the Old Testament. This objection fails to note some significant factors. First, Deborah was the only female judge among 13 male judges. Huldah was the only female prophet among dozens of male prophets mentioned in the Bible. Miriam's only connection to leadership was being the sister of Moses and Aaron. The two most prominent women in the times of the Kings were Athaliah and Jezebel—hardly examples of godly female leadership. Most significantly, though, the authority of women in the Old Testament is not relevant to the issue. The book of 1 Timothy and the other Pastoral Epistles present a new paradigm for the church—the body of Christ—and that paradigm involves the authority structure for the church, not for the nation of Israel or any other Old Testament entity.
Similar arguments are made using Priscilla and Phoebe in the New Testament. In Acts 18, Priscilla and Aquila are presented as faithful ministers for Christ. Priscilla's name is mentioned first, perhaps indicating that she was more “prominent” in ministry than her husband. However, Priscilla is nowhere described as participating in a ministry activity that is in contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Priscilla and Aquila brought Apollos into their home and they both discipled him, explaining the Word of God to him more accurately (Acts 18:26).
In Romans 16:1, even if Phoebe is considered a “deaconess” instead of a “servant,” that does not indicate that Phoebe was a teacher in the church. “Able to teach” is given as a qualification for elders, but not deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). Elders/bishops/deacons are described as the “husband of one wife,” “a man whose children believe,” and “men worthy of respect.” Clearly the indication is that these qualifications refer to men. In addition, in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9, masculine pronouns are used exclusively to refer to elders/bishops/deacons.
The structure of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 makes the “reason” perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with “for” and gives the “cause” of Paul’s statement in verses 11-12. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because “Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived.” God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a “helper” for Adam. This order of creation has universal application in the family (Ephesians 5:22-33) and the church. The fact that Eve was deceived is also given as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men. This leads some to believe that women should not teach because they are more easily deceived. That concept is debatable, but if women are more easily deceived, why should they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are supposedly more easily deceived)? That is not what the text says. Women are not to teach men or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. As a result, God has given men the primary teaching authority in the church.
Many women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching, and helps. Much of the ministry of the local church depends on women. Women in the church are not restricted from public praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), only from having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and to proclaim the gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15).
God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers, or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership—in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching men or having spiritual authority over them. This logically would preclude women from serving as pastors/preachers. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with God’s plan and His gifting of them.
you just saidso I would take that you believe that a pastor has no authority but then you said
so which is it the pastor over seer of the flock has authority and woman can't have authority over man or no, the pastor has no authority, so woman can preach?????
and if you are under a lady pastor how does that line up with this verse :
1ti 3:2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
your reference verse is referring to salvation, and the time is addressing the people of the bible days or even to just the people of this said Church. just as verses about sacrificing animals for sin offering only applied to the jews of that time . for example all people in today's time are not grouped into either you are a jew or you are a greek so if we apply this verse to today's time then only people who are jews or either greek nationities are the ones that can be save or if we say that it is covering all areas and times of christianity, then there would be nothing wrong with Christians owning slaves today. so this verse is well out of contents of your application for it on this thread, dealing with women pastors
Ga 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Ga 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Last edited:
I know this is not going to go over well with some in here but if you will see it for what it is and that is the truth then maybe it will help some with this topic. the Bible never says that we are all created equally, man has said that, if the bible has said that all are created equally would we not had all been jews, would there be any poor people or rich people. we are all borned naked and with a sin nature and that's all the comparsion that is equal, some are born to be kings and some are born to be servants or let's go as far to say if we were all created equally then would we all not have the same body parts, I myself thank God that women are different from men, none of us today are even created the same as the first man and woman was created, however because of what they did God created all men and women, after that, to be born with that sin nature , why did I not get the Chance to be born and live a perfect obedient life for my Lord as Adam did, well that is not for the clay to ask the potter, why was woman made the weaker vessel that should have sorrow in child birth, that's not for the clay to ask the potter, but how does man blame Adam for it when we have a chance now through Christ to live that perfect life and we don't do it , or how do women blame eve for not being obedient to God when they too through Christ have a chance to do it, but rather let pride come in and say well I am no less than man, how dare the Chosen apostle to the Gentiles tell me that I can not have authority over man. the question that I have never seen asked on this topic is burning to come forth , if we believe that it was truely intended for God to use both men and women as the same servents with the same postitions shared equally, and paul was just abusing His God Giving authority over the Christian/gentile Church when He told us that women as not to usurp authority over man, then why did Jesus not choose 6 men and 6 women as the twelve disciples?
Joh 5:43I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
Joh 5:43I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
Isn't this entire thread an exercise in vanity?
Didn't we already go through this all in another thread?
I'm not getting too deep into it, and I'm not taking the poll, because we cited scriptures before, and nobody on the chauvinist side was trying to hear it. We talked about Deborah, and Ester, and Miriam, with Bible verses to match, and what we got back was NOT more Bible verses, but personal opinions.
I even saw mention on page 3 or 5 or something about the fact that G-d doesn't change. Well, that's perfect. If in biblical times, women could serve as judges, and prophets, and even the savior of the Israelite people, why then would He change His mind later? He didn't. PAUL decided all these things. But he didn't even (always) claim it as a word from G-d. He said outright "*I* do not allow a woman..."
It's just the Christian condition. A lot of churches are teaching that G-d DOES change His mind, that He wanted one thing from these people, in this time, and something else entirely from us today. "Dispensationalism" it's usually called, but I call it just another excuse of why "believers" don't believe they need to follow G-d's Word in its entirety. And so they look to the NT, for their way of life, not stopping to consider whether or how that meshes with the thousands of years of prophets, and doctrine, and worship that had already been in place up until that time.
Seriously, could any of you prove your points, about women being silent, and not having authority, WITHOUT Paul ?
I doubt it. And I've said it before, if someone is a true prophet of G-d, they'll come speaking the same Word of G-d we've always had. And if this is the case, it's a relatively minor issue, whether we accept that particular person as a prophet or not- as long as we follow G-d's Word, we WOULD still be following the words of that prophet, as well, assuming they ARE a true prophet.
HOWEVER, if they come preaching a DIFFERENT Word, then we must beware of their words. And yet again, that's where the Biblical debate ends. Every time I give concrete reason to question the canon, it kills the thread.
Didn't we already go through this all in another thread?
I'm not getting too deep into it, and I'm not taking the poll, because we cited scriptures before, and nobody on the chauvinist side was trying to hear it. We talked about Deborah, and Ester, and Miriam, with Bible verses to match, and what we got back was NOT more Bible verses, but personal opinions.
I even saw mention on page 3 or 5 or something about the fact that G-d doesn't change. Well, that's perfect. If in biblical times, women could serve as judges, and prophets, and even the savior of the Israelite people, why then would He change His mind later? He didn't. PAUL decided all these things. But he didn't even (always) claim it as a word from G-d. He said outright "*I* do not allow a woman..."
It's just the Christian condition. A lot of churches are teaching that G-d DOES change His mind, that He wanted one thing from these people, in this time, and something else entirely from us today. "Dispensationalism" it's usually called, but I call it just another excuse of why "believers" don't believe they need to follow G-d's Word in its entirety. And so they look to the NT, for their way of life, not stopping to consider whether or how that meshes with the thousands of years of prophets, and doctrine, and worship that had already been in place up until that time.
Seriously, could any of you prove your points, about women being silent, and not having authority, WITHOUT Paul ?
I doubt it. And I've said it before, if someone is a true prophet of G-d, they'll come speaking the same Word of G-d we've always had. And if this is the case, it's a relatively minor issue, whether we accept that particular person as a prophet or not- as long as we follow G-d's Word, we WOULD still be following the words of that prophet, as well, assuming they ARE a true prophet.
HOWEVER, if they come preaching a DIFFERENT Word, then we must beware of their words. And yet again, that's where the Biblical debate ends. Every time I give concrete reason to question the canon, it kills the thread.
Isn't this entire thread an exercise in vanity?
Didn't we already go through this all in another thread?
I'm not getting too deep into it, and I'm not taking the poll, because we cited scriptures before, and nobody on the chauvinist side was trying to hear it. We talked about Deborah, and Ester, and Miriam, with Bible verses to match, and what we got back was NOT more Bible verses, but personal opinions.
I even saw mention on page 3 or 5 or something about the fact that G-d doesn't change. Well, that's perfect. If in biblical times, women could serve as judges, and prophets, and even the savior of the Israelite people, why then would He change His mind later? He didn't. PAUL decided all these things. But he didn't even (always) claim it as a word from G-d. He said outright "*I* do not allow a woman..."
It's just the Christian condition. A lot of churches are teaching that G-d DOES change His mind, that He wanted one thing from these people, in this time, and something else entirely from us today. "Dispensationalism" it's usually called, but I call it just another excuse of why "believers" don't believe they need to follow G-d's Word in its entirety. And so they look to the NT, for their way of life, not stopping to consider whether or how that meshes with the thousands of years of prophets, and doctrine, and worship that had already been in place up until that time.
Seriously, could any of you prove your points, about women being silent, and not having authority, WITHOUT Paul ?
I doubt it. And I've said it before, if someone is a true prophet of G-d, they'll come speaking the same Word of G-d we've always had. And if this is the case, it's a relatively minor issue, whether we accept that particular person as a prophet or not- as long as we follow G-d's Word, we WOULD still be following the words of that prophet, as well, assuming they ARE a true prophet.
HOWEVER, if they come preaching a DIFFERENT Word, then we must beware of their words. And yet again, that's where the Biblical debate ends. Every time I give concrete reason to question the canon, it kills the thread.
Didn't we already go through this all in another thread?
I'm not getting too deep into it, and I'm not taking the poll, because we cited scriptures before, and nobody on the chauvinist side was trying to hear it. We talked about Deborah, and Ester, and Miriam, with Bible verses to match, and what we got back was NOT more Bible verses, but personal opinions.
I even saw mention on page 3 or 5 or something about the fact that G-d doesn't change. Well, that's perfect. If in biblical times, women could serve as judges, and prophets, and even the savior of the Israelite people, why then would He change His mind later? He didn't. PAUL decided all these things. But he didn't even (always) claim it as a word from G-d. He said outright "*I* do not allow a woman..."
It's just the Christian condition. A lot of churches are teaching that G-d DOES change His mind, that He wanted one thing from these people, in this time, and something else entirely from us today. "Dispensationalism" it's usually called, but I call it just another excuse of why "believers" don't believe they need to follow G-d's Word in its entirety. And so they look to the NT, for their way of life, not stopping to consider whether or how that meshes with the thousands of years of prophets, and doctrine, and worship that had already been in place up until that time.
Seriously, could any of you prove your points, about women being silent, and not having authority, WITHOUT Paul ?
I doubt it. And I've said it before, if someone is a true prophet of G-d, they'll come speaking the same Word of G-d we've always had. And if this is the case, it's a relatively minor issue, whether we accept that particular person as a prophet or not- as long as we follow G-d's Word, we WOULD still be following the words of that prophet, as well, assuming they ARE a true prophet.
HOWEVER, if they come preaching a DIFFERENT Word, then we must beware of their words. And yet again, that's where the Biblical debate ends. Every time I give concrete reason to question the canon, it kills the thread.
well you must not read all the posts because your statement about all these ladies were answered from scriptures a prophetess or even a prophet has no authority in the Church so there they shouldn't even be in the conversation, also a Judge even though they may judge some church people, have no authority in the Church, I have no ideal what you are talking with this statement
unless it referrs to Esther which I went into many scriptures on this one but to sum it up now esther's authority came from her postition as Queen. nothing to do with the Church again and even the King gave her Uncle the decree over the jewish people not esther, but even your term is very offensive, she may have through God, helped the jewish nation at that time. but to call her THE SAVIOR OF THE ISRAELITE PEOPLE, makes her equal with God For He is the SAVIOUR Of The ISRAEL NATIONS. now if you could show where it ever referred to someone other than God as THE saviour Then I will have to repent but unless you can, with this phrase THE SAVIOR you have asserted your opinion here instead of scriptures, as you charge others. she could have been call a saviour. but I am not sure that we can even find that in scriptures, and her getting to be queen was due to what God had revealed to Mordecai, so one could say that she was obedient to God and that God has not changed but that He still exspect His Children male or female to be obdedient, and if we are, He can raise us up to be a great help for His Kingdom
Last edited:
Thaddeus-
You mean, besides Yeshua?
How about 2 Kings 13:5 ?
That's a pretty silly thing to get offended over. There's "Savior" and "savior." One who saves is a "savior." That's just what the word means. It's not disrespectful to Messiah. And the Bible clearly shows that Ester was the savior of the Israelite people. Just as clearly, it shows that she gave a RELIGIOUS command, not through her office as queen, but to be delivered specifically to the people of her religion, through Mordecai.
Again, not to all the people of the kingdom, and not to the people of a certain province, ONLY to those who shared her religion, did she give this RELIGIOUS command. And of course, we all know the story ends well for them.
Alright, so I assume the above passage takes care of your issues with the use of the common noun ?
"authority in the church" ? Does the CHURCH have authority? Does G-d mandate us to have a million and one different churches all over the place, all teaching different things? Is that scriptural ?
In the Bible, we were commanded to make ONE Temple, and in the interim, ONE Tabernacle. Sure, we're told to go out and make converts, and preach the Word in all nations, but how much of our modern tradition of churches and their "authority" over us, can really be established using the Bible ?
It's just mind boggling that so many people can check their brains at the church door.
A woman is not supposed to have authority over a man. SO not only can women not take positions in the church.. That means women can't be coaches, which works out since they also can't be schoolteachers, they can't be security guards, or cops, they can't be judges, they can't work in collections, they can't be psychologists, or doctors of ANY kind, they can't work in Human Resources, or personnel... in fact ANY job a women might want to take is by definition a dead end job, since she can never hope to aspire to any position of any authority.
By this logic, women also can't be superintendants, or landlords, they shouldn't sit on a jury, if it's a man being accused of a crime.. I mean, where does it end? It doesn't sound like it does end... just a clear statement that a women should NEVER have authority over a man, that's what I'm hearing.
And gosh, then what is a WIDOW to do, if she has kids? She can't let a grown son stay with her, because she'd have authority over him. But nor can she ask him to move out, because that, too, would be authority over a man.
And in that case, should women even vote ? Or is it okay, as long as they vote the way their father or husband tells them to vote? Is it only wrong if women get together and vote their conscience AS a block of women voters ?
You mean, besides Yeshua?
How about 2 Kings 13:5 ?
That's a pretty silly thing to get offended over. There's "Savior" and "savior." One who saves is a "savior." That's just what the word means. It's not disrespectful to Messiah. And the Bible clearly shows that Ester was the savior of the Israelite people. Just as clearly, it shows that she gave a RELIGIOUS command, not through her office as queen, but to be delivered specifically to the people of her religion, through Mordecai.
Again, not to all the people of the kingdom, and not to the people of a certain province, ONLY to those who shared her religion, did she give this RELIGIOUS command. And of course, we all know the story ends well for them.
Alright, so I assume the above passage takes care of your issues with the use of the common noun ?
"authority in the church" ? Does the CHURCH have authority? Does G-d mandate us to have a million and one different churches all over the place, all teaching different things? Is that scriptural ?
In the Bible, we were commanded to make ONE Temple, and in the interim, ONE Tabernacle. Sure, we're told to go out and make converts, and preach the Word in all nations, but how much of our modern tradition of churches and their "authority" over us, can really be established using the Bible ?
It's just mind boggling that so many people can check their brains at the church door.
A woman is not supposed to have authority over a man. SO not only can women not take positions in the church.. That means women can't be coaches, which works out since they also can't be schoolteachers, they can't be security guards, or cops, they can't be judges, they can't work in collections, they can't be psychologists, or doctors of ANY kind, they can't work in Human Resources, or personnel... in fact ANY job a women might want to take is by definition a dead end job, since she can never hope to aspire to any position of any authority.
By this logic, women also can't be superintendants, or landlords, they shouldn't sit on a jury, if it's a man being accused of a crime.. I mean, where does it end? It doesn't sound like it does end... just a clear statement that a women should NEVER have authority over a man, that's what I'm hearing.
And gosh, then what is a WIDOW to do, if she has kids? She can't let a grown son stay with her, because she'd have authority over him. But nor can she ask him to move out, because that, too, would be authority over a man.
And in that case, should women even vote ? Or is it okay, as long as they vote the way their father or husband tells them to vote? Is it only wrong if women get together and vote their conscience AS a block of women voters ?
Last edited:
E
Isn't this entire thread an exercise in vanity?
Didn't we already go through this all in another thread?
I'm not getting too deep into it, and I'm not taking the poll, because we cited scriptures before, and nobody on the chauvinist side was trying to hear it. We talked about Deborah, and Ester, and Miriam, with Bible verses to match, and what we got back was NOT more Bible verses, but personal opinions.
I even saw mention on page 3 or 5 or something about the fact that G-d doesn't change. Well, that's perfect. If in biblical times, women could serve as judges, and prophets, and even the savior of the Israelite people, why then would He change His mind later? He didn't. PAUL decided all these things. But he didn't even (always) claim it as a word from G-d. He said outright "*I* do not allow a woman..."
It's just the Christian condition. A lot of churches are teaching that G-d DOES change His mind, that He wanted one thing from these people, in this time, and something else entirely from us today. "Dispensationalism" it's usually called, but I call it just another excuse of why "believers" don't believe they need to follow G-d's Word in its entirety. And so they look to the NT, for their way of life, not stopping to consider whether or how that meshes with the thousands of years of prophets, and doctrine, and worship that had already been in place up until that time.
Seriously, could any of you prove your points, about women being silent, and not having authority, WITHOUT Paul ?
I doubt it. And I've said it before, if someone is a true prophet of G-d, they'll come speaking the same Word of G-d we've always had. And if this is the case, it's a relatively minor issue, whether we accept that particular person as a prophet or not- as long as we follow G-d's Word, we WOULD still be following the words of that prophet, as well, assuming they ARE a true prophet.
HOWEVER, if they come preaching a DIFFERENT Word, then we must beware of their words. And yet again, that's where the Biblical debate ends. Every time I give concrete reason to question the canon, it kills the thread.
Didn't we already go through this all in another thread?
I'm not getting too deep into it, and I'm not taking the poll, because we cited scriptures before, and nobody on the chauvinist side was trying to hear it. We talked about Deborah, and Ester, and Miriam, with Bible verses to match, and what we got back was NOT more Bible verses, but personal opinions.
I even saw mention on page 3 or 5 or something about the fact that G-d doesn't change. Well, that's perfect. If in biblical times, women could serve as judges, and prophets, and even the savior of the Israelite people, why then would He change His mind later? He didn't. PAUL decided all these things. But he didn't even (always) claim it as a word from G-d. He said outright "*I* do not allow a woman..."
It's just the Christian condition. A lot of churches are teaching that G-d DOES change His mind, that He wanted one thing from these people, in this time, and something else entirely from us today. "Dispensationalism" it's usually called, but I call it just another excuse of why "believers" don't believe they need to follow G-d's Word in its entirety. And so they look to the NT, for their way of life, not stopping to consider whether or how that meshes with the thousands of years of prophets, and doctrine, and worship that had already been in place up until that time.
Seriously, could any of you prove your points, about women being silent, and not having authority, WITHOUT Paul ?
I doubt it. And I've said it before, if someone is a true prophet of G-d, they'll come speaking the same Word of G-d we've always had. And if this is the case, it's a relatively minor issue, whether we accept that particular person as a prophet or not- as long as we follow G-d's Word, we WOULD still be following the words of that prophet, as well, assuming they ARE a true prophet.
HOWEVER, if they come preaching a DIFFERENT Word, then we must beware of their words. And yet again, that's where the Biblical debate ends. Every time I give concrete reason to question the canon, it kills the thread.
I guess if you throw out ALL of Pauls VERY clear instructions on women teaching and having authority simply on the basis that a woman was allowed to be a "judge" in the old testament, with that logic you could also throw out the commandment on murder since there were murderers back then too. Get my point?
To basically say "yah, but if you dont listen to Paul then......" Well, guess what, we do have to listen to Paul!!! Why even follow Christianity if you discount what the bible says? I don't get it, sorry.
Sorry for the sarcasm but some of these posts are truly stunning to me in how people stretch, twist, turn , and mutilate things in the bible to align with their wishes rather than Gods. The instructions on the roles of men and women are stated clearly over and over and all say the same thing yet people put so much energy into fighting it rather than accepting it. I dont know why God chose it to be this way but He did and thats good enough for me.
It is sad that believers (including myself) spend so much time debating scripture rather than living it. I pray God will bring unity in the body of Christ and shut down the enemy who seeks to divide, deceive, and destroy.
You know what?
I understand fully that your knee jerk reaction is to look at it as if I'm picking whatever parts of the Bible I like, but I've had years to face that reaction from people. I does not bother me, and it's just not true.
You have any idea how much I used to love bacon ? That was hard to give up. But in the end, I'm glad I quit rationalizing why I didn't need to follow G-d's Word and just did it. Now that I'm on the outside of that mentality, I can see, how He's just looking out for me. Any "food" that makes a body sick if they're not accustomed to it, can't be too healthy for us. And G-d knows that, that's why He gives us His instructions. Not to just be a meanie and have a bunch of rules, but to protect us.
Or keeping the Sabbath? Shoot, that one began the separation that now exists between myself and my Christian brethren. Oh, and especially telling my bosses (at the time) for whom I'd worked for 2 and 4 years respectively, that I needed off from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown, all of a sudden. That wasn't easy or convenient, or what *I* wanted. One of those jobs was working at concerts. Friday tends to be a big night for that sort of thing. But what might be easy for me, doesn't mean that's what G-d wanted.
Heck even after I got saved, Friday was still a fun night. And I had to correct the Pastor running the church where I was saved, because I caught him preaching that Sunday was the L-rd's day, and Friday night was the devil's night. That sure wasn't fun at all. But if we're true to G-d's Word, we have to face uncomfortable things, and I'm willing to do so.
Feel free to attack the message, instead of the messenger.
My logic is both sound and clear. EVERY true prophet of G-d comes speaking the same Word of G-d that He gave us in the beginning. The problem is that Christianity doesn't realize or accept this. They tend to see the NT as a "new" message, instead of the same message. They don't realize that everything Messiah taught (with one single exception, WHICH He announced WAS A new command) actually came straight from the Torah. They don't realize that the new religion, which man created in Yeshua's Name, had very little to do with what He actually taught, which was Judaism.
And then we have Paul, who RARELY, if ever, even quoted Messiah's words.
How are we supposed to interpret THAT ? Paul, the only one who taught something different.. And if you don't like that approach, of basically "show me that these commands of Paul (which, he DOES admit at times are only HIS commands, not G-d's) are consistent with the Bible" than you can try the exercise the other way, too. If we ONLY had Paul, what would we know about this man, you all call "Jesus" ?
Only the Holy Spirit can convict somebody on this stuff. I'm just trying to get you guys thinking about it. Sure, Paul made some seriously deep insights at times. But that doesnt make him a prophet. Scripture never calls him a prophet. The apostles were able to write scripture without being a prophet, because they were acting as scribes for Messiah, who was a prophet (among other things). This precedent was set hundreds of years prior. Yet Paul doesn't record much of His coming and goings, or His teachings, at all. So without being a scribe of a prophet, yeah, you kinda need to be a prophet, to be rightly included in scripture.
I understand fully that your knee jerk reaction is to look at it as if I'm picking whatever parts of the Bible I like, but I've had years to face that reaction from people. I does not bother me, and it's just not true.
You have any idea how much I used to love bacon ? That was hard to give up. But in the end, I'm glad I quit rationalizing why I didn't need to follow G-d's Word and just did it. Now that I'm on the outside of that mentality, I can see, how He's just looking out for me. Any "food" that makes a body sick if they're not accustomed to it, can't be too healthy for us. And G-d knows that, that's why He gives us His instructions. Not to just be a meanie and have a bunch of rules, but to protect us.
Or keeping the Sabbath? Shoot, that one began the separation that now exists between myself and my Christian brethren. Oh, and especially telling my bosses (at the time) for whom I'd worked for 2 and 4 years respectively, that I needed off from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown, all of a sudden. That wasn't easy or convenient, or what *I* wanted. One of those jobs was working at concerts. Friday tends to be a big night for that sort of thing. But what might be easy for me, doesn't mean that's what G-d wanted.
Heck even after I got saved, Friday was still a fun night. And I had to correct the Pastor running the church where I was saved, because I caught him preaching that Sunday was the L-rd's day, and Friday night was the devil's night. That sure wasn't fun at all. But if we're true to G-d's Word, we have to face uncomfortable things, and I'm willing to do so.
Feel free to attack the message, instead of the messenger.
My logic is both sound and clear. EVERY true prophet of G-d comes speaking the same Word of G-d that He gave us in the beginning. The problem is that Christianity doesn't realize or accept this. They tend to see the NT as a "new" message, instead of the same message. They don't realize that everything Messiah taught (with one single exception, WHICH He announced WAS A new command) actually came straight from the Torah. They don't realize that the new religion, which man created in Yeshua's Name, had very little to do with what He actually taught, which was Judaism.
And then we have Paul, who RARELY, if ever, even quoted Messiah's words.
How are we supposed to interpret THAT ? Paul, the only one who taught something different.. And if you don't like that approach, of basically "show me that these commands of Paul (which, he DOES admit at times are only HIS commands, not G-d's) are consistent with the Bible" than you can try the exercise the other way, too. If we ONLY had Paul, what would we know about this man, you all call "Jesus" ?
Only the Holy Spirit can convict somebody on this stuff. I'm just trying to get you guys thinking about it. Sure, Paul made some seriously deep insights at times. But that doesnt make him a prophet. Scripture never calls him a prophet. The apostles were able to write scripture without being a prophet, because they were acting as scribes for Messiah, who was a prophet (among other things). This precedent was set hundreds of years prior. Yet Paul doesn't record much of His coming and goings, or His teachings, at all. So without being a scribe of a prophet, yeah, you kinda need to be a prophet, to be rightly included in scripture.
Last edited:
E
Im not sure how you can tell people to ignore Pauls teachings and then say you are not cherry picking the bible. What else would you call this? And if you are so used to hearing this from others, have you considered that it might just be true?
And if you are suggesting that the Holy Spirit is the one guiding you to discount Pauls teachings and encourage others to do the same, I have to question that as well.
And if you are suggesting that the Holy Spirit is the one guiding you to discount Pauls teachings and encourage others to do the same, I have to question that as well.
Last edited:
and after all mordecai and esther was used By God as well as others in this Bible Story , God protected and saved His Chosen people and He used Esther and Mordecai, so I am sure that esther herself is probably turning over in her grave cause she was given the Glory for saving Israel in the story, I mean shouldn't we give God the Glory, for esther was only used by God here to help Him get the Job done, so who shall we give the title of THE SAVIOUR of ISRAEL to Esther or God you make the Call, BUt I choose To give it to God
- Status