|
Bobbyaf (m)
|
@ Shahan @Bobbyaf, The reason why Paul wouldn't have rebuked me is that you're misquoting him and putting words in his mouth. Far from it. I have hinted to you that you have failed to provide a historical, as well as cultural context for Paul's church policy, because that is all it was. You have to learn to distinguish between Paul's need to create church policies due to situations, rather than see them as permanent doctrines, or dogmas. Any careful and proper research would have to highlight that Paul was dealing with an isolated case that was developing in some of the churches. If you take a good look at how Paul phrased his remarks you'd see the point. If we look at 1 Tim. 2:9-12, 9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. If we look carefully at the text, even without carefully researching cultural, or historical context, as important as they are, we already begin to see a context. From the outset let me ask a question. Why would Paul choose to bring up negativities unless he had good reasons to? I propose that a condition was already being developed that witnessed women in that environment, power playing their male counterpart for reasons known and unknown. The obvious fact is, Paul would not have had reasons for mentioning something as critical as this, unless circumstances never dictated it. One doesn't just arbitrarily make up rules, just for rules' sake, and certainly not with the intention of belittling women. In these instances however, Paul chose to address those women that were posing a problem, the nature of which was to counter argue, which led to confusion and disorder. In verse 9 Paul said: "in like manner also that women, " Paul wasn't just talking to women that were loosing their conservative values, but men also. Men too had their spiritual challenges, but besides that, there was obviously a band of women who saught to be more liberal in their manner of speech, and who even went as far as to challenge, even their husbands in the churches concerning issues. The constant pecking and bickering was enough for Paul to enact church policies, that were never meant to be used to make women look as if they have no role in teaching or preaching the word in the churches. In fact Acts 2:17,18 speaks to the very role that women would play in the last days, and no doubt these roles would be carried out within the churches. Listen to Peter as he proclaimed the obvious. 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: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: So all this un-necessary talk about women ursurping men if they teach them, can only find its true understanding when we look at the situation that Paul addressed. It has absolutely nothing to do with women teaching men in the present day churches today. As it stands more women respond to the christian call than men. I'd add to that fact that there are more homes being headed by matriarchs than patriarchs. I wonder what Paul would say if he were alive in our time? Do I suspect that you conveniently missed the texts I offered because SDA is spearheaded by a woman (Ellen G. White)?? Spear-headed you say?  , |
|
|
|
|
|
shahan (f)
|
@Bobbyaf,
Many times I wonder if you really go through posts before you make any entry. Are you badly in need of attention? The very things you pressumed were lacking in mine have been thoroughly thrashed; and so far nothing erudite has been highlighted in yours.
What is it in yours that you think I have not dealt with??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobbyaf (m)
|
@ Shahan @Bobbyaf,
Many times I wonder if you really go through posts before you make any entry. Are you badly in need of attention? The very things you pressumed were lacking in mine have been thoroughly thrashed; and so far nothing erudite has been highlighted in yours.
What is it in yours that you think I have not dealt with?? All that matters is what the bible says, not what you think is so. Besides, aren't you breaking your own ill-concieved ideas about women teaching men anyway? As a woman, and based on your understanding, however skewed it may be, why are you ursurping? |
|
|
|
|
|
shahan (f)
|
@Bobbyaf, All that matters is what the bible says, not what you think is so And I've shown precisely what the Bible says, and not what you think, thought, or are thinking. Besides, aren't you breaking your own ill-concieved ideas about women teaching men anyway? Welcome back to the Forum, JJC. We have been through this before and I thrashed it out as well. As a woman, and based on your understanding, however skewed it may be, why are you ursurping? "Usurping" - because you feel a tired-out chauvinistic complex already?? |
|
|
|
|
|
Bobbyaf (m)
|
@ Shahan Hahahahaha, you are so funny. , carry on with your mischief. |
|
|
|
|
|
shahan (f)
|
When your laughter has faded, you will find Jesus.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Bobbyaf (m)
|
Blessed be God that you have found Him.  |
|
|
|
|
|
mihai (m)
|
Yeah, I know it's kind of long, but please bear with me. Sorry I haven't replied in a while. School started again, so I'm guessing it'll be quite some time before I reply again, although I will try to drop by once in a while. And, like Bobbyaf said, it was very sound reasoning, Analytical, although somewhat flawed overall. Umm, interesting, I didn't know that the two Mary's where disciples, thought there were just 12, 13 if you count Matthias. And, why would the angel not count the two Mary's as disciples (as he says "go, and tell his disciples" , when, according to you, the Mary's where themselves disciples? Please note that the word disciple is not the same as follower, as follower is more broad, whereas the word "disciple," at the risk of sounding sexist, connotes a more personal relationship. @ Matt. 28 v. 10: The meaning of "brethren" referred to in verse ten is clearly elucidated in vs. 16 of the same chapter, no need to go to Luke, as each of these had their own accounts, although I will get to Luke later on. v. 16: "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, where Jesus had appointed them." @ Luke Very interesting passages, but you still have to read through the entire passages to fully understand. That aside for a while. I seriously did not know that Acts was written by Luke. Not as a challenge, but could you please send me a link or reference as to where you got that from? I mean, if I were asked where I got that Luke was the author of the Acts, I really wouldn't want to answer that I read it on a thread at Nairaland.com; doesn't really sound convincing Note: Acts 1 vs. 2: , Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen. 3: To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs (e.t.c.) Please note: the women, when he shewed himself unto them, did not require proof. The men, however, did, notably Thomas Didymus (St. John 20: 27, example). The commandments are, of course, the Great Commission, and as I said, the apostles referred to are the men. Acts 1 vs. 11: [the two men in white apparel] (e.t.c.) also said, Ye men of Galilee (e.t.c.) Which means that the entire first 10 verses of Acts 1 occurs solely in the presence of men. (although some might say that men, in this case, refers to both men and women, which I seriously doubt). 12: Then returned they unto Jerusalem e.t.c. 13: And when they ["ye men of Galilee"] were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, 14: These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. (brethren, in this case, I think refers to his half-brothers from Mary's marriage with/to Joseph; disputed b/c some believe Mary remained a virgin till her death). 15: And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples e.t.c. [clearly the 11, contrary to your claims], and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) This does not, as I said in the brackets, include the women amongst the number of disciples, neither does it claim that there were a hundred and twenty disciples. What it does claim is that there were 120 people gathered. Although it is a more archaic way of converse, the number simply refers to the number of names registered at the gathering. @ Acts 2: Dude, your mistake was in considering chapter 2 of Acts by itself. Read the rest of Chapter 1: after some stuff about Judas and his fall, 1 vs. 20: For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another man take. 21: Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22: (e.t.c.) must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. 24: And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men [note that, at least in my version (King James), emphasis is placed on the word men), shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25: That he [emphasis mine] may take part of this ministry and apostleship (e.t.c.) 26: And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. [note: the subject of discussion has now switched from the congregation, which included women, to the reconstructed 12 disciples] Acts 2: 1: And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. [as I said, this is no longer the 120, but the 12]. Just in case there's some doubt left, after the multi-lingual confession  , this happened: 14: But Peter, standing up with the eleven (e.t.c.) Last word: as you said, comparing scriptures with scriptures does indeed reveal truth, but please make sure to consider the whole scripture  . However, it was a very well crafted argument, I must give you that (had me seriously intimidated, lol). Again, sorry the reply took so long  @ Bobbyaf P.S.: According to Luke 24, those that Jesus talked to, after the women came and told the men of his rising and they didn't believe, were men (just in case), as verse 24 clearly states: And certain onf them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but they saw him not. Why refer to them as "the women," if they were also women. And listen to the next two verses, as Christ chastises them for not believing he'd risen (remember that the women believed, the men didn't). These same MEN were the ones verse 33 talks about that they "rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem e.t.c. Also note that their identity is verified when you look at verse 13 in accordance with verse 11: And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not. 13: And, behold, two of them went that same day e.t.c. [them in vs 11 referring to the apostles (vs. 10)]. |
|
|
|
|
|
bari_kade
|
@mihai, You've added to my understanding, for which I register my thanks. Here's a little help on your small enquiry: @ Luke Very interesting passages, but you still have to read through the entire passages to fully understand. That aside for a while. I seriously did not know that Acts was written by Luke. Not as a challenge, but could you please send me a link or reference as to where you got that from? I mean, if I were asked where I got that Luke was the author of the Acts, I really wouldn't want to answer that I read it on a thread at Nairaland.com; doesn't really sound convincing I'm persuaded that Luke is the author of both the Gospel of Luke and Acts. The Gospel begins with the following address: "It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus" [Luke 1:3]. Then Acts opens with: "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach" [Acts 1:1]. So, you see that Acts is a continuation of Luke's Gospel being addressed to the same recipient - "most excellent Theophilus." Today, both documents have the inprint of God's inspiration on them to be part of the Scriptures. Blessings. |
|
|
|
|
|
mihai (m)
|
@ Bari-kade Very Good, Bari-Kade, I appreciate your elucidation, for lack of a better word  . But I really do appreciate it, thank you. Sounds repetitive. |
|
|
|
|
|
Donzman (m)
|
@Bari_kade
Poor logic, could two different people not be writing to Theophilus?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bari_kade
|
@Donzman,
Hi. Can I ask if you have a suggestion for who the other author besides Luke might be?
Second, when you compare both texts already quoted, then you can't fail to miss the flow of the authorship. This is all the more buttressed by the clause in Acts 1:1 - "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus. . ." One therefore should ask what the former treatise points to - and it most certainly points to the Gospel of Luke.
Third, Biblical scholars have well established the authorship of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts as the same person. If two different people have been writing to Theophilus, where is the former treatise that the second author penned?
In all, I would like to see your own suggestion about who the second or other author is, according to the logic that appeals to you.
Blessings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Analytical (m)
|
Thanks Bari_Kade for the replies. You've said what I wanted to. Mihai and Donzman take note.
But for the other rejoinders in mihai's post, please refer to my post again and study the references.
Peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
mihai (m)
|
If you read my entire post, long as it is, you would realize that I studied the references. The COMPLETE REFERENCE. Please realize that when siting references, the reader will not read just the verse you point to, because you will of course put in verses that support your position. Also realize that when siting references, it usually helps to make sure that the reference does actually support your position. And how do you do that? By reading and digesting the verses before and after your verse. I mean, if you're just going to look at single verses, then any position can be supported, but look at it in its wholeness, and some arguments are damned.
So take this advice, study the reference more completely.
All my arguments are taken from Biblical sources, all from the Gospels or the following Chapters. I think I've done my part in [attempting] to elucidate you. And, as you said, we all have our opinions. Mine just happens to be that women are equal to men in the sight of God. I'd rather not say whether or not they're allowed to preach or not, but if anyone brings up a good point, I am obliged to listen and learn. Noone knows everything. As I said (I think) in my first few posts, I'm just trying to learn, the following were arguments, as I see it, based on the Bible, but also based on the Bible in its completeness, not just on the verses I like. (Speaking personally, I was of your persuasion before reading the thread. However, my mind was changed when considering the passages.) I am open to further argument, and maybe persuasion, but that will have to happen on another forum.
Blessed by the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
Amen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Analytical (m)
|
Mihai,
Why would you think I just posted single verses of passages I've not digested before posting? I've shown from both the very account in Matthew and parallel account of the same event in luke and events shortly after in Acts, still refering to the same disciples, both men and women.
What more further persuasion do I give than to commend you to the hands of the One that gave the charge in the first place! I'm not the Holy Spirit- He is the one that teaches us all truth. May He continue to illuminate our hearts and grant us more understanding.
Peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bari_kade
|
@All,
I've thoroughly enjoyed the discussion (rather than debate) handled from all sides to the topic, especially the comprehensive analysis of Scriptures and the various shades of possible meanings of preaching, teaching, praying, prophesying, exhorting, speaking, and usurping authority.
The distinctions in contexts of "in the churches" and "in the home" and other settings have been quite helpful; as well as pointing out the equality and differences between the sexes in 1creation, 2salvation and 3service.[/i]
At the end of the day, I've become convinced that men and women have clearly distinguished roles in both the home and in the church; and the various arguments that they are just about the same haven't been convincing at all. There again, just my summation.
Perhaps, it might be the right moment to propose these questions:
(1) For those who feel persuaded that women and men are called to do exactly the same things in the churches, can we ask why the Bible seems to have featured men more prominently than women in the various activities outlined in Scripture?
(2) For those who recognise a distinction of roles in the church between the sexes, can we ask what kind of activites women can actually be involved with in the church?
Thank you and may God bless you all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Analytical (m)
|
@mihai How did I miss these: 15: And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples e.t.c. [clearly the 11, contrary to your claims], and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
This does not, as I said in the brackets, include the women amongst the number of disciples, neither does it claim that there were a hundred and twenty disciples. What it does claim is that there were 120 people gathered. Although it is a more archaic way of converse, the number simply refers to the number of names registered at the gathering. Acts 2: 1: And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. [as I said, this is no longer the 120, but the 12]. Just in case there's some doubt left, after the multi-lingual confession , this happened: 14: But Peter, standing up with the eleven (e.t.c.) You are wrong, you know? This is how. From your post above, you are saying just the 11 disciples were gathered and that the 120 were not disciples but just crowd. Now, if the disciples that gathered were just the 11 where did the two disciples put forward, ie Joseph Barnabas and Matthias, come from? Were they disciples too, or just part of the crowd? Read what Peter said very well for the criteria to choose the person to replace Judas. He (the person to be chosen) must have been with them from the start of Jesus ministry at the baptism of John to the day He ascended (vs 21). Clearly these two men were disciples, and not just crowd, and they were part of the about 120 disciples present, both men and women. Also, from the criteria in vs 21, they were also present when Jesus was taken up from them at the ascension. That means not just 11 disciples were there at that day of the ascension as witnesses, contrary to what you wrote. Other disciples, of which are Barnabas and Matthias, were also present, according to Peter. Mind you, it was that same day of the ascension that He gave that Great Commision in Matt. 28:19! Now, these same about 120 disciples (men and women) were the ones that were together in one place (likely the same upper room) at the day of Pentecost. Remember by this time Matthias had replaced Judas, to make the 12. Are you now suggesting that Joseph Barnabas was no longer part of the disciples or that he left after he wasn't chosen and therefore was not part of the Pentecost experience? Notice that when they were all speaking in tongues and Peter stood up, he had to quote Joel, that that day was that coming to pass. Part of that passage says 'your daughters shall prophesy' to explain the presence of the women as well! |
|
|
|
|
|
kellorah (f)
|
if they want to preach, fine by me! |
|
|
|
|
|
Bobbyaf (m)
|
And there is absolutely nothing to stop them either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nite Angel (m)
|
Asking women not to preach is simply a way of making them second class citizens even in the house of God. Any woman called to the pulpit should do so without fear or favour and have the support of men. I've met female preachers who are well vast in the WORD. I have listened to male preachers who for the joy of making women home makers or home school teachers have preached against this.
Read your Bible, aint there instances where God chose to work with a woman instead of a man. The disciples may have been men but its common sense that a man who is single and moving from town to town in ministry will choose to work with men.
Let's remove marks from "eko", "eko" no get marks, na d leaves wey them take wrap am give am marks.
Women are called to be preachers and women should preach, not only to women but to men (may be we no longer have just men and women o, before you blame me of being bias), every living soul.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Backslider (m)
|
It depends on which God you are talking of.
If its the house of ballam then women can preach
|
|
|
|
|
|
bimpe001 (f)
|
Is there any post here that talks about women staying at home and not working because the bible says that women should be keepers at home.
So that means that irrespective of your degree and whatever you have learnt or gotten,as long as you are married,you are supposed to remain at home and be subject to cleaning,cooking and taking care of the kids for the rest of your lives.
Women!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
phillip001
|
t
the most anioying part of it, is that all these posters are not born again,
the woman jesus met asked him. -----"
your people said that we ought to pray in the church(synagauge) and our people said it should be in the mountain, now tell me where we ought to pray."
you all know the story,
the question should be ami born again,
ami living in sin or not,
do i say what i don't to,
do i have any feeling for God to do His will
please read this
ecclesiastes 12:13
thank you for reading this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
elizabetta (f)
|
Women should preach,they bibles say we should go preach the gospel to everyone.But a woman cannot be a preacher of a church except the members of that church are only women.please read 1Tim1:15,3:16.here you will understand why women cannot have positions where men are present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
dreamnaira (m)
|
I think poster, you should paraphrase the question well. Maybe your talking of women ORDINATION, in that case the Bible did not teach us that.
You can ask why among the 12 apostle there is no woman chosen?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Backslider (m)
|
@drean naira
Very true.
There should be Ordination of Women
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jagoon
|
Posts: 14
The Bible Forbids Women From Being Pastors / Church Leaders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Corinthians 14 : 34-35 The women should keep quiet in the meetings. They are not allowed to speak as the law says, they must not be in charge. If they want to findout something, they should ask their husbands at home. It is a disgraceful thing for a woman to speak in a church meeting.[1
Passage 1 Timothy 2:8-14:
8I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.
9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner
The bible is so clear on this topic wether women should be allowed to preach in churches or not, yet some hyprocrites who claim to believe the bible would be turning the bible upside down and looking for loop holes, creating illogical logic just to prove a point that doesn't exist. I know some pastors encourage ther wives to preach in church because they see it as a family business. and th wife needs to be positioned to take over the business if something happens to the pastor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
niman (m)
|
in my view women can peach everywhere, !
|
|
|
|
|
|
syrup (f)
|
The Bible Forbids Women From Being Pastors / Church Leaders Hi. I think you should have calmed down to reason with others instead of flying off the pan and assuming that others are hypocrites. The topic is "Should Women Preach"? It is quite a different matter from whether they can be pastors or church leaders. I do hope that you understand there is a difference between preaching and teaching? |
|
|
|
|
|
Jagoon
|
in my view women can peach everywhere, !
your opinion doesn't matter, what matters is the bible's opinion and this is clearly stated in 1 corintians 14 :34-35 & 1 timothy 2 : 8-14 |
|
|
|
|
|
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Poll
Author
