debosky:
Personally, the best one can say is that Paul was simply recognising the societal hierarchy at the time and giving his own opinion, and not divine instruction. In absence of this, you can't really justify women leading congregations looking at Paul's teachings.

^that, my opinion on the matter.

Tgirl4real:

Lol. We can't fight na. Haba!

To your post: what Jesus protrayed to us is that with God (in terms of salvation) there is no Jew or Gentile, Male or female, bond or free, rich or poor. We are all one in God's sight. However, we have different roles. Jesus accepting women and seeking that they being treated right doesn't mean they have the mandate to usurp authority. The same way he didn't tamper with the 'Head' authority in the home. The man is still the head of the family.

If Jesus was preaching that women can be elders, then he would have included @ least one woman when he selected his disciples or better still make them 6 males and 6 females to ensure gender equality.

Another flaw I see in this your position is that you are trying to say that some part of scriptures are greater than the other. So therefore, Jesus' words should be held over the other instructions contained therein. That is not right.

The word of God is one and there is no contradiction.

no fight at all jare I view the issue in line with Debosky's quote above.

On Jesus not having female disciples...some years ago, I travelled with a group other musicians from my label for a show. I was the only female and it complicated a ton of things...where I would sit in the car, at the hotel there weren't enough rooms so all the guys had to clear out for only me, at the show they had to ensure I got enough time, afterwards there was the afterparty - they had to extra cautious with their convo, jokes etc etc...in short I couldn't help but feel like I was creating such a fuss for everyone.
I think Jesus having a female disciple would've been similar. Not that it was wrong or out of place, but just not logistically convenient for everyone. Women also have physical limitations men don't have (period, pregnancy etc etc) and I acknowledge that.

On the issue of "some scriptures greater than others". I view it this way - Jesus is the baseline, the foundation and everyone else's words/teachings/commands must be interpreted relative to that foundation. I see the radical way Jesus related with women and it leads me to believe a rigid interpretation of Paul's instructions cannot be right as it would be inconsistent.

Of course ^these are my persuations. May God in His mercy reveal His word to us that we may rightfully divide and apply and especially correct that which we have wrong (cos we all have at least one thing wrong ).

Cheers my dear sister.

JeSoul: ^that, my opinion on the matter.

no fight at all jare I view the issue in line with Debosky's quote above.

On Jesus not having female disciples...some years ago, I travelled with a group other musicians from my label for a show. I was the only female and it complicated a ton of things...where I would sit in the car, at the hotel there weren't enough rooms so all the guys had to clear out for only me, at the show they had to ensure I got enough time, afterwards there was the afterparty - they had to extra cautious with their convo, jokes etc etc...in short I couldn't help but feel like I was creating such a fuss for everyone.
I think Jesus having a female disciple would've been similar. Not that it was wrong or out of place, but just not logistically convenient for everyone. Women also have physical limitations men don't have (period, pregnancy etc etc) and I acknowledge that.

On the issue of "some scriptures greater than others". I view it this way - Jesus is the baseline, the foundation and everyone else's words/teachings/commands must be interpreted relative to that foundation. I see the radical way Jesus related with women and it leads me to believe a rigid interpretation of Paul's instructions cannot be right as it would be inconsistent.

Of course ^these are my persuations. May God in His mercy reveal His word to us that we may rightfully divide and apply and especially correct that which we have wrong (cos we all have at least one thing wrong ).

Cheers my dear sister.

my dear sister, you are speculating based on your experience. The truth is that there is no scriptural basis for your argument. You just want to satisfy your ego rather than submit to laid down principles.

There's nothing wrong with women as pastors or heading a church. The work of a church head is a very powerful position spiritually, if the husband of the woman was very spiritually inclined and had decided to work with his wife to the depths, then she has no problem.

.... Women are suppose to be submissive to their husband and meet every of his human needs. Since the man is the head, what ever need she refuse to meet can be counted as disobedience, and this is not good for her ministry.

God would rather use single women or widows more than he would use a married lady, so as to avoid a conflict of interest. You know It won't be nice when when the husband says I want to eat pounded yam this evening and the woman says God asked me to go out now and speak with someone......no no no no...

Probably why Things are the way they are. I hope I've helped.

A woman can not be submisive to two heads. Its either she serves her husband or she serves God.

It all has to do with the husbands of the female pastors. That's where it all lies.

oiseworld: There's nothing wrong with women as pastors or heading a church. The work of a church head is a very powerful position spiritually, if the husband of the woman was very spiritually inclined and had decided to work with his wife to the depths, then she has no problem.

.... Women are suppose to be submissive to their husband and meet every of his human needs. Since the man is the head, what ever need she refuse to meet can be counted as disobedience, and this is not good for her ministry.

God would rather use single women or widows more than he would use a married lady, so as to avoid a conflict of interest. You know It won't be nice when when the husband says I want to eat pounded yam this evening and the woman says God asked me to go out now and speak with someone......no no no no...

Probably why time are the way they are. I hope I've helped.

^kindly give us one quote from the scripture to support all these things you wrote.

Boomark:

^kindly give us one quote from the scripture to support all these things you wrote.

let the spirit minister to you.

Eph 5:22, 1peter 3:1, clo 3:18.
Its a straight forward thing.


Eph 5:12

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

oiseworld:

let the spirit minister to you.

Eph 5:22, 1peter 3:1, clo 3:18.
Its a straight forward thing.


Eph 5:12

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

marriage is different from church.

JeSoul: ^that, my opinion on the matter.

no fight at all jare I view the issue in line with Debosky's quote above.

On Jesus not having female disciples...some years ago, I travelled with a group other musicians from my label for a show. I was the only female and it complicated a ton of things...where I would sit in the car, at the hotel there weren't enough rooms so all the guys had to clear out for only me, at the show they had to ensure I got enough time, afterwards there was the afterparty - they had to extra cautious with their convo, jokes etc etc...in short I couldn't help but feel like I was creating such a fuss for everyone.
I think Jesus having a female disciple would've been similar. Not that it was wrong or out of place, but just not logistically convenient for everyone. Women also have physical limitations men don't have (period, pregnancy etc etc) and I acknowledge that.

On the issue of "some scriptures greater than others". I view it this way - Jesus is the baseline, the foundation and everyone else's words/teachings/commands must be interpreted relative to that foundation. I see the radical way Jesus related with women and it leads me to believe a rigid interpretation of Paul's instructions cannot be right as it would be inconsistent.

Of course ^these are my persuations. May God in His mercy reveal His word to us that we may rightfully divide and apply and especially correct that which we have wrong (cos we all have at least one thing wrong ).

Cheers my dear sister.

My dear sis, there is nothing like personal opinion of scriptures, it's either it says it or it doesn't. Speculations aint supported.

Secondly, we don't use our personal experience to interprete scriptures, it's the other way round.

Furthermore, are u saying Paul treated women less, differently than Jesus did? Paul also made use of the service of women all through his ministry, but he did it scripturally giving each (male' female) it's place.

Let's for once go with your experience with the music group you narrated. You thought out reasons why Jesus couldn't have had a female disciple, shouldn't the same reasons apply to female pastors today? The last time I checked, women still get pregnant, have menstral flow and take care of the home. Why change the order of things to soothe you Jesoul.

fem30: my dear sister, you are speculating based on your experience. The truth is that there is no scriptural basis for your argument. You just want to satisfy your ego rather than submit to laid down principles.

Very well said. I need not have replied reading this your response.

Tgirl4real: My dear sis, there is nothing like personal opinion of scriptures, it's either it says it or it doesn't. Speculations aint supported.

There are some things that aren’t as clear cut as that - there are instances where a personal opinion/decision is taken. For example, Paul insisted on working and minimising any support he received from congregations as a personal decision - however it is not wrong to get support from congregations/churches.

Secondly, even in some matters, Paul says this in Philippians 3:15 All of us, then, who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.

There are certain issues that we shouldn’t be dogmatic about and should allow God to make it clear to us.

Let's for once go with your experience with the music group you narrated. You thought out reasons why Jesus couldn't have had a female disciple, shouldn't the same reasons apply to female pastors today? The last time I checked, women still get pregnant, have menstral flow and take care of the home. Why change the order of things to soothe you Jesoul.

I think you miss the point - she is explaining why she thinks it was unsuitable to have female disciples given the practicalities of the nomadic existence Jesus and his disciples lived. That is a different issue altogether and isn't the same as pastoring a congregation.

The Roman law in application at the time also had restrictions against women speaking out in public - it is possible that Paul’s instruction was in line with this. See Clarke’s commentary on the bible:

Nor to usurp authority - A woman should attempt nothing, either in public or private, that belongs to man as his peculiar function. This was prohibited by the Roman laws

debosky:

The Roman law in application at the time also had restrictions against women speaking out in public - it is possible that Paul’s instruction was in line with this. See Clarke’s commentary on the bible:

Nor to usurp authority - A woman should attempt nothing, either in public or private, that belongs to man as his peculiar function. This was prohibited by the Roman laws

so far so good from you except this ^^^.

well, from this ^^ in your post are we to rule out the action of the holyspirit in all of paul's writing or we should take some and leave some out?

Can we say it is not a hard and fast rule when it comes to women leading the congregation?

Considering that "the Romans influence him".
(hopeing i did not misunderstood you)
peace.

oiseworld:

let the spirit minister to you.

Eph 5:22, 1peter 3:1, clo 3:18.
Its a straight forward thing.


Eph 5:12

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

So what did the spirit say about how all these things imply that wives should teach their husbands in church?

@debosky

Boomark:

1 Corinthians 14:37-39
37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by theSpirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.
39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

God is not a "respecter" of any Romans law. If he is then, the apostles wount have preached about Christ. I know it is difficult to accept especially if you are involved. But....

This is the Lord's command not a Roman law.

debosky:

There are some things that aren’t as clear cut as that - there are instances where a personal opinion/decision is taken. For example, Paul insisted on working and minimising any support he received from congregations as a personal decision - however it is not wrong to get support from congregations/churches.

Secondly, even in some matters, Paul says this in Philippians 3:15 All of us, then, who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.

There are certain issues that we shouldn’t be dogmatic about and should allow God to make it clear to us.



I think you miss the point - she is explaining why she thinks it was unsuitable to have female disciples given the practicalities of the nomadic existence Jesus and his disciples lived. That is a different issue altogether and isn't the same as pastoring a congregation.

The Roman law in application at the time also had restrictions against women speaking out in public - it is possible that Paul’s instruction was in line with this. See Clarke’s commentary on the bible:

Nor to usurp authority - A woman should attempt nothing, either in public or private, that belongs to man as his peculiar function. This was prohibited by the Roman laws

Infact I have nothing else to add to or subtract from this. Debosky's explanation here is exactly my point.

@Tgirl, thanks for the reply sister. Please respond to Debosky's post...

fem30: my dear sister, you are speculating based on your experience. The truth is that there is no scriptural basis for your argument. You just want to satisfy your ego rather than submit to laid down principles.

No wahala. May God continue to reveal His word to us. Amen!

debosky:

There are some things that aren’t as clear cut as that - there are instances where a personal opinion/decision is taken. For example, Paul insisted on working and minimising any support he received from congregations as a personal decision - however it is not wrong to get support from congregations/churches.

Sir, are you now saying in the church of God "any thing goes"? That's what it sounds like to me. The example you gave isn't applicable to the issue on ground.

We have essential matters and non-essentials. When you are talking about order of worship, doctrinal issues, commandments and instrictions; we can't gamble cos they are issues fundamental to our Christian faith. May be you don't see the danger/error is this your position. You are saying a matter that has a clear-cut instruction about it in scriptures should be left to speculation and personal preference. That is dangerous!

On non-essential issues, we are free to go whichever way we want as long as it's within the confines of scriptures.

Secondly, even in some matters, Paul says this in Philippians 3:15 All of us, then, who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.

There are certain issues that we shouldn’t be dogmatic about and should allow God to make it clear to us.

The topic of discourse isn't one of such issues. And brother, u seem to have quoted that scripture out of context.

I think you miss the point - she is explaining why she thinks it was unsuitable to have female disciples given the practicalities of the nomadic existence Jesus and his disciples lived. That is a different issue altogether and isn't the same as pastoring a congregation.

The Roman law in application at the time also had restrictions against women speaking out in public - it is possible that Paul’s instruction was in line with this. See Clarke’s commentary on the bible:

Nor to usurp authority - A woman should attempt nothing, either in public or private, that belongs to man as his peculiar function. This was prohibited by the Roman laws

See speculation again. Lol. Thank God for knowledge of scriptures.

I got Jesoul's point loud and clear. I was only trying to point out the error in that example. Being a pastor has it's own "rigourity". That excuse she gave on behalf of Jesus can't hold water. And I'm glad we still have access to the words and activities of Jesus Christ while on earth.

Bookmark already responded to the Roman Law thingy.

We seem not to understand the danger of this postion.taking this position is saying the word of God is not absolute and that it is subject to speculations and personal interpretation/opinion. If we take this standpoint, what's the point of defending the bible against what atheist and other religions accuse it of?

God bless.

Boomark:

So what did the spirit say about how all these things imply that wives should teach their husbands in church?

Don't misinterprets the Bible. God can use anyone as long as the person is willing and available.

Women can teach,preach and head a church. They are also vessels like their male folks. So like I said earlier, the problem with women in ministry is their total submission to the use of God. Pastoral job is not a working day job or an 8-5 job, its a 24/7 job. That is difficult for a married woman to do...She can support her husband in ministry but she is still subject to him.

women who are under the grip of a man MAY not be able to perform in full capacity, you can tell them from the beginning,they hide from certain duties and give excuses lots of times. They use their husbands and family duties to dodge difficult church work. The ones that have the zeal(married or not) will always want to stick their heads out at all times.... And u know women, you can't sideline them wen they are all out.



That's what the spirit says.

it all boils down to how much faith we have in the bible as being God's word.

oiseworld:

Don't misinterprets the Bible. God can use anyone as long as the person is willing and available.

Women can teach,preach and head a church. They are also vessels like their male folks. So like I said earlier, the problem with women in ministry is their total submission to the use of God. Pastoral job is not a working day job or an 8-5 job, its a 24/7 job. That is difficult for a married woman to do...She can support her husband in ministry but she is still subject to him.

women who are under the grip of a man MAY not be able to perform in full capacity, you can tell them from the beginning,they hide from certain duties and give excuses lots of times. They use their husbands and family duties to dodge difficult church work. The ones that have the zeal(married or not) will always want to stick their heads out at all times.... And u know women, you can't sideline them wen they are all out.



That's what the spirit says.

Lol. Thanks for the revelation knowledge.

Can we now know what the word says since that spirit u quoted can't be verified?

Tgirl4real:
Sir, are you now saying in the church of God "any thing goes"? That's what it sounds like to me. The example you gave isn't applicable to the issue on ground.

Not at all - I am saying not all issues are to be held on to dogmatically. There is room for differing opinion on some (not all) subjects.

We have essential matters and non-essentials. When you are talking about order of worship, doctrinal issues, commandments and instrictions; we can't gamble cos they are issues fundamental to our Christian faith. May be you don't see the danger/error is this your position. You are saying a matter that has a clear-cut instruction about it in scriptures should be left to speculation and personal preference. That is dangerous!

I don't consider who teaches as an essential matter - after all Timothy to whom the letter was written was taught a great deal of what he knew by his mother/grandmother and he was a man.

The topic of discourse isn't one of such issues. And brother, u seem to have quoted that scripture out of context.

Please don't misunderstand me - I am only trying to highlight that there are issues where personal conviction is permitted to take hold.

See speculation again. Lol. Thank God for knowledge of scriptures.

It isn't speculation to say that Roman laws required women not to speak in public gatherings - all I have said is that this may have been in Paul's mind as he wrote this.

I got Jesoul's point loud and clear. I was only trying to point out the error in that example. Being a pastor has it's own "rigourity". That excuse she gave on behalf of Jesus can't hold water. And I'm glad we still have access to the words and activities of Jesus Christ while on earth.

The 'excuse' as you call it, was just an example of how the practicalities can affect such decisions, it's not a statement of fact as the reason why there were no female disciples.

We seem not to understand the danger of this postion.taking this position is saying the word of God is not absolute and that it is subject to speculations and personal interpretation/opinion. If we take this standpoint, what's the point of defending the bible against what atheist and other religions accuse it of?

When I am discussing with Christians I expect we are both starting from the same foundation - belief in the God inspired nature of the scriptures. I am not one of those that want to 'protect' scripture by refusing to engage in discourse on issues we might understand differently.

The Word of God needs to be understood in context - that is all I am saying. If we go down the path of 'absolutes' - then women should not go into the 'temple' when the red robot visits every month, nor should we wear clothes with different fabrics joined together. Context is very important and needs to be considered when setting down what is considered essential.

debosky:

Not at all - I am saying not all issues are to be held on to dogmatically. There is room for differing opinion on some (not all) subjects.

But u sure know the issue of authority in the church isn't one of such issues.

I don't consider who teaches as an essential matter - after all Timothy to whom the letter was written was taught a great deal of what he knew by his mother/grandmother and he was a man.

The bone of contention here is woman headship role which includes teaching. It is essential.

Please don't misunderstand me - I am only trying to highlight that there are issues where personal conviction is permitted to take hold.

Yes. Such as deciding to be celibate. Deciding to marry a fair Christian lady. Deciding to go into full time ministry. Deciding to have 2 kids. Deciding to choose one bible believing church over another. Deciding to give a huge percentage of your income to support the church. It certainly does not apply to issues we have specific instructions on.

It isn't speculation to say that Roman laws required women not to speak in public gatherings - all I have said is that this may have been in Paul's mind as he wrote this.

You are right. All I am trying to say is that we shouldn't speculate what is in Paul's mind when it is clearly written in scriptures.

The 'excuse' as you call it, was just an example of how the practicalities can affect such decisions, it's not a statement of fact as the reason why there were no female disciples.

OK.

When I am discussing with Christians I expect we are both starting from the same foundation - belief in the God inspired nature of the scriptures. I am not one of those that want to 'protect' scripture by refusing to engage in discourse on issues we might understand differently.

The Word of God needs to be understood in context - that is all I am saying. If we go down the path of 'absolutes' - then women should not go into the 'temple' when the red robot visits every month, nor should we wear clothes with different fabrics joined together. Context is very important and needs to be considered when setting down what is considered essential.

I about saying I agree with you till I read the highlighted.

We both know that isn't applicable anymore Debosky. You are the one going out of context here.

oiseworld:

Don't misinterprets the Bible. God can use anyone as long as the person is willing and available.

Women can teach,preach and head a church. They are also vessels like their male folks. So like I said earlier, the problem with women in ministry is their total submission to the use of God. Pastoral job is not a working day job or an 8-5 job, its a 24/7 job. That is difficult for a married woman to do...She can support her husband in ministry but she is still subject to him.

women who are under the grip of a man MAY not be able to perform in full capacity, you can tell them from the beginning,they hide from certain duties and give excuses lots of times. They use their husbands and family duties to dodge difficult church work. The ones that have the zeal(married or not) will always want to stick their heads out at all times.... And u know women, you can't sideline them wen they are all out.

That's what the spirit says.

where is the proof? No proof? If you are a woman, the Lord said He doesn't want to use you as a teacher. If you go ahead and teach, you disobey Him.

I have proof of what is inspired by the Holyspirit. Here it is:

1 Corinthians 14:37-39
37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by theSpirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.

Whatever zeal you have to teach and do his work, if you disobey him, it all amounts to nothing.

This is what the spirit says.

Tgirl4real:

But u sure know the issue of authority in the church isn't one of such issues.




The bone of contention here is woman headship role which includes teaching. It is essential.




Yes. Such as deciding to be celibate. Deciding to marry a fair Christian lady. Deciding to go into full time ministry. Deciding to have 2 kids. Deciding to choose one bible believing church over another. Deciding to give a huge percentage of your income to support the church. It certainly does not apply to issues we have specific instructions on.



You are right. All I am trying to say is that we shouldn't speculate what is in Paul's mind when it is clearly written in scriptures.




OK.



I about saying I agree with you till I read the highlighted.

We both know that isn't applicable anymore Debosky. You are the one going out of context here.

Need i say more? No.

Well done. The fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom, how well you have done.
Peace.

@Debosky

I think you miss the point - she is explaining why she thinks it was unsuitable to have female disciples given the practicalities of the nomadic existence Jesus and his disciples lived. That is a different issue altogether and isn't the same as pastoring a congregation.

The Roman law in application at the time also had restrictions against women speaking out in public - it is possible that Paul’s instruction was in line with this. See Clarke’s commentary on the bible:

Nor to usurp authority - A woman should attempt nothing, either in public or private, that belongs to man as his peculiar function. This was prohibited by the Roman laws

you have tried to play down the effectiveness of this clear instruction as if it was the romans that direct 'the Gods breath spirit' of paul to write this as as instruction. most people have tried evading clear intructions by personalising written spirit instructions God gave through paul by ridicoulously tagging them 'pauline epistles' it is wrong to water down clear instructions like this expecially when this paul added this,below:

1 Corinthians 14:37-39
37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by theSpirit,[size=14pt] let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command[/size]. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.

and note that it was verse 34-35 preceeding this verse 37 above that paul actually handed the spirit direction that woman 'are not permitted to teach'.

pls be carefull with the way you want to work things to suit your own liking against Gods clear command!

Boomark too have noted that!

it is even more ridicoulous to even think that the Apostles fear the roman law that would have made them to include the romans law(if it did restrict women)in Gods arrangement of his gatherings,assemly or church, these apostles dont even fear death if any of the governing laws pose repugnant or goes against Gods law or even at loggerhead with Gods law,
lets see what the apostles resolved and boldly declare before the so called authority;

Acts 5:29 ''But Peter and the apostles replied, "[size=14pt]We must obey God[/size] rather[b] than men[/b]''.

or this

Acts 4:19 But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God.

1 timothy 2:11-12 also reechoed the same thing as in 1 corinthians 14:34 again it says;

11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 [size=14pt]And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man,[/size] but to be in silence.

A

but I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man,

like what happened in eden, i guess.

she could have first consulted with adam before eating the fruit.

truthislight:

Need i say more? No.

Well done. The fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom, how well you have done.
Peace.

Thank you sir.

tpia@:


like what happened in eden, i guess.

she could have first consulted with adam before eating the fruit.

Exateli!!

That is why we are facing these troubles today. Yet some of them that feels they are Sunday school teachers/pastors don't want to obey the Lord's command.

Boomark:

Exateli!!

That is why we are facing these troubles today. Yet some of them that feels they are Sunday school teachers/pastors don't want to obey the Lord's command.

If people had the "true" fear of God they will not water his world down.

No wonder we see all sort of things that are unscriptural taking place in places that otherwise should be called a church today.

All person should SHINE there eyes!

BARRISTERS: @Debosky
you have tried to play down the effectiveness of this clear instruction as if it was the romans that direct 'the Gods breath spirit' of paul to write this as as instruction.

I have done no such thing - I have simply said there may be contextual reasons for such an instruction. If you have an issue understanding what I mean, the appropriate thing to do is ask for clarification and not make unfounded claims.

most people have tried evading clear intructions by personalising written spirit instructions God gave through paul by ridicoulously tagging them 'pauline epistles' it is wrong to water down clear instructions like this expecially when this paul added this,below:

1 Corinthians 14:37-39
37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by theSpirit,[size=14pt] let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command[/size]. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.

and note that it was verse 34-35 preceeding this verse 37 above that paul actually handed the spirit direction that woman 'are not permitted to teach'.

pls be carefull with the way you want to work things to suit your own liking against Gods clear command!

The Corinthian reference is focused on what happens when tongues are in operation in a congregation - learn to read things in context. It is not a blanket requirement for women to be silent at all times. Do women sing or praise God in your congregation? Is that the same as being silent?

In some manuscripts the verse in Corinthians is rendered thus: As in all the congregations of the Lord’s people, 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

Clearly this is a reference from what was done elsewhere - common practice - which may or many not be a divine instruction. To seek to understand the root of a teaching is not a case of working things to 'suit my own liking'. Furthermore, it was part of a passage aimed at restoring order to a church where everyone was talking at the same time causing a chaotic worship time - that was the focus, in my view, of Paul's comments.

it is even more ridicoulous to even think that the Apostles fear the roman law that would have made them to include the romans law(if it did restrict women)in Gods arrangement of his gatherings,assemly or church, these apostles dont even fear death if any of the governing laws pose repugnant or goes against Gods law or even at loggerhead with Gods law,
lets see what the apostles resolved and boldly declare before the so called authority;

Acts 5:29 ''But Peter and the apostles replied, "[size=14pt]We must obey God[/size] rather[b] than men[/b]''.

or this

Acts 4:19 But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God.

Again, seek clarification if you don't understand what I meant - I never said Paul was 'afraid' of anything - my reference to Roman laws was simply to explain the context/background - that women were generally prohibited from public speaking in that time.

debosky: @ barrister

I have done no such thing - I have simply said there may be contextual reasons for such an instruction. If you have an issue understanding what I mean, the appropriate thing to do is ask for clarification and not make unfounded claims.



The Corinthian reference is focused on what happens when tongues are in operation in a congregation - learn to read things in context. It is not a blanket requirement for women to be silent at all times. Do women sing or praise God in your congregation? Is that the same as being silent?

In some manuscripts the verse in Corinthians is rendered thus: As in all the congregations of the Lord’s people, 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

Clearly this is a reference from what was done elsewhere - common practice - which may or many not be a divine instruction. To seek to understand the root of a teaching is not a case of working things to 'suit my own liking'. Furthermore, it was part of a passage aimed at restoring order to a church where everyone was talking at the same time causing a chaotic worship time - that was the focus, in my view, of Paul's comments.



Again, seek clarification if you don't understand what I meant - I never said Paul was 'afraid' of anything - my reference to Roman laws was simply to explain the context/background - that women were generally prohibited from public speaking in that time.

is it not possible that all those that made the same observation like barrister all have reading problem?

Was such observation about the Romans influence on "God's words" really necessary?
(that is if you still thinks it is God's word)

i just keep wandering the purpose that comment served.

truthislight:
is it not possible that all those that made the same observation like barrister all have reading problem?

I don't hold brief for any poster - my first two posts on this issue clearly explain my position. If you don't understand what I'm saying by now, just side step my posts and move on.

Was such observation about the Romans influence on "God's words" really necessary?
(that is if you still thinks it is God's word)

i just keep wandering the purpose that comment served.

As I said above, my posts are clear - I'm not going to get into a pointless exchange here. If you take offence at my posts or don't agree with them - please ignore them and move on.

@truthislight

Its better to side step his post as he urged. You know, atimes wayo is always shrouded in big englishes.