Seems i need to be here tomorrow?

dalaman:

If we are to go by your reasoning then its also VERY OK to concluded that most of the teachings and instructions of Jesus himself are purposeless, ritualistic killing of cats.

Well, I'm sorry you miss the point and no problem if that's the conclusion you reached. I place the highest of emphasis & value on the life & teachings of Jesus Christ. Cheers.

Image123:

JeSoulu. Na wa o, even if you don't greet me, i MUST greet you. Happy New Year. Where've you been my sister? Abi na because i follow talk say make women no teach men?

Una talk say women no suppose talk or teach men now that's why I restrict myself accordingly I no wan step on any religious toes. But either way happy new snr brotha .

Pastor AIO:

So when Deborah was judge over Israel what dayz were those?

Biblical typo.

JeSoul:


Una talk say women no suppose talk or teach men now that's why I restrict myself accordingly I no wan step on any religious toes. But either way happy new snr brotha .

We no dey shurch na, today Tuesday. Se it's my toes that are religious? Next time, just marsh it and say 'sorry'. Let brotherly love continue ni.

@bunmi
Nothing stops a women from preaching both outside and in church,
The reason for the above scripture is because, women had always been separated in the days of old,for several reasons.so they weren't really a part of the activities in the temple,they had limited information about the word of God, at the point they started hearing the word of God directly from the apostles,the all had questions because certain things sounded new to them.this was the reason for the above scripture.so if you have the opportunity go ahead and preach.

JeSoul:

Well, I'm sorry you miss the point and no problem if that's the conclusion you reached. I place the highest of emphasis & value on the life & teachings of Jesus Christ. Cheers.

 Una talk say women no suppose talk or teach men now that's why I restrict myself accordingly   I no wan step on any religious toes. But either way happy new snr brotha .

 Biblical typo.

Not Biblical typo, rather, Deborah was in the Old Testament era. Read this article posted by "Found"

http://onwardchristianwoman..com/2008/05/should-women-preach.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080530111751AA7CAs9

There are/maybe so many women better able to preach than men BUT God forbids it. No woman is permitted to stand and preach in God's church. However since people now have THEIR own churches, they can do whatsoever they wish and justify themselves before their beliefs but God will judge according to the truth and not error.

Every TRUE believer will punctuate every Word of God with Amen even if you dont understand it. Believe it, thats what you are called to do.

Biox:

@bunmi
Nothing stops a women from preaching both outside and in church,
The reason for the above scripture is because, women had always been separated in the days of old,for several reasons.so they weren't really a part of the activities in the temple,they had limited information about the word of God, at the point they started hearing the word of God directly from the apostles,the all had questions because certain things sounded new to them.this was the reason for the above scripture.so if you have the opportunity go ahead and preach.

Is this just in your head, or it actually happened? what is conspiracy theory?

JeSoul:

Thread cleaned by me. Please carry on cordially kids.

Dare2think, I'm not sure I've greeted you happy new year yet 

---

@topic,
there's this story someone posted in this section a while back. I don't remember it exactly word for word but I'll paraphrase and give my understanding/version/spin of it:
I believe christianity today - oftentimes in a genuine effort to honor scripture - continue to kill cats without understanding the reason why. When it came to women Jesus Himself broke all the rules, radically doing things with women that were socially & religiously taboo. We want to stand firm and ritualistically follow "new testament" directives, but so easily forget that these directives must not be incompatible with the great example Jesus Himself set.

  Both Jesus & Paul got it exactly right - it is we today that have it wrong.

can you provide an example of one of these great examples with regard to women teaching/usurping authority over a man pls?

i think the cat analogy is meant in a different context.

to make it more realistic, the scenario would be one of chasing cats out of the church.

just my two cents.

as someone who once witnessed a live ram run into the church and head straight for the altar during service, while being hotly pursued by a bunch of sweaty young men [who had been taking it to the minister's compound when it cut and ran], i think the priest would give the order to catch it and also to be more careful when handling gift rams next time.


nigeria of course.


offtopic.

]This passage is based on I
Corinthians 14: 34-37:
34     Let your women keep
silence in the churches: for it
is not permitted unto them to
speak; but they are
commanded to be under
obedience, as also saith the
law.
35     And if they will learn any
thing, let them ask their
husbands at home: for it is a
shame for women to speak in
the church.

Please who can give me clearer understanding of these Bible verses cos It keep confusing me Everyday

Don't worry, it is definitely are hard passage to wrap your mind around. In order to understand this, you have to look at the historical context of that passage. It was during Ancient Rome and women had the social status just above slaves. They had no say in those times and had to answer to their husbands. Paul is saying this in his letter to the church of Corinth to protect them from unnecessary hardship. Because back then, a woman speaking in church would be downright scandalous at best. The woman could have actually gotten in a lot of trouble for behavior like that. So during that time, yes it would have been shameful for a woman to speak in church. Not that Paul was for women being silent. He actually applauded women a number of times for their effort, such as the women in the church of Phillipi. However, he also knew that he had to work with the culture or a lot of women could have gotten punished. After all, the same was said about slaves too (male or female). They would have gotten into serious trouble for speaking in church. Now it wouldn't be shameful for women to do this since our culture is completely different. Remember, when studying the Bible, historical context is very important take notice of.

Ndipe:

Not Biblical typo, rather, Deborah was in the Old Testament era. Read this article posted by "Found"

http://onwardchristianwoman..com/2008/05/should-women-preach.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080530111751AA7CAs9

Uhm, that was a joke. I was trying (and apparently failing) to be funny with the 'biblical typo' line.

Image123:

We no dey shurch na, today Tuesday. Se it's my toes that are religious?

Lol. Irrelevant distinctions. If I'm not good enough to teach or speak on the sabbath why shouldd I be good enough on a non-sabbath?

Next time, just marsh it and say 'sorry'. Let brotherly love continue ni.

Hehe . . . I no go marsh jor. If pesin wan continue to dey kill cats, I go just waka by and lef them be

davidylan:

can you provide an example of one of these great examples with regard to women teaching/usurping authority over a man pls?

That shouldn't be necessary as I do not believe it is appropriate for "women to teach/usurp authority over a man" . . . at least not in the manner that you/other proponents appear to understand it. I have no problem with Paul's directives, they were perfectly within order.

  I simply believe whatever accords appropriate respect for spiritual authority, brings order & harmony in the church and glory & honor to God - is the message of that scripture, and not the particular mechanics - as this will change and be different accross different cultures, times & dispensations. Others have already proffered contextual/historical/cultural reasons towards this stance. Cheers bro .

Bro Pee:

There are/maybe so many women better able to preach than men BUT God forbids it. No woman is permitted to stand and preach in God's church. However since people now have THEIR own churches, they can do whatsoever they wish and justify themselves before their beliefs but God will judge according to the truth and not error.

Every TRUE believer will punctuate every Word of God with Amen even if you dont understand it. Believe it, thats what you are called to do.

That's an interesting point of view.
Paul=God.
Are you serious or are you trolling the thread?

PA1982:

That's an interesting point of view.
Paul=God.
Are you serious or are you trolling the thread?

Which is more interesting? Paul=God, or Believe what you don't understand?

Previously posted on a similar thread; bit long and complex but . . .

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm

theosci:


Don't worry, it is definitely are hard passage to wrap your mind around. In order to understand this, you have to look at the historical context of that passage. It was during Ancient Rome and women had the social status just above slaves. They had no say in those times and had to answer to their husbands. Paul is saying this in his letter to the church of Corinth to protect them from unnecessary hardship. Because back then, a woman speaking in church would be downright scandalous at best. The woman could have actually gotten in a lot of trouble for behavior like that. So during that time, yes it would have been shameful for a woman to speak in church. Not that Paul was for women being silent. He actually applauded women a number of times for their effort, such as the women in the church of Phillipi. However, he also knew that he had to work with the culture or a lot of women could have gotten punished. After all, the same was said about slaves too (male or female). They would have gotten into serious trouble for speaking in church. Now it wouldn't be shameful for women to do this since our culture is completely different. Remember, when studying the Bible, historical context is very important take notice of.

If we are to go by your reasoning then EVERY  teaching and injunction in the bible can be argued to be obsolete when looked at in historical context. Very few things in the bible "agree" with the modern world if we are to go by your reasoning.

@dalaman << Not if we look at the reason and the principle behind why it was written. Looking at historical context doesn't disprove the Bible, rather it gives us a greater understanding of it. For example, from this text in Corinthians we can get from that text that women must carry themselves with dignity and honor. Not everything in the Bible was meant to be taken literally. With the culture of women's suffrage in our society today, would it make sense to not let women speak just because it wasn't done over 1500 years ago? No, you have to look at the reason why it was written. In Leviticus 14:33 it says that if you find mildew in your house and it is confirmed by a priest, it is unclean and you have to tear the house down and take all the materials of that house to a unclean place. If we found mildew in our house today, would we do that? Of course not, we would use cleaning products to get rid of it. In Deuteronomy 17:7 it says that if a person is found guilty of worshiping idols, they had to be stoned. Would we do that to someone today? Also, do you remember what Jesus said about the old law of Moses, and eye for an eye in Matthew 5:43? He says that we should turn the other cheek and not seek revenge. See, Jesus understood that Israel was grown up enough to understand the concept of forgive and forget. Back when the law was written, they would have gone to the extreme at taking revenge. That is why the whole law was made in the first place back in those times. To keep a control on revenge so that the person would only even the score and nothing more. If it wasn't made back then, people would have more than evened the score and there would be vendettas all the time. Because they weren't mature enough to see the law of love. They were given what they could handle. When it came to Jesus' time, they were mature enough to understand the law of love and no longer needed all those little rules to keep them in line. Like I said before, Historical context doesn't disprove anything, rather it clarifies the intentions of the author and of God during that period of time. What we take from it may not be word for word, but rather the principle behind it.

theosci:

@dalaman << Not if we look at the reason and the principle behind why it was written. Looking at historical context doesn't disprove the Bible, rather it gives us a greater understanding of it. For example, from this text in Corinthians we can get from that text that women must carry themselves with dignity and honor. Not everything in the Bible was meant to be taken literally.

How do you know which things are to be taken literally or not? How do you make the distinction? We can as well say that the story of Jesus dying on the cross is not to be taken literally or his teaching against divorce.

With the culture of women's suffrage in our society today, would it make sense to not let women speak just because it wasn't done over 1500 years ago? No, you have to look at the reason why it was written. In Leviticus 14:33 it says that if you find mildew in your house and it is confirmed by a priest, it is unclean and you have to tear the house down and take all the materials of that house to a unclean place. If we found mildew in our house today, would we do that? Of course not, we would use cleaning products to get rid of it. In Deuteronomy 17:7 it says that if a person is found guilty of worshiping idols, they had to be stoned. Would we do that to someone today? Also, do you remember what Jesus said about the old law of Moses, and eye for an eye in Matthew 5:43? He says that we should turn the other cheek and not seek revenge. See, Jesus understood that Israel was grown up enough to understand the concept of forgive and forget. Back when the law was written, they would have gone to the extreme at taking revenge. That is why the whole law was made in the first place back in those times. To keep a control on revenge so that the person would only even the score and nothing more. If it wasn't made back then, people would have more than evened the score and there would be vendettas all the time. Because they weren't mature enough to see the law of love. They were given what they could handle. When it came to Jesus' time, they were mature enough to understand the law of love and no longer needed all those little rules to keep them in line. Like I said before, Historical context doesn't disprove anything, rather it clarifies the intentions of the author and of God during that period of time. What we take from it may not be word for word, but rather the principle behind it.

Paul wrote it TWICE that's enough indication to show that the injunction matters to him so much. . . . . The bible is clear about women teaching in the church or ministering. When the new testament was talking about the qualities of a deacon(church leader) it VERY clearly stated the he must be a man and not a woman. That is the position of the bible and that it.  . . . . .All the stories of the bible were written long ago and were about a SPECIFIC people and time in history. If we are to go by your thinking then very little of what the bible talks about applies to our modern world as stated by dalaman. . . . .You guys should just make up your minds and accept that you can't live by words and writings of pre historic men simple. . . . .

@Mazaje << It's a process when it comes to know what things to take literally or not. A process that takes looking at when the text was written, who wrote it, why he wrote it, what was the culture in that time, who was the text intended from, was it a vision with symbolic meaning, and what can we get out of it in modern times.

Note my earlier post:

It was during Ancient Rome and women had the social status just above slaves. They had no say in those times and had to answer to their husbands. Paul is saying this in his letter to the church of Corinth to protect them from unnecessary hardship. Because back then, a woman speaking in church would be downright scandalous at best. The woman could have actually gotten in a lot of trouble for behavior like that. So during that time, yes it would have been shameful for a woman to speak in church. Not that Paul was for women being silent. He actually applauded women a number of times for their effort, such as the women in the church of Phillipi. However, he also knew that he had to work with the culture or a lot of women could have gotten punished. After all, the same was said about slaves too (male or female). They would have gotten into serious trouble for speaking in church. Now it wouldn't be shameful for women to do this since our culture is completely different.

See religion is something that evolves over time. In the early part of the Bible you see that salvation was only extended to Israel since they were the chosen ones. Then later that same salvation was extended to the Gentiles as well. Same goes for women.

I think what really matters is not the gender of the person, but their heart. Tell me, is it better to have a deacon that is a man with a corrupt heart or a deacon that is a woman with a righteous heart? God's ways are not like ours and He uses whoever He has chosen. Whether male or female.

And by the way, the theory that I have been presenting about historical context is a widely accepted theory among many theological colleges. In fact, I learned this very theory from a class I took at a theological school.

theosci:



I think what really matters is not the gender of the person, but their heart. Tell me, is it better to have a deacon that is a man with a corrupt heart or a deacon that is a woman with a righteous heart? God's ways are not like ours and He uses whoever He has chosen. Whether male or female.

And by the way, the theory that I have been presenting about historical context is a widely accepted theory among many theological colleges. In fact, I learned this very theory from a class I took at a theological school.

I don't find Paul's position tenable in today's world, just like so many other injunctions in the bible. They were written for people that lived very long ago and with a completely different structure and social order from ours today. But if the people want to follow its teachings then its position is very clear with regards to women and their position in the church. . . . .

@image

Have you taking time to read your bible through.if you do I believe you will truly understand what the passage is talking about.i want to believe you know better

PA1982 (f)
Re: Pls Am Really Confused About This Bible Passage
« #76 on: Today at 04:03:01 PM »

Quote from: Bro Pee on Today at 12:54:09 AM
There are/maybe so many women better able to preach than men BUT God forbids it. No woman is permitted to stand and preach in God's church. However since people now have THEIR own churches, they can do whatsoever they wish and justify themselves before their beliefs but God will judge according to the truth and not error.

Every TRUE believer will punctuate every Word of God with Amen even if you dont understand it. Believe it, thats what you are called to do.

Re: Pls Am Really Confused About This Bible Passage
« #77 on: Today at 04:58:02 PM »

PA1982 on Today at 04:03:01 PM
That's an interesting point of view.
Paul=God.
Are you serious or are you trolling the thread?

Which is more interesting? Paul=God, or Believe what you don't understand?

Well, Pastor AIO, I thought I was clear.
Paul=God.

@mazaje << Your statement makes it appear that you hardly paid attention to what I wrote in my last post. All I can say is that taking the time to read the Bible will help you better understand how to apply it to your life. It will give you a more mature perspective on its content. Regardless, I can't give you to hard of a time if you can't see my point it this. To each his own. Hope you find what you are looking for.

@image

Have you taking time to read your bible through.if you do I believe you will truly understand what the passage is talking about.i want to believe you know better

It seems it'll be good to re-visit this issue as it were for the benefit of some, and to be clearer to all. Observing the passage in context, literally and symbolically, the same decision should be arrived at.
  Firstly please, PLEASE, and PLEASE, these issues of hiding under guise that a particular scripture is only for one person or one town is wrong and should be done away with. We should not take away from God's Word or add to His words as is been done here, as from the 'theological colleges'. All scripture is profitable (2Timothy 3v16, and written for our learning. Don't say Jesus is talking to pharisee or to only Corinthians. It's God's Word TO us and for us. And if you're in doubt, the 1Corinthian epistle is clear enough as to whom this epistle is written to.
1 Corinthians 1v2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's.
It says the epistle is written, not only to the church of God which is at Corinth, but also among others to all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus. That being said, it's good that we look at the passage more closely.
 So, secondly, 1 Corinthians 14 is talking in summary about prophesying or edifying IN CHURCH, as against edifying one's self.
v1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
If you'd read through the chapter, you'd notice that 'speak' is used more in the sense of addressing the church, not in the sense of uttering a word generally. See (v3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men; v19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others;  v27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. v28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.). It's about speaking/addressing/edifying/teaching. The chapter talks on and on about the protocols and says it's observed in all the churches of God. It gets more specific to say
v34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
There's the bone of contention. Very clearly, it is " Let your women keep silence in the churches". Notices the plural word "churches". It's not just a one-off, one church of killing cats. It is churches and it's restated in 1Timothy.  it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded . The grammar and meaning is clear. It is not past tense, like "before it was not permitted unto them to speak, and they were commanded". They are commanded also saith the law. In other words 'it's the same thing as it was in the old testament. The command was not hinged on the culture around, or Paul's bias. It was connected to the law of God in the old testament. Paul was not a man to give in to popular demand, he conferred not with flesh and blood. Nothing could separate from the love of Christ, he was not ashamed of the gospel. This is from the Lord, commanded, not permitted. these are not vague statements.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 36 What?
These are not statements of compromise, or to placate the tradition. This is definite, specific, to the harsh point. Now, when he says "speak", it's referring to TEACHING as expanded in 1Timothy 2 and as in the context of the chapter. cf (v28 But if there be no interpreter, let him[b] keep silence[/b] in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.//Let your women keep silence in the churches). Observe that the silence is that of addressing to teach/edify. he can, and she CAN speak to himself/herself and to God. So don't imagine it's a zombie or dumb setting, it is coming out as the teacher, the leader, the guide.
v37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that[b] the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord[/b]..
It's so clear, they are the commandments of the Lord. They are COMMANDS, not just from Paul, or from society or custom. It's unfortunate that some of our 'spiritual' people do not acknowledge that this is the commandments of the Lord.

1Timothy 2v 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. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Here again is the same injunction. this is not a Corinthian affair. It's a commandment to be kept unblameable. And he's even gracious enough to give us reasons for this command. Which do you think is more important, to understand the reason or to obey the command? It is to obey, the christian is to obey. One reason in 1 Corinthians is that the law ALSO saySsaid so. Here in Timothy, it's not women should keep silence because they are just hearing Bible, or their social status, or The woman could have actually gotten in a lot of trouble for behavior like that. None of all these gibberish excuses. the reason stated even pre-dates the law. It's Adam and Eve. Who cAN beat that, Adam and Eve- social status slave-behaviour like that-just hearing Bible among men. IT IS THAT For Adam was first formed, then Eve.. What a reason! Number 2 is And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Does this render the woman useless? No, of course not. there are 'a million and one' things to do in the body of Christ than to teach men. Even, not all men teach. It's usually one man, even in a large church. What then makes us so saddened that, of all the fruits given in this garden for me to eat, it is this one they say "don't eat" that my eyes are on, and will make me truly happy. It's the garden of Eden story playing itself over. The woman can evangelise. you are FREE to go into the world, billions of people out there, men and women. You can preach to them. Why is it the 20 people inside your church, even if they are 200 or 2000 or 20,000? Even in your church, you can teach fellow women (who are usually more in number than men), add the children in church to that. you can pray or be a prayer warrior, you can sing-solo, alto,tenor, soprano, duet, choir, chorus, anyone, you can usher, you can follow up, you can clean, you can be a member, you can be in the drama group, planning committee, you can give, be an example, bear and train up children etc. Why do we allow the devil to make us dissatisfied? Who's going to reward you? Is your chief reward going to come from teaching? I've already typed longer than i planned. i hope you get the message

Isn't it funny how people use a text to prove their point even though the context of the text has hardly anything to do with what they're talking. It reminds me of the joke about a man who asked God to show him a sign as to what to do by flipping to verse in Bible at random. The first verse was Matthew 27:5, "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself". Then the next verse he turned to was Luke 10:37 ", Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Come on people! We need to be reading the Bible with an open mind and a willingness to know the truth. Nothing else matters. Not being right, not our pride, not what our church is telling us to believe, and not to justify ourselves. Our singular goal should be seeking the truth, even if it might go against something we once believed to be true. A couple a verses cannot prove a principle to be true, only the essence and uniformity that the Bible is trying to speak to us. Remember, the Bible compliments each parts of itself, look at what you are saying or quoting and ask if it makes sense with the rest of the Bible.

We should not take away from God's Word or add to His words as is been done here, as from the 'theological colleges'.

Oh so you're saying that you know more than the numerous professors at the theological colleges who have studied several years on doctrine, biblical languages, theological principles, and biblical history. Hey, guess what you guys? Your work is a complete waste of time. Why do we need to go hear your credible advice when some random person on a forum who has studied the Bible for 2 seconds can inform us of the truth. Truly, I am impressed. A lesser person would have been embarrassed to show such arrogance, but not you. Despite your lack of theological experience and expertise, you just went for it anyway. :->

Hmm.
Why should Paul's letters be considered the Word of God?

PA1982:

Hmm.
Why should Paul's letters be considered the Word of God?

Because they are. Even Peter the fisherman knew that.

Oops, seems i ruffled some 'theological' feather, sorry o!

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) Deuteronomy 4:2, Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you
New Living Translation (©2007) Deuteronomy 4:2, Do not add to or subtract from these commands I am giving you. Just obey the commands of the LORD your God that I am giving you.

Also remember that The bible was written by men inspired by god, meaning what Paul wrote is what god told him to write, so what extra explanation does the OP want again

Let me get this straight- Paul's preaching is the word of god because it's the word of god.

Image123:

Because they are. Even Peter the fisherman knew that.

OK. Are you referring to Acts 11 1-18?

2good:

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) Deuteronomy 4:2, Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you
New Living Translation (©2007) Deuteronomy 4:2, Do not add to or subtract from these commands I am giving you. Just obey the commands of the LORD your God that I am giving you.

Also remember that The bible was written by men inspired by god, meaning what Paul wrote is what god told him to write, so what extra explanation does the OP want again

Doesn't Acts11 1-18 overturn Deuteronomy?
Also, saying Paul's preaching = word of God because his preaching is in the bible sounds like you're saying "It's true because thebible says so."

The Bible is made up of letters, prophesies and even Words from the mouth of Jesus. Everything put together makes up the Word of God cos those prophesies and letters were inspired by the Holy Spirit. So dont ever think cos it's a letter by Paul then it's not the Word of God.
And yes women are not supposed to talk in church.