I'm not so sure.
Galatians 3:28:20 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

I'm not alone in thinking Paul's letters represent preaching, not the word of God.

http://www.growthingod.org.uk/scriptur.htm

dis matter is dragging on for far too long. It was once asked in my church as well, & d reason is simple as anytin: level of education. au many women were educated in any way back then? just take a look at illiterates in our own society, dont U see au sassy, loud, talkative or even silly dey can be? Now imagine a sassy, talkative & unruly woman by her husband's side in church who asks fifteen questions for every statement d@ someone on d pulpit makes! d@ church would probably out-qualify d cacophony of hungry goats in noise-generation!
but dis is nt d only reason, but I bliv this shld suffice.
& bifor U start sayin "Maybe Paul was a chauvinist", if he was he wouldn't av hailed d tremendous role dat women played in his ministry in his subsequent epistles.

FXKing2012:

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.

There are verses in the New Testament where Paul says that he is speaking, not the Lord
•1 Cor. 7:12, "But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, let him not send her away."
•1 Cor. 7:25, "Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy."
•2 Cor. 11:17, "That which I am speaking, I am not speaking as the Lord would, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting."

pls I appeal to evri one dat is wavering- please av faith. shakin here & there makes u a prime target for d devil. if U av questions, consult wat got u puzzled in d first instance- the Bible itself!! Be a Berean christian- wu goes home, does research, confirms & discovers truths for himself/herself. STOP BEING A SIDON-LOOK, NA-WETIN-PASTOR-TALK christian. Else, I can assure u dat u r doomed to be lost to one wave or the other. may God help you in Jesus' name.

-For those who think some parts of the Bible is irrelevant, dat it is d word of man & not of God: the word of God is not a matter of one's interpretation bcoz wat these men said was as a result of d impulse dey received from God. pls check 2 Peter 1:20-21.
-For those who think some of Paul's writings r his personnal but not God's opinion- d disciples were called little-Christs at Antioch bcoz dey had d nature of Christ-wat He does, likes or dislikes. So Paul himself was sayin wat Christ Himself would say in d circumstances.
- & to everybody, I dont only bliv but I also knw that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth & the Life.

PA1982:

Let me get this straight- Paul's preaching is the word of god because it's the word of god.
OK. Are you referring to Acts 11 1-18?

"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;"
"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, AS they do also the OTHER SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:15,16).

Note the bolded. It should aid your comprehension.

It does, indeed, but not in the way you might have intended.
Peter II is accepted by the majority of bibical scholars to be not written by Peter, but by a later author.
http://bible.org/article/authorship-second-peter

For Calvin's opinion:
http://euangelizomai..com/2007/09/calvin-on-authorship-of-2-peter.html

Rather long, but worth reading:
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/2peter_green.pdf

It's amazing how people interpret the Bible to suit them and suit the present day. The Bible says women are not to talk in church, pls dont try to interpret it just to suit you.

^^^
Doesn't your fraudulent Oledepo not interpret and twist the bible to suit himself? Yet you are ignorant and deluded enough to come and idolize him on this forum. That aside doesn't Faith Oledepo preach in church? Is dat not further evidence that your bishop is a hypocrite?

Pastor Kun:

^^^
Doesn't your fraudulent Oledepo not interpret and twist the bible to suit himself? Yet you are ignorant and deluded enough to come and idolize him on this forum. That aside doesn't Faith Oledepo preach in church? Is dat not further evidence that your bishop is a hypocrite?

Mind how you talk about the men of God, you just might be bringing curses your way by the words of your mouth.

FXKing2012:

Mind how you talk about the men of God, you just might be bringing curses your way by the words of your mouth.

Not again!

2good:

Not again!

Yes, cos some people are yet to get it.

PA1982:

It does, indeed, but not in the way you might have intended.
Peter II is accepted by the majority of bibical scholars to be not written by Peter, but by a later author.
http://bible.org/article/authorship-second-peter

For Calvin's opinion:
http://euangelizomai..com/2007/09/calvin-on-authorship-of-2-peter.html

Rather long, but worth reading:
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/2peter_green.pdf

Meanwhile, each of the three links above refutes the allegations that Peter is not the author of 2 Peter.  

From link 1:

Concerning the internal evidence, it should be obvious that the critics’ interpretations of historical references are based on assumption. Valid explanations can be given for each historical reference fitting in the first century. The dependence on stylistic differences is too subjective to place much emphasis on, and it can be explained as caused by use of an amanuensis for 1 Peter. The denial of personal references seems to display an unwarranted prejudice and plain unbelief on the part of the critic. Until actual, objective proof is shown to the contrary, this author will continue to consider the author of 2 Peter to be the apostle Peter himself.

From link 2 Calvin is quoted as saying:

At the same time, according to the consent of all, it has nothing unworthy of Peter, as it shews everywhere the power and the grace of an apostolic spirit. If it be received as canonical, we must allow Peter to be the author, since it has his name inscribed, and he also testifies that he had lived with Christ: and it would have been a fiction unworthy of a minister of Christ, to have personated another individual. So then I conclude, that if the Epistle be deemed worthy of credit, it must have proceeded from Peter; not that he himself wrote it, but that some one of his disciples set forth in writing, by his command, those things which the necessity of the times required.

From link 3:

As in the case of The Acts of Paul and Thecla, we notice the great care exercised by second-century scholars to preserve the apostolic deposit both from pollution (by heretical writings) and from accretion (by pseudonymous writings).

It was in an atmosphere such as this that we are asked to assume 2 Peter originated. It is generally thought to have been published in the second quarter of the second century, and yet it was apparently accepted by Clement of Alexandria, Aristides, and Origen. In view of the attitude towards pseudepigraphy adopted by leaders in the early Church, it seems unlikely, to say the least, that men of this calibre would have accepted the Epistle if they thought it was a forgery.

Thanks Enigma, thou saved me from much trouble.

hmmn. , . .I think am learning new things here. . . .thank you all for ur replies

It's amazing how people interpret the Bible to suit them and suit the present day. The Bible says women are not to talk in church, pls dont try to interpret it just to suit you.

So if there is a woman with the spiritual gift of prophesy, we are just supposed to tell her to keep her mouth shut and not let her use the gift God has given her? Does God really only give such a gift to men? Is God's work inhibited by gender? You say that you don't like it when people interpret the Bible to to suit them. Tell me, are you interpreting this text to suit you? If someone told you that you couldn't speak in church because of your gender or race, wouldn't that make you feel angry at being judged simply by your gender or race instead of your character? Because, as a woman, when someone says that to me, that's exactly how I feel. Forget her heart and her character. Keep this woman silent in church because she's not a man. Well, let me tell you something. Despite my humanity, just like everyone else, I will not keep silent when I feel God telling me to speak. I serve Him alone, not man.

^The spirit of the prophet is subject to the prophet.

Enigma:

Meanwhile, each of the three links above refutes the allegations that Peter is not the author of 2 Peter.

Sharpen your reading skills. The authors are very touchy on the subject. They present a great deal of evidence to refute Peter's authorship and then in the final paragraph, simply state they personally don't go along with  it.

It's a subject which is very sensitive to a lot of people, but cherry-picking quotes from the articles (as you have done) only shows a dishonest approach to discussing the subject.

FXKing2012:



Mind how you talk about the men of God, you just might be bringing curses your way by the words of your mouth.

Please stop posting as though you actually believed such nonsense. I've proven  the falseness of such vain threats.

^^^ That is sheer nonsense! If your own reading skills are poor, that is your problem; don't go projecting it to others.

Your own links - especially the two articles - take the arguments of the "scholars" and deconstruct them to refute the claims that Peter is not the author of 2 Peter. After addressing and deconstructing the claims, they conclude that there is no/insufficient proof for the claims, so they stick to the position and conclusion that Peter wrote the book.

Of course, that would not prevent sciolists from peddling the same tired old lines.

. . .4 pages on a settled matter.

It would appear we have come full circle to Genesis 3. The tragic events of that chapter are echoed in 1 Tim 2:13. The Serpent beguiled the woman through her desire to usurp spiritual authority over the man and thus paved the way for the fall:
(Gen 3:6)  And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

We know the woman sought spiritual dominion over the man by her act in 3:6 and from these words in 3:16:
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

What do the words "thy desire shall be to thy husband" mean? The construction and meaning is exactly the same as in 4:7: If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

God's established order is that the woman should not teach or hold positions of spiritual authority over the man. It was so before the fall. And before expelling Adam and his wife from the Garden, God re-established that authority by emphatically declaring: . . .and he shall rule over thee. The reason for that is clear. The relationship between the man and the woman is a type of the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church. The Family echoes the Church. Otherwise can the proponents of women "pastors" tell us why these words appear:
(1Co 11:3)  But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

(1Co 11:10)  For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

There is a lot of quibbling on this matter because the sort of witchcraft spirit that actuated Jezebel has found its way into the church. . .and so we see women forsaking their God-given roles and following Eve's footsteps. But God will rebuke them:
Rev 2:20  Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

For those who are unfamiliar with the story of Jezebel (it is interesting to note that the name Jezebel meant Un-Husbanded or Unmarried); a study of her career and relationship with Ahab should shed more light.

What example ought Christian women to follow? Certainly not that Jezebel.
For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
(1Pe 3:5-6)

The relationship between the man and the woman is a type of the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church. The Family echoes the Church.

If this is so, wouldn't it be Jesus who has authority over the church? Then it wouldn't matter who the pastor was because both the pastor and the church answer to God's authority. The pastor is merely God's servant, God is the authority over the church not the pastor.

Also, your reference to Jezebel has no reasonable connection to the idea that women shouldn't preach. Jezebel was an evil woman who defied her husband's (King Ahab) authority to get not only him, but the nation to worship Baal. Even if she had been a man, she would have been punished for her wickedness. If you are trying to find an example of how a woman got punished for preaching, this is not a good example. She neither preached about God nor followed Him.

I have my own example, Queen Esther. She spoke up in King Xerxes' court, something that would have been punishable by death for any woman (even the queen). However, was she punished or reprimanded. No! She found favor in the King's eyes and she went on to save Israel from certain death. She not only saved Israel, but also lead King Xerxes to God. She prophesied. Was that wrong?

Enigma:

^^^ That is sheer nonsense! If your own reading skills are poor, that is your problem; don't go projecting it to others.

Your own links - especially the two articles - take the arguments of the "scholars" and deconstruct them to refute the claims that Peter is not the author of 2 Peter. After addressing and deconstructing the claims, they conclude that there is no/insufficient proof for the claims, so they stick to the position and conclusion that Peter wrote the book.

Of course, that would not prevent sciolists from peddling the same tired old lines.

I see you accept the deconstruction and refutation made in those articles.
I don't. I find their conclusions a classic example of confirmation bias and in fact that's why I posted them.
I see I should have been more clear.

I AM surprised you took their 'conclusions' seriously, but it IS true that the authorship question is emotionally charged.

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

What do the words "thy desire shall be to thy husband" mean? The construction and meaning is exactly the same as in 4:7: If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

key word here is desire.

what you desire, rules over you.

and yes, the context seems negative.

"The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children," (Titus 2:3-4).

Theosci, have faith. Your case is not as useless or hopeless as you're painting it. And you can prophesy. What does not appertain to you is to teach MEN.

theosci:

If this is so, wouldn't it be Jesus who has authority over the church? Then it wouldn't matter who the pastor was because both the pastor and the church answer to God's authority. The pastor is merely God's servant, God is the authority over the church not the pastor.

The point being debated is if women are supposed to teach in church. Not Christ's authority. Teaching goes with spiritual authority and God has commanded not suggested that women should not teach in church.

The bible is a book of types and foreshadows of Jesus and His bride -  the Church. The relationship between the Man and his Woman is a type and foreshadow of Jesus and His Church. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. (Eph 5:31-32)

So the Man preceded the Woman and before the Woman could come forth, the Man had to figuratively die by sleeping and receive a wound in his side, and lose some blood: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; (Gen 2:21) Similarly the Heavenly Man died and received a wound in His side, shedded blood before the heavenly bride came forth: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. (Joh 19:34)  

And so it is written:
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (1Ti 2:12-14)

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1Co 11:3)

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. (1Co 14:34)

It is interesting to note that anticipating that some will argue against this command: Paul declares in v36-37: What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. (1Co 14:36-37)

You proponents of female "pastors" and "bishops" ignore the commandments of the Lord.

theosci:

Also, your reference to Jezebel has no reasonable connection to the idea that women shouldn't preach. Jezebel was an evil woman who defied her husband's (King Ahab) authority to get not only him, but the nation to worship Baal. Even if she had been a man, she would have been punished for her wickedness. If you are trying to find an example of how a woman got punished for preaching, this is not a good example. She neither preached about God nor followed Him.

We are discussing women teaching in church. A woman can preach, she can prophesy, she cannot teach in church. Jezebel is an example of a woman usurping authority. Even your words "Jezebel was an evil woman who defied her husband's (King Ahab) authority to get not only him, but the nation to worship Baal", shows the spiritual connotations of her usurpation of Ahab's authority.
You say: "She neither preached about God nor followed Him." It has little to do with the content of her preaching. Rather it has everything to do with the spiritual ramifications of a woman acting outside her God-given role. Or do you think the woman mentioned in these verses: (Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. Rev 2:20), did not preach about God or think she was following God?
Jezebel true to her name usurped authority over Ahab. Read again her role in the affair of the Jezreelite, how even Elijah fled from her. Consider her influence over Ahab which prevented him from fully yielding to God and only partially repenting. She practised witchcraft and sorceries. Her daughter Athaliah almost destroyed David's line. It is therefore not a surprise that the Lord calls the false female teacher Jezebel. That name ought to serve as a flag directing us to study the character of the original Jezebel.

All female "pastors" and "bishops" are spiritual descendants of Jezebel and are under a delusion arising from spiritual pride and prophetically speaking they are Jezebels being un-husbanded.

theosci:

I have my own example, Queen Esther. She spoke up in King Xerxes' court, something that would have been punishable by death for any woman (even the queen). However, was she punished or reprimanded. No! She found favor in the King's eyes and she went on to save Israel from certain death. She not only saved Israel, but also lead King Xerxes to God. She prophesied. Was that wrong?

Not a good example. The fate of Vashti and Esther's trepidation at approaching Ahasuerus shows that your conjecture is flawed. She was the king's consort and her prestige and perceived authority came from her attachment to the king. She saved her people by going to the king as the king's wife and making a request.
And the king said again unto Esther on the second day at the banquet of wine, What is thy petition, queen Esther? and it shall be granted thee: and what is thy request? and it shall be performed, even to the half of the kingdom. Then Esther the queen answered and said, If I have found favour in thy sight, O king, and if it please the king, let my life be given me at my petition, and my people at my request:
(Est 7:2-3)
What did the petitioner Esther teach Ahasuerus here? Ahasuerus could depose or kill her on a whim. As for "leading King Xerxes to God"; in which Bible did you read that? Stop reading bible verses through your traditions and preconceived notions.

tpia@:

key word here is desire.

what you desire, rules over you.

and yes, the context seems negative.

Agreed the key word here is desire but as you see in 4:7, it's not the way you put it. You say: "what you desire, rules over you.".

Looking at Genesis 4:7; Sin desires Cain. Would you say that Cain rules over Sin. The key to understanding these two verses is the realization that in Hebrew, their construction is exactly the same except for appropriate changes in person and gender.

Genesis 4:7. In that verse we read, 'and his desire is unto thee.' The meaning in this context is that what sin desires is what Cain will carry out. His desire is unto Cain in the sense that Cain is a slave thereto, and must perform whatever sin's desire may be.

The Hebrew word translated "desire" occurs only 3 times in the bible and has the same syntactical setting in 3:16 as in 4:7 only 15 verses away. Thus we understand that: The woman has the same sort of desire for her husband that sin has for Cain, a desire to possess or control him. This desire disputes the headship of the husband. As the Lord tells Cain what he should do, i.e., master or rule sin, the Lord also states what the husband should do, rule over his wife. The words of the Lord in Genesis 3:16b, as in the case of the battle between sin and Cain, do not determine the victor of the conflict between husband and wife.

These words mark the beginning of the battle of the sexes. As a result of the fall, man no longer rules easily; he must fight for his headship. Sin has corrupted both the willing submission of the wife and the loving headship of the husband. The woman's desire is to control her husband (to usurp his divinely appointed
headship, and he must master her, if he can. So the rule of love founded in paradise is replaced by struggle, tyranny and domination.

Experience corroborates this interpretation of God's judgment on the woman.

Looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree. I won't worry about it too much since being a female minister or theologian is accepted in my denomination now, at least in the the United States. It may not be widely agreed upon, but they allow women to be ordained pastors and teach theology at the college level. I may not get some to agree with my opinion on this subject, but I guess I am okay that for now. As we continue in the 21st century, I certainly know that the church will go kicking and screaming into it. Somehow they seem to be the last ones to get with the current times. Oh well. Change is never easy. Plus, I have given a couple of sermons in front of the church, something I have never regretted and hope to do again someday. I guess it doesn't hurt to dream.

alethia

good points.

lets examine those verses again.


first, we have eve told:

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

then cain:

If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him

eve: your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you. [After the fall]


cain: sin desires you, and you shall rule over him. [before his fall, but he already had the seed of discontent/hatred in him]

your observation is quite right, and i'm actually wondering why sin is called him, instead of it.

Because sin is of the devil. It's the devil hiding under sin and the serpent in his usual deceptive state.