KelvinCX's Posts
Nairaland Forum › KelvinCX's Profile › KelvinCX's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 29 pages)
Ay04z:nawa oh sorry . that's y I said sometimes sha |
Complex and relatively sophisticated Nigeria and South Africa are the only Nations worth studying in in Africa south of the Sahara, which is why when it comes to Africa statisticians keep picking on Nigeria. Nigeria is more interesting as a developing entity than South Africa. Every now and then for comparative purposes, they may throw in Botswana and Rwanda. |
Aidejay: |
sometimes you're not depressed you just need money |
Maximus69:There's something seriously flawed with this books if one encourages sexism and the other religion encourages sexism, violence in hope of 72 wives Perhaps they've been tampered with before we were born |
naijaboy756:Twelve Jewish men symbolized the patriarchs of the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke 22:30). Jesus’ own call to ministry was focused on reaching Israel (Matt. 10:5–6; 15:24; John 1:11; Rom. 15:8–9), because the earlier covenant was made with Israel (see Gen. 35:10-12; 1 Kings 18:31). The twelve were a witness to Israel, representing God’s first covenant with them and reminding them of God’s promises that were about to be fulfilled through Jesus. The twelve do not, however, signify that only men can be leaders in the church. Nowhere does Jesus ever state that only men may serve as leaders in the church, nor does he teach that it is by maintaining traditional male-female roles that we will advance God’s reign. Jesus’ teachings do not focus on the apostles’ ethnicity or sex as a model for Christian leadership. Otherwise no Gentile church could have its own leaders but would have to depend on Jewish males to lead each congregation. Also note that after Matthias replaced Judas, the twelve were not replaced once any of them died after Pentecost (such as James, son of Zebedee, Acts 12:2). Jewish male apostles are not synonymous with all leadership, and nowhere does the New Testament teach that other categories of leaders (like overseers, 1 Tim. 3:1) should be clearly limited to apostles. Building on this Old Testament symbolic base of the twelve, Jesus began expanding the numbers for the new covenant. The new covenant was begun by the apostolic witness of women and men. An apostle is someone sent with orders, an eyewitness of the resurrected Jesus. Jesus commissioned the twelve to “be with him” and he sent them “to preach” and “to have authority to drive out demons” (Mark 3:14–15). To “be with” Jesus, therefore, preceded the sending. After the resurrection, “apostles” were comprised of many who had “been with” Jesus and were now also witnesses to the resurrection (Acts 1:21–22; 4:33), including the women at the tomb (Matt. 28:1, 7; Mark 16:1, 6–7; Luke 24:5–10) and the more than 500 brothers and sisters (1 Cor 15:6). In the post-resurrection, post-Pentecost new covenant community, apostles are no longer limited to twelve, but are multi-numbered because Jesus’ ministry has refocused from the Jewish people, the twelve tribes, and the old covenant, to the Gentiles, the nations, and the many tribes. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit became a permanent indweller of every believer, thus equipping every believer — both male and female — to be priest or intercessor between humans and God (1 Peter 2:9). Moreover, we have examples of female apostles in the New Testament. Jesus sent out Mary Magdalene, saying to her: “Go to my brothers and sisters and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father” (John 20:17). He broke convention by choosing women as the first witnesses for the greatest event of all times, the resurrection, even though women were not considered as valid witnesses in court. He established that faith — not ethnicity, class, or gender — is the key determiner of service and leadership in the new covenant community. Additionally, one woman, Junia, is even called an “apostle”: Paul describes “Andronicus and Junia, my compatriots and my fellow prisoners, who are well known ( episemos) among the apostles, they also came before me in Christ” (Rom. 16:7). Episemos is literally “having a mark.” Andronicus and Junia “stood out” or were “important,” “marked out,” among the apostles. They were believers, witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection, who stood firm despite persecution and imprisonment in the message they were given about the Messiah. |
In writing to the Corinthian church, Paul writes, “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. 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” (1 Cor 14:34-35). That seems plain as day, right? Yes, if these verses are looked at in isolation, it does seem very plain that Paul was restricting women from speaking in church meetings. However, let’s consider the text, in its context. Immediate Context: Firstly, consider that the very next verse says, “What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?” (1 Cor 14:36), which, if read immediately after verses 34-35, shows Paul to be reacting to the idea of restricting women and not advocating it. Extra Biblical Context: Now, someone may rightly ask, surely Paul would not advocate following God’s law only to immediately refuse the idea. But, was it God’s “law” that Paul was referring to that says women ought to keep silent? No! A careful search will reveal no such law in the Bible. So what “law” was Paul referring to then? Paul was quoting the Jewish oral law (Talmud) in vs 34-35 that some in the church apparently still wanted to embrace. And, in vs 36, we see Paul reasoning against this restriction on women. Firstly, he is clearly flabbergasted by such a notion. Then, through rhetorical questions, he refutes their logic to keep such a custom. Paul points out that the word did not come from men, but, by implication, that it is from God. And, that it also did not only go to men, but, by implication women too. The logic being that there was no reason to restrict women from speaking because they “learn” just fine directly from God and His word and don’t need to be instructed by their husbands at home in order to learn. This explains the grammar and obvious tone in verse 36. TALMUDIC QUOTES : Only men could speak in public (Beraktoth 4,36; Mishnah Aboth 1,5) No woman could give a testimony or conduct business. (Mishnah Shabbath 4,1). For a glimpse into the prevailing mindsets around that era, here is Adam Clarkes comment on Verse 34: “Let your women keep silence in the churches] This was a Jewish ordinance; women were not permitted to teach in the assemblies, or even to ask questions. The rabbins taught that “a woman should know nothing but the use of her distaff.” And the sayings of Rabbi Eliezer, as delivered, Bammidbar Rabba, sec. 9, fol. 204, are both worthy of remark and of execration; they are ….”Let the words of the law be burned, rather than that they should be delivered to women.” Adam Clarke Further Context: Paul would be contradicting himself in the very same letter if he taught that women were to keep silent. Consider that he says 1 Cor 14:26, “…when ye come together, EVERY ONE of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation…” This would be impossible for women if they were to keep silent. Furthermore, Paul clearly knew, taught and practiced the New Covenant where no restriction on women exists. In Galatians 3:28, Paul captures the equality that is found in Christ. It reads, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Paul Was Rejecting Male Patriarchy and Not Women Speaking So, contrary to the teachings and traditions of Judaism (and a whole lot of Christianity today), PAUL WAS OPPOSING THOSE WHO WOULD SILENCE WOMEN. He was correcting those who were wanting to bring certain wrong teachings and traditions from Judaism into the church. Clearly, if we are to isolate verses to capture Paul’s thinking then surely his view is seen in vs. 36 and not vs. 34-35. He then refutes opposition to this by saying, “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. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant” (1 Cor 14:37-38). Perhaps you are asking, “What of: 1 Tim 2:11-15 1 Cor 11:3 1 Tim 3:1 Eph 5:22 |
and it's already on front page |
GistNet:how's this one news |
her surgery butt dey tear clothes |
kingeemzy5: |
when you've eaten belleful with zero worries[/quote]Na them say make you no eat ni |
Happy birthday. �� |
Happy birthday. �� |
who they help |
Na so |
stag:confusion |
nonsense and buhari |
illegal7:wetin you seef fit do |
thablogger:cute |
thablogger: |
thablogger: |
thablogger: |
MuttleyLa ff: |
MuttleyLa ff: |
take heart |
iranu |
queensera:Come on go find news and stop copying and pasting redundant crap, lazy youth |
wetin make we do? mumu blogger |


