₦airaland Forum

MuttleyLaff

Judges 4:8-9
And Barak said to her, If you will go with me, then I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go.

And she said, I will surely go with you; nevertheless, the trip you take will not be for your glory, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh.

From the above we see that

1. Barak didn't agree with what she told him but on one condition. (He probably thought taking her would be carrying with him God's protection)
2. Deborah wasn't planning on going to war
3. Deborah didn't argue, but listened and did what he said like a wife, a humble woman and a good mother
4. Deborah told him the consequences of his decision which was as a result of his unbelieve.

MuttleyLaff

The nonsense assumption you made about Rebecca shows stupidity

So every woman that hears God and believes his word and acts upon it is a leader

So Rajab, the Samaritan woman, the widow of zarapheth, and every other woman God used to play a role in his redemption plan were leaders

Awake, awake, Deborah: awake, awake, utter a song: arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity captive, thou son of Abinoam. Judges 5:12

Deborah acted like Mariam, Moses's sister. She motivated the men to fight

While it was Barak who lead. Even traditional Hebrew would tell you the same thing.

Judges 4:5 they went to her to have their disputes decided according to God's wisdom and prophetic insight

She enforced obedience as Israel had no king or better still God was Israel's king as the time

Notice how her story ends with and Israel had peace and not and she led Israel

MuttleyLaff don't deceive yourself and deceive others as well

I brought the names Deborah, Huldah, Rebecca, Mary and the rest

You are just trying unsuccessful to twist scripture

Now you leave out the fact that Mary was basically told what will happen to her

But Joseph was told and instructed what to do more than once


I said Maybe you think God is sexist, twisting an easy statement like no wonder u lack understanding of scripture.

And I said that because of accusations to scripture statement and giving off an opinion that Paul wrote saying it was an instruction from the Lord is a sexist mentality.

Accusing a messenger means accusing the one who gave the message.

MuttleyLaff the fact you stoop so low as to make an insignificant point to proof that I am human doesn't mean what God says is a lie.

While you took your eye off the scripture you fell into a trap.


Yes their were female mentioned to be shepherding in the scripture but every time they were mentioned it was to display there helplessness and their need for a male intervention.

I never said there was gender in heaven, infact I have kept retyping Jesus's statement there is no sex in heaven.


God never overstepped Isaac, he answered the prayer of Rebecca but then again do you have a feminist agenda

MuttleyLaff

So going to enquirers from God now means making Huldah a leader.

See how devil wants to deceive people into thinking it was her that they went to or it was her that was speaking.

Finallydead:
Solite, The more you keep trying to answer me, the more you'll keep shifting goalposts. From saying the woman is saved from controlling tendency to now saying she is saved from her desire for her husband. So you still didnt answer in light of the unsaved who give birth or the barren/celibate sisters. Also about how Paul delegates prayer to the Spiritual man and apparel to the spiritual woman. All these would have helped you see your fumbling. See how your answer also directly contradicts BlueAngel444. BlueAngel says it's divine birth, which is even closer, than yours.
Let me help you both see something back in the story of Eve.
The salvation through childbirth that Eve was promised was that her seed would conquer the serpents seed. Take note that no woman on earth has ever or will ever have seed. Only a man has seed. This is also why BlueAngel444 got it wrong. The Lord Jesus can't be the seed because He was never the seed of a woman but the seed of God in the woman. However, his birth was the only birth that would lead to the reality of this expected seed. Satan's seed is inside all mankind too, male and female and there is no woman who ever gave birth or ever will to a conqueror of Satan's seed which is in all humanity.
Again notice that Paul did not put the salvation of Eve in the past birth of Jesus Christ or any previous childbirth even in the church age. He puts it in the future as a future event.
Again notice, the woman's salvation would be initiated ONLY IF she continues to wear the modest apparel he had suggested...sobriety (seriousness) as well as the garments of love, Faith and holiness. it's not just any pregnancy through a man that will do it.
Let me also give you more insight or it may add to the twist, depending. Back to Ps 68:11-12. Do you know that it was a woman again, who dwelt in the house that divided the spoil (which is an event that only takes place on the battlefield by those who fought the war). Those who know the mystery of manhood and womanhood will already see how all scripture fits seamlessly from this. But alas, Paul says it is a great mystery (Eph5:32) (something BlueAngel seems to at least be agreeing with Paul in, even in his error, calling it calculus, lol. If only he knew its deeper than that) and here you all are trying to handle something so deep without the help of the Spirit, no wonder all this mess you're making.
I'll leave it here for now and come back later to add. But chew on this in the mean time.

you are confused

BlueAngel444:
So she was a motivator like wives who wake their husbands up in the morning, speak sweet words to them, praise them and encourage them before they leave.

Please is that in anyway leading her husband.


Have you not written that a woman can and should be a pastor. Or do you disagree with scripture?

She was a Judge!
A judge is a leader!

BlueAngel444:
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

You can accuse people like the devil but the deception and your errors are obvious.

You statements contradicts those of God in scripture and those who agree with him, if my error is in not agreeing with your nonsense that fine by me.

solite3:
you are confused

For the record, lest some are misled by your allegations.
Let's begin from your error to lead you to truth. If you believe the seed of the woman was our Lord Jesus, and if Deborah(whom MuttleyLaff brought up), judged Israel in the presence of capable men, and decided final verdicts and governed the land(for solite sake, she was neither married nor had a child) even before our Lord came, why now after His coming, and her salvation will a woman not be free to lead men, if she has the grace from God, or has her salvation brought her losses. Dont you know that the authority of a pastoral or teaching gift is far less than a judge who doesn't only guide but makes decisions for the land. Do you see how you will only keep yourself in confusion.
Can you state one place where I have contradicted scripture. Our Lord Jesus Christ is forever the only true God manifested in the flesh, who is now in glory. If you believe so, then you should agree with scripture that He is the seed of God. God is not the seed of the woman. Even when God sowed his seed into a virgin, he only needed her womb so He could come as flesh and blood but He was never Mary's seed. No earthly woman even has seed. But God has His seed and planted it in Mary. That is why He never called Mary his mother(Mt12:48) but always called God His Father.
Knowing no earthly woman has seed, not even Mary, who only bore God's seed in her womb, how then does God say the seed of the woman will conquer the serpent's seed. What sort of a woman is 'the woman' here. Again, consider that Paul put this childbirth of the woman in the future even after God was manifested in the flesh, saying "she WILL BE saved..."(1Tim2:15). There is therefore still a childbirth to come which is the seed of the woman, which will conquer the serpents seed, which is her salvation. This is therefore no natural woman but the Spiritual woman. Again, the way into this childbirth is not through any man but through the apparel Paul suggested, sobriety(seriousness)...love, Faith, holiness.(1Tim2:15), as well as reverence(shamefacedness), good works(1Tim2:9-10), so now you see why he brought up the spiritual dresscode. Nothing here was literal
The mystery of the Spiritual womanhood and Manhood spoken of in Paul's epistles is a great mystery, he himself said(Eph5:32), so please keep off that territory till you are taught by the Spirit and stop applying this figure you are ignorant of to our natural ladies, spreading doctrine of demons.

Stop claiming strange spiritual mysteries when you don't even understand simple scripture.

The one I think is claiming is you. You should stop claiming to understand what Paul said after you've been shown your incoherence.

Finallydead:
For the record, lest some are misled by your allegations.
Let's begin from your error to lead you to truth. If you believe the seed of the woman was our Lord Jesus, and if Deborah(whom MuttleyLaff brought up), judged Israel in the presence of capable men, and decided final verdicts and governed the land even before our Lord came, why now after His coming, and her salvation will a woman not be free to lead men, if she has the grace from God, or has her salvation brought her losses. Dont you know that the authority of a pastoral or teaching gift is far less than a judge who doesn't only guide but makes decisions for the land. Do you see how you will only keep yourself in confusion.
Can you state one place where I have contradicted scripture. Our Lord Jesus Christ is forever the only true God manifested in the flesh, who is now in glory. If you believe so, then you should agree with scripture that He is the seed of God. God is not the seed of the woman. Even when God sowed his seed into a virgin, he only needed her womb so He could come as flesh and blood but He was never Mary's seed. No earthly woman even has seed. But God has His seed and planted it in Mary. That is why He never called Mary his mother(Mt12:48) but always called God His Father.
Knowing no earthly woman has seed, not even Mary, who only bore God's seed in her womb, how then does God say the seed of the woman will conquer the serpent's seed. What sort of a woman is 'the woman' here. Again, consider that Paul put this childbirth of the woman in the future even after God was manifested in the flesh, saying "she WILL BE saved..."(1Tim2:15). There is therefore still a childbirth to come which is the seed of the woman, which will conquer the serpents seed, which is her salvation. This is therefore no natural woman but the Spiritual woman. Again, the way into this childbirth is not through any man but through the apparel Paul suggested, sobriety(seriousness)...love, Faith, holiness.(1Tim2:15), as well as reverence(shamefacedness), good works(1Tim2:9-10), so now you see why he brought up the spiritual dresscode. Nothing here was literal
The mystery of the Spiritual womanhood and Manhood spoken of in Paul's epistles is a great mystery, he himself said(Eph5:32), so please keep off that territory till you are taught by the Spirit and stop applying this figure you are ignorant of to our natural ladies, spreading doctrine of demons.


The one I think is claiming is you. You should stop claiming to understand what Paul said after you've been shown your incoherence.

Hmmm @ the bolded

shadeyinka:
It seemed you copied someone's quote and pasted it as mine.

I don't understand. I believe you said this

The question really is, : if a woman is heading a ministry (Joyce Meyer), is she under the permissive will of God?

To which I answered this

If God called her to pastor, she is in the 'perfectest' will of God and has nothing at all in all of scripture against her position.

And you then replied this.

That would be a violation of the logos.
We can try to reinterprete the word if we are not okay with it but it doesn't change what was written.
I believe Christians should be careful of normalizing aberrations and exceptions.

Which I interpreted to mean you believe I'm violating the logos text 1Tim2, that the woman is a literal woman, though I claim she is a figurative/spiritual woman.
So I asked you to answer this question I've asked Solite and others to answer to help you see its a spiritual woman, shown below.

I asked you a simple question and you failed woefully in your attempt to answer. How can the woman in 1Tim2:15 be a literal female, when this woman's salvation is through childbirth. What happens to barren or celibate women. What about unbelieving females who also give birth, will they be saved or partake in Christ's work for making babies, not to mention those out of wedlock. You gave a clumsy and comical answer that could pass for nairaland joke of the year- that women, having by nature, controlling tendencies over men(as if we men don't and which is also a big lie in many cases of women I've met, who are rather too submissive), will be saved from that when they give birth...my, my. MuttleyLaff could help us with a good meme for that. There isn't even a single dominant woman who became submissive after childbirth. My question was just to help all see that this was a parable of Paul. Or again would you say Paul is delegating prayer to literal men (excluding women) and dresscodes to literal women

Try to slowly think though and answer these questions and you may see my point.

We fail as Christians to understand that the scriptures isn't Gods literal words even though they came by God's inspiration. The Bible isn't a book of dos and don'ts but a CHRONICLE of God's dealings with man and the consequences and guidance for living in harmony with God. Apart from outright sin, iniquities and transgression, the scriptures is not dogmatic: as humans, what we have done is simply embellishing the words with our traditions.

Well, I get where youre coming from but really the scripture must be taken as God's LITERAL words with every jot and tittle to have its fulfilling(Mt5:18). However, we must depend on the Holy Spirit to help us know what God really meant in His mind(1Cor2:10-11), else we muddy His word with our blurred lenses, like the Pharisees. Again, while God's methods/modes of operation can be changed, His principles, also captured in Doctrine are very dogmatic and rigid, tied to His unchanging nature.

God desires a people who will honour Him with their whole being and not religious observers

Very true but again false doctrines can shortchange you from maximal expression of worship to God. And the end of doctrine is Christlike love in the mode of selflessness. Any teaching of doctrine that does not lead to this is futile and some, desiring to be teachers of what the Spirit never taught them have reached to false doctrines(1Tim1:6-7) and vain janglings, through their imperfect lens of intellect, like that on this thread, subjugating women from their full expression in Christ. Else why did no other apostle teach subjugation of women in ministry, if it was really the will of God. By the mouth of 2 or 3, the matter will be established.

Finallydead:
I don't understand. I believe you said this

To which I answered this

And you then replied this.

Okay up to this point.

Finallydead:
Which I interpreted to mean you believe I'm violating the logos text 1Tim2, that the woman is a literal woman, though I claim she is a figurative/spiritual woman.
So I asked you to answer this question I've asked Solite and others to answer to help you see its a spiritual woman, shown below.

Try to slowly think though and answer these questions and you may see my point.

I didn't mean YOU were violating the logos. It was a general statement which meant that "women excercising authority" in the church violates the literal logos. But don't forget that the letters kill...


This is my bone of contention. I don't even know what is meant by literal woman. The question in your general quote below should be directed to those who hold that position

I asked you a simple question and you failed woefully in your attempt to answer. How can the woman in 1Tim2:15 be a literal female, when this woman's salvation is through childbirth. What happens to barren or celibate women. What about unbelieving females who also give birth, will they be saved or partake in Christ's work for making babies, not to mention those out of wedlock. You gave a clumsy and comical answer that could pass for nairaland joke of the year- that women, having by nature, controlling tendencies over men(as if we men don't and which is also a big lie in many cases of women I've met, who are rather too submissive), will be saved from that when they give birth...my, my. MuttleyLaff could help us with a good meme for that. There isn't even a single dominant woman who became submissive after childbirth. My question was just to help all see that this was a parable of Paul. Or again would you say Paul is delegating prayer to literal men (excluding women) and dresscodes to literal women

Finallydead:
Well, I get where youre coming from but really the scripture must be taken as God's LITERAL words with every jot and tittle to have its fulfilling(Mt5:18). However, we must depend on the Holy Spirit to help us know what God really meant in His mind(1Cor2:10-11), else we muddy His word with our blurred lenses, like the Pharisees. Again, while God's methods/modes of operation can be changed, His principles, also captured in Doctrine are very dogmatic and rigid, tied to His unchanging nature.


Very true but again false doctrines can shortchange you from maximal expression of worship to God. And the end of doctrine is Christlike love in the mode of selflessness. Any teaching of doctrine that does not lead to this is futile and some, desiring to be teachers of what the Spirit never taught them have reached to false doctrines(1Tim1:6-7) and vain janglings, through their imperfect lens of intellect, like that on this thread, subjugating women from their full expression in Christ. Else why did no other apostle teach subjugation of women in ministry, if it was really the will of God. By the mouth of 2 or 3, the matter will be established.

I wish the scriptures could be taken as literal up to puntuations but I don't think it's the way God wants us to read and comprehend the scriptures.
1Cor 7:10: "And to the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:"

1Cor 7:7: "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man has his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that."

1Cor 7:12: "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord : If any brother has a wife that believes not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away."

The above scriptures just show the varying shade of authority behind the logos. Unfortunately too, if we as Christians go with this, we'll have a chaos. A proper balance of interpretation must be adhered to at all time.

God will not normally violate the logos especially when it concerns rules about SIN, but it isn't impossible.

Compare
Lev 21:14: "A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife."
With
Hos 1:2: "The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take to you a wife of prostitutions and children of prostitutions: for the land has committed great prostitution, departing from the LORD."

My stance is that
1. God can and does call women as Apostles, Teachers, Pastors, Prophets
2. Wisdom is profitable to direct the called (for order must exist in the church)
3. Everyone will answer by himself/herself how he/she has executed his/her calling
4. When men fail to do that which they should, God could raise even stones to replace them

shadeyinka:
I didn't mean YOU were violating the logos. It was a general statement which meant that "women excercising authority" in the church violates the literal logos. But don't forget that the letters kill...

Without ignoring the context of the related scripture, let's have a thorough, critical and clearly stated interpreted explanation, that in detail, leaves no room for confusion or doubt, of what Apostle Paul meant by and/or with the comment "a woman exercising authority over a man"

Finallydead:
This is to clarify Eph 4:8-11. Eph 4:8-11 is a quotation of Paul from Ps 68:18, and Paul never tried to change a single word of it. The actual interpretation of both the Hebrew and Greek texts correctly reads "...gave gifts of men...". In other words, the gifts he gave were those of the human race that were apostles, prophets.... You can confirm this on every possible bible exposition too. In the Hebrew, the word used for men is "Adam", a Hebrew word always used to represent mankind, humanity or the Adamic race in General or multiplicity. It is never used gender-specifically, as there are gender specific words for humans in hebrew, 'ish' (male), 'ishaw' (female). In the Greek as well the word for men is 'anthropos', which also refers to humanity in General or multiplicity, also distinct from the Greek words for male(aner) and female(guner)
Again I see no need for those standing on the other side to continue this argument until they can answer my teaser that solite ran away from, with a bolt, when he saw the light.

It is true that Paul quoted Psalms 68:18. The gifts apparently referring to the men captured in the conquest of the promise Land.

I agree that anthropos could refer to humanity. In some cases this happens to be the case. However, this is not always the meaning of anthropos. For eg Matt 8:9, 9:6, 9:9, 9:33 and Eph 5:33, to mention a few, all have anthropos, but the reference is not to humans as a whole, but the male folk.

I believe that Eph 4:8,11 is referring to the men who take the lead in the congregation. Verses 12-13 lends credence to that view.

shadeyinka:
Okay up to this point.


I didn't mean YOU were violating the logos. It was a general statement which meant that "women excercising authority" in the church violates the literal logos. But don't forget that the letters kill...


This is my bone of contention. I don't even know what is meant by literal woman. The question in your general quote below should be directed to those who hold that position





I wish the scriptures could be taken as literal up to puntuations but I don't think it's the way God wants us to read and comprehend the scriptures.
1Cor 7:10: "And to the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:"

1Cor 7:7: "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man has his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that."

1Cor 7:12: "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord : If any brother has a wife that believes not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away."

The above scriptures just show the varying shade of authority behind the logos. Unfortunately too, if we as Christians go with this, we'll have a chaos. A proper balance of interpretation must be adhered to at all time.

God will not normally violate the logos especially when it concerns rules about SIN, but it isn't impossible.

Compare
Lev 21:14: "A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife."
With
Hos 1:2: "The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take to you a wife of prostitutions and children of prostitutions: for the land has committed great prostitution, departing from the LORD."

My stance is that
1. God can and does call women as Apostles, Teachers, Pastors, Prophets
2. Wisdom is profitable to direct the called (for order must exist in the church)
3. Everyone will answer by himself/herself how he/she has executed his/her calling
4. When men fail to do that which they should, God could raise even stones to replace them

You should have asked yourself was Hosea being called to be a priest?

God is never an author of confusion.

That's how Finallydead didn't consider that Paul was the only author from those sent to the gentiles, telling them things already observed among the Israelites/Jewish congregations as partain women in ministry.

God won't violate his own word just because we think he should (move with the times)

For hundreds of years in church history there wasn't a single female bishop. You people should ask the right questions before coming to any conclusions about what u believe and then begin to insist that it is absolutely right.

BlueAngel444:
You should have asked yourself was Hosea being called to be a priest?

God is never an author of confusion.

That's how Finallydead didn't consider that Paul was the only author from those sent to the gentiles, telling them things already observed among the Israelites/Jewish congregations as partain women in ministry.

God won't violate his own word just because we think he should (move with the times)

For hundreds of years in church history there wasn't a single female bishop. You people should ask the right questions before coming to any conclusions about what u believe and then begin to insist that it is absolutely right.

Hosea was a Prophet: a prophet is a tool in God's hands just as a priest. There is no explicit exception for the prophet..if you know, you can let us have it.

The argument of no female bishop in hundreds of years is lame. Stick to the scriptures AND mind that spiritual gifts are not for a single gender. In those days scholarship was an exclusive men's world. The army was men's world, secular governance was male dominated.

You may have a point if you can prove that God does not/cannot give office gifts of Apostle, Prophet, Teacher or Pastor to a woman.

MuttleyLaff:
Without ignoring the context of the related scripture, let's have a thorough, critical and clearly stated interpreted explanation, that in detail, leaves no room for confusion or doubt, of what Apostle Paul meant by and/or with the comment "a woman exercising authority over a man"

If you ask me, my take about Paul is that he views women as "distractions" and intellectually inferior to me. Hence, he says

1Pet 3:7:
"Likewise, you husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

1Cor 14:35:
"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."

But it could be that Paul was referring strictly to the Corinthian church (for there was men-women argument about who "owns" Christ more).

Following the logos strictly, women should learn doctrine from their husbands at home

JMAN05:
Verse 8 says he gave gifts unto men". The interlinear, word for word says "gave gifts to the men".

MuttleyLaff:
I am going to leave your comment like it is, and let others come to correct you and it or let you yourself, come to correct yourself about what "men" in Greek indeed and truly means, lol. Jokingly speak, maybe, if it was a woman who wrote that, perhaps, its "women' in place of "men" we would have seen and be reading, lol.

CaveAdullam:
You are just trying to twist 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11 to satisfy your opinion. Both passages are clear like daylight, and there is no need trying to upsurge a particular interpretation.

My points are already stated in my previous posts, repeating myself will be of no essence.

Thanks.

God bless.

BlueAngel444:
what did he twist

Finallydead:
This is to clarify Eph 4:8-11. Eph 4:8-11 is a quotation of Paul from Ps 68:18, and Paul never tried to change a single word of it. The actual interpretation of both the Hebrew and Greek texts correctly reads "...gave gifts of men...". In other words, the gifts he gave were those of the human race that were apostles, prophets.... You can confirm this on every possible bible exposition too. In the Hebrew, the word used for men is "Adam", a Hebrew word always used to represent mankind, humanity or the Adamic race in General or multiplicity. It is never used gender-specifically, as there are gender specific words for humans in hebrew, 'ish' (male), 'ishaw' (female). In the Greek as well the word for men is 'anthropos', which also refers to humanity in General or multiplicity, also distinct from the Greek words for male(aner) and female(guner)
Again I see no need for those standing on the other side to continue this argument until they can answer my teaser that solite ran away from, with a bolt, when he saw the light.
.
As a matter of fact, I believe all my replies on this thread to Solite3 have only proven without doubt that he misunderstood the proverb Paul used, taking it literally, thereby arriving at this doctrine of demons.

MuttleyLaff:
God bless you real good FinallyDead, for being an admirably ardent stickler for the ethos of 2 Timothy 2:15 but my brother JMAN05 here, whom I have the utmost respect and regards for, has decided to interpret the greek word "anthropos" from where we have the English word "anthropology" (i.e. the scientific study of humans, human behavior and societies in the past and present) to mean and/or to be something exclusively about males and/or men only, lol

I just love how our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the Apostles (e.g. Peter, Paul etcetera) usually backtrack, go down into scripture (i.e. the Old Testament) and then, either verbatim quote from them or paraphrase them. They demonstrate that the New Testament indeed, is in the Old Testament concealed, and so therefore go about revealing the Old Testament in the New Testament. Praise the Lord Alleluia. God is Good jor.

JMAN05:
It is true that Paul quoted Psalms 68:18. The gifts apparently referring to the men captured in the conquest of the promise Land.

I agree that anthropos could refer to humanity. In some cases this happens to be the case. However, this is not always the meaning of anthropos. For eg Matt 8:9, 9:6, 9:9, 9:33 and Eph 5:33, to mention a few, all have anthropos, but the reference is not to humans as a whole, but the male folk.

I believe that Eph 4:8,11 is referring to the men who take the lead in the congregation. Verses 12-13 lends credence to that view.

JMAN05, you are still had trying very hard to make fetch happen erhn?

Fyi, anthropos always refer to humanity/human being(s) and that always is what the meaning of anthropos is. Even and especially in that Matthew 8:9, 9:6, and 9:9, and 9:33, that is how anthropos is used. It is used as a generic term for "mankind", meaning part of the human race, as in people/human being, without identifying whether woman and ma. Also contrary to what you put forward, there is no using/mentioning of the word anthropos in Matthew 9:33 and Eph 5:33.

JMAN05, finally and most importantly, the Greek word for man/menfolk/male person is "aner" That is the word that refers to a male while "gyne" refers to female

shadeyinka:
Hosea was a Prophet: a prophet is a tool in God's hands just as a priest. There is no explicit exception for the prophet..if you know, you can let us have it.

The argument of no female bishop in hundreds of years is lame. Stick to the scriptures AND mind that spiritual gifts are not for a single gender. In those days scholarship was an exclusive men's world. The army was men's world, secular governance was male dominated.

You may have a point if you can prove that God does not/cannot give office gifts of Apostle, Prophet, Teacher or Pastor to a woman.

So all the scriptures I have been quoting that didn't convince nor the one single sentence that reference history that seems to have provoked u instead of enlightening you.

Just like the Jews asked Jesus to prove what was visible to them, ur asking to prove God's word.

I have written it before and I will write it again God ordered only males to be priests and it is that same pattern pastors follow.

By the way pastor and teacher is one office Bishop.

And stop adding it to the prophetic office or shifting the discussion to something else.

A woman being a prophetess doesn't make her a bishop. Simple ABC

shadeyinka:
If you ask me, my take about Paul is that he views women as "distractions" and intellectually inferior to me. Hence, he says

1Pet 3:7:
"Likewise, you husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

1Cor 14:35:
"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."

But it could be that Paul was referring strictly to the Corinthian church (for there was men-women argument about who "owns" Christ more).

Following the logos strictly, women should learn doctrine from their husbands at home

shadeyinka, with the utmost respect to you, I am sorry I wasnt asking you about your opinion on how Apostle Paul sees women, but what was particularly and only interested, without ignoring the context of the related scripture (i.e. 1 Timothy 2:12 of course), give a thorough, critical and clearly stated interpreted explanation, that in detail, leaves no room for confusion or doubt, of what Apostle Paul meant by the and/or with the comment "a woman exercising authority over a man"

Please put aside your presented 1 Pet 3:7 or 1 Cor 14:35 and your take on Apostle Paul that he views women as "distractions" and intellectually inferior.

I request someone, BlueAngel444, solite3, yourself shadeyinka, CaveAdullam, JMAN05, FinallyDead etcetera to make the effort of accurately handling the word of truth concerning what exactly did Apostle Paul mean by the and/or with the comment "a woman exercising authority over a man" in that 1 Timothy 2:12 context, of course, lol. Thanks

MuttleyLaff:
shadeyinka, with the utmost respect to you, I am sorry I wasnt asking you about your opinion on how Apostle Paul sees women, but what was particularly and only interested, without ignoring the context of the related scripture (i.e. 1 Timothy 2:12 of course), give a thorough, critical and clearly stated interpreted explanation, that in detail, leaves no room for confusion or doubt, of what Apostle Paul meant by the and/or with the comment "a woman exercising authority over a man"

Please put aside your presented 1 Pet 3:7 or 1 Cor 14:35 and your take on Apostle Paul that he views women as "distractions" and intellectually inferior.

I request someone, BlueAngel444, solite3, yourself shadeyinka, CaveAdullam, JMAN05, FinallyDead etcetera to make the effort of accurately handling the word of truth concerning what exactly did Apostle Paul mean by the and/or with the comment "a woman exercising authority over a man" in that 1 Timothy 2:12 context, of course, lol. Thanks

I think I have done that: there must be order in the church. It's just like head covering where Paul says "If anyone has a contention, we have no other tradition"!

shadeyinka:
It could be like the case of Deborah. When the "men" will not have the required faith to fight a war, a woman is raised up by God to do the job

Its not what we think but what God says. Although Deborah may have judge Israel shortly because the men of Israel had failed God but it still not a validation for women pastors/teachers in the church. The church is not israel neither is Israelthe church, israel was a political/religious nation but the church is purely spiritual.
God cannot permit what he is against so it is not in God's permissive will for a woman to lead or pastor a church.

shadeyinka:
Okay up to this point.


I didn't mean YOU were violating the logos. It was a general statement which meant that "women excercising authority" in the church violates the literal logos. But don't forget that the letters kill...


This is my bone of contention. I don't even know what is meant by literal woman. The question in your general quote below should be directed to those who hold that position





I wish the scriptures could be taken as literal up to puntuations but I don't think it's the way God wants us to read and comprehend the scriptures.
1Cor 7:10: "And to the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:"

1Cor 7:7: "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man has his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that."

1Cor 7:12: "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord : If any brother has a wife that believes not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away."

The above scriptures just show the varying shade of authority behind the logos. Unfortunately too, if we as Christians go with this, we'll have a chaos. A proper balance of interpretation must be adhered to at all time.

God will not normally violate the logos especially when it concerns rules about SIN, but it isn't impossible.

Compare
Lev 21:14: "A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife."
With
Hos 1:2: "The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take to you a wife of prostitutions and children of prostitutions: for the land has committed great prostitution, departing from the LORD."

My stance is that
1. God can and does call women as Apostles, Teachers, Pastors, Prophets
2. Wisdom is profitable to direct the called (for order must exist in the church)
3. Everyone will answer by himself/herself how he/she has executed his/her calling
4. When men fail to do that which they should, God could raise even stones to replace them

this is your stance not the biblical stance.
Someone may have a stance that men can marry more than one wives it doesnt make it biblical. Let us becareful not to twist the bible to suite our stance instead of changing our stance to fit into the bible.

BlueAngel444:
So all the scriptures I have been quoting that didn't convince nor the one single sentence that reference history that seems to have provoked u instead of enlightening you.

Just like the Jews asked Jesus to prove what was visible to them, ur asking to prove God's word.

I have written it before and I will write it again God ordered only males to be priests and it is that same pattern pastors follow.

By the way pastor and teacher is one office Bishop.

And stop adding it to the prophetic office or shifting the discussion to something else.

A woman being a prophetess doesn't make her a bishop. Simple ABC

I've only told you that that particular argument is lame. The fact that Jesus spoke Hebrews and Aramaic does not serve as a proof that our language of worship must be in the two languages.

Pastor is different from a Teacher:
A Bishop is an overseer which could do the two jobs together. Some of our pastors even have no business with pastoring because their gifts/calling is different.

A Pastor Cares for the total wellbeing of a group of people

A Teacher promote spiritual growth through helping the flock to comprehend the deep truths of God's word and how to apply it to practical living.

A Bishop is an overseer he coordinates and see that the flock has adequate pastoral care and knowledge of the Word of God.

But within the church, the order is:

1Cor 12:28: "And God has set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."

Eph 4:11: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;"

solite3:
this is your stance not the biblical stance.
Someone may have a stance that men can marry more than one wives it doesnt make it biblical. Let us becareful not to twist the bible to suite our stance instead of changing our stance to fit into the bible.

What exactly do you think I have said? That women should lead the church!?

solite3:
Its not what we think but what God says. Although Deborah may have judge Israel shortly because the men of Israel had failed God but it still not a validation for women pastors/teachers in the church. The church is not israel neither is Israelthe church, israel was a political/religious nation but the church is purely spiritual.
God cannot permit what he is against so it is not in God's permissive will for a woman to lead or pastor a church.

I haven't said that women should lead the church. But I haven't said either that it is impossible for God to raise a woman to lead even his church. If God will call a woman to lead, there must have been a problem/sickness/aberration with the church.

My argument is: if God can use stones in of men, can He not use women?

shadeyinka:
I think I have done that: there must be order in the church. It's just like head covering where Paul says "If anyone has a contention, we have no other tradition"!

Are you seriously telling me and others, that the above comment is exactly, precisely and in the context of 1 Timothy 2:12 is what Apostle Paul meant by "... a woman exercising authority over a man" hmm shadeyinka?

MuttleyLaff:
Are you seriously telling me and others, that the above comment is exactly, precisely and in the context of 1 Timothy 2:12 is what Apostle Paul meant by "... a woman exercising authority over a man" hmm shadeyinka?

In the CHURCH of God, according to the scriptures, that is the position. Women should not exercise authority over men in the church.

But I have added that there could be exceptions. Whenever there is a problem/abbreviation of the church, God could raise stones or even women to do His work. God is not dogmatic. Same with head covering:when a woman's spirituality is dependent on "head covering", there is a big big problem

shadeyinka:
In the CHURCH of God, according to the scriptures, that is the position. Women should not exercise authority over men in the church.

But I have added that there could be exceptions. Whenever there is a problem/abbreviation of the church, God could raise stones or even women to do His work. God is not dogmatic. Same with head covering:when a woman's spirituality is dependent on "head covering", there is a big big problem

Why don't you simply just admit that you have never studied to know the meaning of "... a woman exercising authority of a man".

All this your blagging and dancing over the meaning of that Apostle Paul's comment, is not helping you and anyone else for that matter

Maybe someone soon will come to help and rescue

MuttleyLaff:
Why don't you simply just admit that you have never studied to know the meaning of "... a woman exercising authority of a man".

All this your blagging and dancing over the meaning of that Apostle Paul's comment, is not helping you and anyone else for that matter

Maybe someone soon will come to help and rescue

Dear Apostle-Teacher MuttleyLaff!,

Can you please explain what you mean by "not having authority over men" mean because, I don't remember defining that and you feel my use of the phrase " women should not have authority over men in the church" mean something else than the standard plain meaning.

Yours Sincerely,
Shadeyinka

MuttleyLaff:
JMAN05, you are still had trying very hard to make fetch happen erhn?

Fyi, anthropos always refer to humanity/human being(s) and that always is what the meaning of anthropos is. Even and especially in that Matthew 8:9, 9:6, and 9:9, and 9:33, that is how anthropos is used. It is used as a generic term for "mankind", meaning part of the human race, as in people/human being, without identifying whether woman and ma. Also contrary to what you put forward, there is no using/mentioning of the word anthropos in Matthew 9:33 and Eph 5:33.

Good. Pls remove Matt 9:33 then. And change Eph 5:33 to Eph 5:31. It was a mistake.

JMAN05, finally and most importantly, the Greek word for man/menfolk/male person is "aner" That is the word that refers to a male while "gyne" refers to female

Pls look at the evidence provided before you keep sticking to humans-only definition of anthropos.

True, the word refers to human being. Although that is not the only meaning of the word. However, even at that, let's take it that it refers to a human being. Now, when in some verses it specifically refers to a man, it is not against the definition because man is also a human being, not an animal or a plant. Any lexicon that does not consider that will be contradicted by Bible context. For example those Bible verses that I have up there where anthropos specifically refers to man. Will you go and translate it humans? In Eph 5:31, will a human being leave his father and mother and stick to his wife? Is that how you will translate it? Even if you translate it like that, we all know that the human being is a man, not woman.

Check this lexicon. https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/anthropos.html

shadeyinka:
Dear Apostle-Teacher MuttleyLaff!,

Dear shadeyinka I will be quite happy to accept addressed ordinarily as MuttleyLaff and without the Apostle-Teacher pressue weight. Thank you.

shadeyinka:
Can you please explain what you mean by "not having authority over men" mean because,

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
(i.e. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.)"
- 1 Timothy 2:12

I requested that you, without ignoring the context of 1 Timothy 2:12, give a thorough, critical and clearly stated interpreted explanation of that verse, that in detail, leaves no room for confusion or doubt, of what Apostle Paul particularly meant by and/or with the comment "a woman exercising authority over a man"

Please leave out any bias about Apostle Paul's alleged sexism, and only deal with 1 Timothy 2:12, following and sticking to the ethos of 2 Timothy 2:15. Thank you in advance

shadeyinka:
I don't remember defining that and you feel my use of the phrase " women should not have authority over men in the church" mean something else than the standard plain meaning.

Yours Sincerely,
Shadeyinka

shadeyinka:
I didn't mean YOU were violating the logos. It was a general statement which meant that "women excercising authority" in the church violates the literal logos. But don't forget that the letters kill...

The internet never forgets shadeyinka, even if you dont remember typing the "women excercising authority" comment in relation to the phrase "women should not have authority over men in the church" Now that your comment presented the opportunity to clear up what exactly was going on, what specifically it is Apostle Paul meant by that comment and equally what was it he was frowning at when he made the "usurp authority" comment

MuttleyLaff:
Dear shadeyinka I will be quite happy to accept addressed ordinarily as MuttleyLaff and without the Apostle-Teacher pressue weight. Thank you.

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
(i.e. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.)"
- 1 Timothy 2:12

I requested that you, without ignoring the context of 1 Timothy 2:12, give a thorough, critical and clearly stated interpreted explanation of that verse, that in detail, leaves no room for confusion or doubt, of what Apostle Paul particularly meant by and/or with the comment "a woman exercising authority over a man"

Please leave out any bias about Apostle Paul's alleged sexism, and only deal with 1 Timothy 2:12, following and sticking to the ethos of 2 Timothy 2:15. Thank you in advance



The internet never forgets shadeyinka, even if you dont remember typing the "women excercising authority" comment in relation to the phrase "women should not have authority over men in the church" Now that your comment presented the opportunity to clear up what exactly was going on, what specifically it is Apostle Paul meant by that comment and equally what was it he was frowning at when he made the "usurp authority" comment

I think you should be the one to clear up your position since you seem to know what my position/interpretation of the phrase "a woman should not have authority over men!" mean.

So my bro, I am waiting!