₦airaland Forum

i still have not seen anything in the bible to support that kind of assertion if that is what you are saying.

There were female prophets in the old testament like Miriam and Deborah(who also served as a judge in her own case). It would be erronous to think that it changed divine standards.

Samuel was a judge like Deborah, but when it came to presiding over the worship of God he led the Israelites in Worship. This was a role no woman played in the bible.


You have cited Miriam leading fellow women in worship, Paul admonishing women to teach fellow women and the proclamation of Joel.

But these passages in no way contradict the fact that Leadership in worship was a role played only by men even under the first century Christian congregation.

@Stimulus

There is this assertion i don't know if you are making

That under Christ there is neither male nor female therefore females can become the oversears, elders and Shephards and preside over the flock?

My examples were simply to show that God has placed headship in the christian congregation in a certain way and its not up to humans to change that. Yeah Korah was Levite and Datan and Abiram were Rubenites but the point i was trying to make is that they felt that Moses was promoting a certain class of people over another and that that was not God's will.

God had placed the leadership position in the hands of certain people and the Israelites (And he had his reasons) so regardless of what the other Israelites felt about it beign fair or not or discriminatory  they had to obey and follow it wholeheartedly if they were to have God's favour.

Il come back and state my reason for citing these examples tough.


@Thief throughout history, when it comes to leading in the worship of God, its not really been a male/female issue though[b] in the Christian congregation only men can preside, oversee, shephard and be elders to the flock [/b] and il explain why

Miriam was a prophetess and a Levite woman who led fellow women in worship of God. At a point, she wanted to do more than that and assume a role which in God’s arraignment she was not allowed to do. She became discontent with her position in pure worship and started to desire a role that she could not have.
She never intended to disrespect God. But by refusing to stick to her place in His arraignment, she did just that and God dealt a sever blow to her.

Atahliah was a woman who overstepped her place in Gods arraignment and felt she could assume a position which women were not allowed to. God executed her for that.

These are examples I remember for now. All over the bible examples of people who have tried to alter the arraignment for worship of God and How God executed them. Taking the lead in worship was and still not is something the Almighty jokes with. (Some of God’s decisions might look unjust from a human standpoint eg with King David and Uzzah, but divine justice is principled)

Humans are not in a position to rethink or reassess who can take the lead in worship


Im on my break time and I just took out as lil time to post a few of these. If I remember more il post them

Saul was selected by God as King of Israel. Samuel led Israel in worship b/4 God. When Saul and the Israelites were about to be over run by enemy soldiers and Samuel failed to show up like he should, Saul acted to save the people of Israel. He had very good intentions and desired to please God. But in doing that, he assumed a role that was not allowed to in the worship of God.
As Samuel latter showed him his good intentions did not count. What counted was that in trying to assume a position which he was not allowed, he disobeyed and disrespected that divinely ordained arraignment. It was not a case of anybody could take the lead as long as we are worshiping God. Only a designated person by God could take that lead for that worship to be acceptable to God. (Similar to what people say today that it does not matter who, as long as it is God they are trying to worship)
For that act God took away rulership from him and his linage and he lost God’s approval

Uzzah was a God Fearing man who was among those bringing the Ark back to Jerusalem. When the horses carrying the ark almost tumbled the ark to the ground, he tried to save the ark from falling off. God executed him for that. From a human view point this was harsh and might even look unjust. King David was very unhappy about that and so were the Israelites.
But that he wanted to save the ark was not the point. In God’s divine arraignment of worship, only certain people could come near the ark in that manner. Uzzah disrespected God’s arraignment for worship and had to die, irrespective of how noble his intentions were.

Korah was a well respected Rubenite in Israel and a chieftain who felt that Moses (a Levite) was just misinterpreting the will of God to create a class system. Korah genuinely felt that a just and righteous God would in no way propagate a class system in which only a certain group of people could lead other people in worship to Him. Korah felt that any Israelite who worshiped God should also be able to take the lead in worship and not what he thought was an elite class of Levites that he felt Moses was advocating. He tried to take on a leadership position in the worship of God and he felt he was doing God’s will. He had lots of people who supported him but God executed Korah as well as anybody who shared his idea that anybody could assume a leading role when it came to presiding over true worship.

For Moses to say that it was only his tribe that was allowed to lead others in worship sounded presumptuous, irrational and discriminatory from a human standpoint (ironically Moses may never had known why God selected only his tribe).

But the point was that it was a divine arraignment for pure worship and had to be respected. God destroyed Korah and any other person that felt that the will of God was that anybody who worshiped him could assume a leadership position

Even though i grew up in Naija i never stressed things like this.

Ive seen a female aquintance swear to the man she wanted to marry that he cannot see her pants b/4 their wedding night while she was giving it to other guyz. The guy was was thinking since she said she will not have sex with me b/4 marriage that means she is marriage material (the usual African Man's mentality) Little would he know wats up though.

Hey Davidylan

when i see some of ur posts i crack up with laughter

You had earlier said that you would never marry any woman you had had sex with b/4 and you say all that bla bla bla about a husband "respecting n adoring" a virgin wife now u talk about "dignity"


How come you look down on women that have had sex b/4 but you dont look down on urself? (Well we all know men judge women by different standards)

What makes u fit for marriage if the women you had sex with are not fit for it? Where is ur own dignity

Does it somehow stem from the fact that you are the Judge, the jury, the prosecutor and the defendant at the same time

all i can say to this topic and similar ones is this



Hey let me ask y'all

It looks like women dont look down on fellow women who are divorced but African men look down on women who have been with another man irrespective of if she was married b/4 she did anything.

I remember a post on Nairaland when a guy likend a woman who had been married b/4 to a cow that had been milked totally and completely used and said there was no way on earth he was going to marry another man's left over.

It just struck me that this is the way many African men see their women?

Does that kind of view stem from the fact that somehow, somewhere her "dignity" had been taken from her by another man irrespective of the circumstances

ghettochyk:
STIMULUS,
I'd also like to advise you to stop wasting your time trying to make "sage" see things your way. you have proper citations of what supports your views. God is not prejudice and does not discriminate against men or women. what i've learned from Nairaland is that it's very hard to crack or widen a narrow mind.

@gettochyk. Hmmmmmmmmnnnn, if you knew my posts b/4 this in other sections, u will know im not narrow minded

Im not trying to see things Stimulus way. If you went through my posts u will see that i was not stating my personal opinion, just stating Scrptural precedents as it pertains to the true worshp of God as seen in the bible. Acts quotation from Joel, Miriam leading fellow women and Paul telling women they could teach fellow women within the congregation does not conflict already set divine arraingments when it comes to who can oversee, preside over and teach the congreated people of God, a role reserved only for Men. Soebody quoting it to suggest otherwise

@Thief il say its just one of those things that we are not in a position to change, something thats not in the hands of humans.
Its like you said about procreation. Irrespective of how we see it, its not in our Juridsdiction to change.

You admitted that from a human standpoint, the questions that i asked you might be seen as unfair. But since God has no injustice in his part and he designed it, what is a mere human supposed to do about it.

@ThiefofHearts

Jesus had women who had deep Love for God all around him. But when he assigned Shepharding and Leading roles he gave it only to Men. Probably he was reflecting the will of his Father.

About your question though il have the same answer that you would have if somebody asked you

Is it fair that a man can have up to 1000 or even 10,000 kids in his life time while a woman can't have more than 20

Is it fair that a man can have 100 kids in a single year and a woman can only have 1 (maybe twins, triplets)

At thief il like to see ur answer though

@Stimulus

Okay now i know its pointless. Women like Miriam also had a role to play in Ancient Israel. She presided over fellow women. Quoting Acts and Timothy . In Timothy they could only teach Fellow Women within the congregation


Well il open my eyes like you said. The congregation that had God's favour was not mature.

We are all entitled to our opinions though. No harm.

If Jesus felt women had presiding duties he would have assigned them that

If the first century congregation that fully had God's favour would not have women in presiding oversight


Well by asking those questions that i did illustrating Biblical precedents maybe, just maybe i am the one beign Chauvunistic, sexist, narrow minded bigot.



aight Stimulus, its still all good over here

@Thief

Lets say you are asking me if i agree with with the precedent found in the bible with regards to the worship of God.

Well im not in a position to alter that or reinterprete it or assign injustice as what it was. Those people believed that there were following the Instructions of God. We all have our opinions and beliefs. They were looking at this issue with the bible as their base. If it was just a matter of personal opinions, then it wont be an issue. I just got involved coz people now wanted to use the bible to justify personal opinion of what they percieve is right, fair and just. No way

@Thiefofhearts. You are not the only one that liked my comments in other posts. People liked my posts in Sports and Travel sections coz i always tried to be direct and layed out the facts

Ive been in Nairaland for almost all its existence and i hadly ever posted in the religious section until recently. Too much pointless debates.

If people say they base what they are saying on the bible, then let it be the bible and in that case its quite diffrerent from people stating personal opinions

@ Stimulus

If Biblical precedent does not count, Jesus example does not count, and the example of First century Christianity which clearly had God's blessings does not count then we might go ahead and nd this discussion here.

REMEMBER JESUS CALLED PEOPLE TO BE HIS FOLLOWERS , AND IN ALL THE DISCUSSIONS IVE HAD WITH YOU, YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO INTENTION OF DOING THAT

@ Thief you asked me if i agree with those things.

@ Stimulus to end this debate

I want the two of you to answer these following questions


Was God and Jesus discriminatory, sexist, causing divisions and class, racisct, Chauvunistic etc When

1. God apointed only males to serve as priests

2 only males to serve as Levites (Only a certain designated tribe. What made this tribe more qualified than others?)

3 Only males to instruct the gathering of his true people and take the lead in worship

4 God approved of only Male kings (since the kings also played a major role in worship)

5 When he selected a certain group of people to be a choosen people


[b]NOW THIS IS THE BIG PART[/b]

6 Jesus selected only Males to be his apostles and take the lead in the Christian congregation (even though he had many faithful women close to him)

7 Only males took leadership decisions in the first century christian congregation in matters of worship, even though the women who had faithfully followed Jesus and other righteous women were there?

8 The holy spirit inspired Paul to admonish Christian women in Timothy and in Corinthians

@Thief the issue is that this is not a secular discussion. I dislike people who degrade women in gender issues but thats another issue though for eg men that have slept with many women saying that marrying a virgin would be be this best thing that could happen to them and they would adore her forever because of her Purity, holiness, undefiled state etc bla bla bla. Yeah right. If those things ment a thing to those guys, they would be virgins themselves .Its all a matter of Ego so they can appease their over inflated ego and be like no other man had slept with her b/4 me. So when these guys start blabing about things like adore her purity, I just roll my eyes because its laughable
When it comes to biblical matters, even if a person does not agree wit a particular thing, the person should not try to twist it to accomodate other things

You are missing the point

Women in ancient Israel Prophesyed and prayed but COULD NOT PRESIDE IN WORSHIP OVER MEN.

Both men and women in Israel recieved God's blessings in equal measure, but women could not preside

TRUE DISCIPLES OF JESUS WERE PRESIDED OVER ONLY BY MEN TOO.

ThiefOfHearts:
To think sage used to be cool.

I am always cool @thief. As cool as they come . I always speak the truth, even if its not what i do or follow. The fact that i do not follow something does not change a fact or precedent that is clear. I dont have to agree with something, but that does not change it either

If we were having a secular discussion, it will be a diffrent ball game, but the scriptures are clear and scriptural precedent are what true Christians followed and would still follow.

@Stimulus

Acts 2:17

You keep quoting that scripture saying women would prophesy huh since Acts 2;17 now means something else

That prophesy and proclamation was made to ancient israel in Joel Chap 2:28 and 29. The apostle quoted that verse word for word. Dont try to twist it like  it was a new proclamation under christianity that now somehow allowed women to preside over matters concerning true worship.[/b]The proclamation was made to the people of Israel in a system where [b]Only men by divine arraingment could preside over the congregation of the Israelites


And how does Tim 2:4 translate into Teaching Men in the congregation

@Stimulus

Acts 2:17 is a scripture you are twisting to make out a meaning that does not apply to it.

The question is not if women are prophets in the new testament.

THE QUESTION IS ARE WOMEN ALLOWED TO TAKE THE LEAD IN WORSHIP AND PRESIDE OVER GOD'S CONGREGATED PEOPLE?

YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE EMPTY LIKE I SAID BECAUSE

1 MIRIAM LED WOMEN IN WORSHIP, BUT WHEN MEN AND THE WHOLE ASSEMBLY OF ISREAL WAS CONGREGATED, ONLY MEN TOOK THE LEAD IN WORSHIP

2 THERE WERE PROPHETESSES PROPHESYING IN ANCEINT ISRAEL WHO KNEW THE WILL OF GOD, BUT ONLY MEN COULD PRESIDE OVER MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORSHIP OF GOD

3 IN TRUE FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIANITY, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN PREACHED ABOUT GOD'S KINGDOM, BUT WHEN IT CAME TO PRESIDING OVER TRUE WORSHIP, IT WAS A ROLE RSERVED FOR MEN ONLY

@ Stimulus

You are not the first one to question the God's divine arraingment when it comes to arraingment for leadership in worship.

Miriam, Korah, Athaliah, Saul and a whole host of people who felt that they had good intentions also did that.

But this issue is not a thrivial in the front of the Almighty. He dealt decisively with them.

stimulus:
There are a few things we should note here. "THE" leadership in the Church is not exclusively granted to men, as some have inferred. To assume that it is such would simply mean that women have no leadership roles to play in Church. Men and women together have leadership roles in the Body of Christ.

The second thing is that women in leadership are not to usurp authority over the men. However, there should be a balance rather than a polarization towards just the men.

I believe that women are also gifted with some of the charisma that are given to the men. One such gift is prophesying ("your sons and your daughters shall prophesy" - Acts 2:17). A few others could be delineated. But the question is: what leadership roles are women called to take in Church Life as could be read in Scripture?

This is an EMPTY ARGUMENT

In Ancient Israel, there were also women who were gifted with prophesy just like their male counterparts

BUT THEY COULD NOT PRESIDE OR TAKE A LEADERSHIP ROLE IN THE WORSHIP OF THE ALMIGHTY GOD.

All Christians, both in the first century and today have the same commision of declare the kingdom under Jesus, but when it came to the congregation of God's true people, true christians followed and would still follow the example of Jesus and of his apostles

@stimulus

im not getting drawn into a pointless prolonged argument on an issue as clear as this from a scriptural pespective.

but let me say this.

Following scriptural precedent

1 in ancient Israel, women and children participated in activities of worship to God as they were mandated to, but the lead and presiding roles in teaching the congregated people were only for select MEN.

2 Kings in ancient Israel played a pivotal role in leading the nation in pure worship and that role was specifically reserved for males.

3 Jesus was Perfect and made perfect decisions. In selecting those who would take the lead in pure worship, he selected only men despite faithful women beign all around him. It was no oversight or mistake. He did his Fathers will every step of the way and layed the precedent which his true followers adhere to

4When issues arose in the first century like circumcision and other issues and how the Church then was to be directed, it was a decision that was made only by MALES under the direction of the holy spirit. (Despite the fact that there were women disciples who had God's approval in the first century, including those that were close to Jesus)

5 The admonishion in Corithians and Timothy was observed by God fearing women who had God's approval in the first century and applies to true Christians today

The example of those ladies that walked with Jesus is what true christians should imitate.

They never claimed to have the same authority as the Men who took the lead, never sought to perform their roles nor did they complain to Jesus or any one else about beign discriminated against.

THEY UNDERSTOOD THEIR PLACE IN GOD'S DIVINE ARRAINGMENT AND SHOWED RESPECT AND OBIDIENCE FOR IT.



Its not a personal or small matter

Humans cannot rethink Divine standards.

Jesus had faithful women who suffered with him throughout his earthly ministry. But when he selected those that will take the lead in teaching and presiding over the congregation of true believers, he selected only men, reflecting the will of his Father.

When issues arose that needed to be handled within the First century congregation, Only Men had the authority to lead and make decisions.

It was not a man made arraingment, so men are not in a position to rethink it. Divine standards are already set.

and people that try to make this a trivial or personal issues are JOKERS big time.

You cannot alter divine standards using wordly wisdom. That is complete stupidity with and n the eyes of the almighty God.

For a way of worship to be accepted by God, it has to be conform to his standards otherwise it wont have his approval.

And some people have been making empty arguments here saying that there were Prophetesses in the past. These prophetesses in Israel never participated in leadership positions when it came to the worship of God.
It was the duty of Male priests and Levites.

All the women here can do well to borrow a leaf from the example of the faithful women that followed Jesus Christ.

They never agigtated for authority or complaind about beign discriminated against. They never claimed to have the same authority as the apostles or the other men that took the lead. THEY UNDERSTOOD THEIR PLACE IN GOD'S DIVINE ARRAINGMENT AND NEVER SOUGHT TO CHANGE IT. THEY RECOGNIZED THAT TRYING TO ALTER THAT WOULD SHOW GROSS DISREGARD FOR THE WAY OF WORSHIP OF GOD AND ULTIMATELY GROSS DISREGARD FOR GOD AND HIS SON.

@proverbial.

Many people here want to make it look as if it is a trivial and personal issue. NO WAY.

Thats why i asked if it was sexism or discrimination on the part of God and his son to appoint only Men to take the lead in pure worship with regards to acient Isreal, when Jesus established Christianity and during the first century christianity. Those ways of worship clearly had God's appoval as they followed scriptural precedent with regards to the role of females in the worship of God.

Most people here are just stating their personal opinions, not biblical standards

One lady said its about mens ego, another said it doesnot matter these days and my sister Babyosisi said it was a matter of personal opinion.

True Christians however follow scriptural directives.

IN THE TRUE AND PURE WORSHIP OF GOD, A WOMAN [/b]CANNOT[b] TAKE A POSITION OF AUTHORITY AS REGARDS TO INSTRUCTING, LEADING AND DIRECTING THE CONGREGATION OF GOD.

THE SCRIPTURES IS CLEAR ON THIS. IT IS NOT A MATTER OF PERSONAL OPINION.

TRUE CHRISTIANS PUT TO MIND THE COUNCIL FOUND AT 1TIM 2:11,12 AND 1COR 14:33,34.


WE MIGHT DO WEELL TO ASK OURSELVES

was God and his Son Jesus beign sexist, discriminatory or unfair when

1. God apointed only males to serve as priests

2 only males to serve as Levites

3 Only males to instruct the gathering of his true people and take the lead in worship

4 God approved of only Male kings (since the kings also played a major role in worship)

5 Jesus selected only Males to be his apostles and take the lead in the Christian congregation (even though he had many faithful women close to him)

6 Only males took leadership decisions in the first century christian congregation in matters of worship, eventhough the women who had faithfully followed Jesus were there?

The clear precedent is there

True Christians follow that precedent, others do what they want

@Tayo D

More clutching of straws to support Christiandoms harlotry huh.

Take a look at the quotes by historians on the top page of the last page.

No Soilder after becoming a Christian continued as a soilder.

For the Centurion to agree to become baptised and a christian ment he had to have started to fear the True God. It would become clear to him that he has entred a spiritual convenant which was and still is incompactible with the life of a true Christian, he would have to make changes to his life style in order

Having a desire to do the will of God is one thing, conforming ones life to meet the requirments of living as a true Christian is another thing.
An example of this is the rich young ruler who approached Jesus. Jesus saw that he had a desire to do the will of God, but was that enough. No coz he failed to accept the fact that  change in his lifestyle was something he had to do.

Paul in his letter to the Romans (i think) and Jesus in the book of Mark made it clear that there are many people that have a burning desire to do the will of the True God but are not doing it the right way and that makes their form of worship in vain. (Il come and state the exact scriptures a lil later). I seem to be out of time and can only come to nairaland during break time but il try.

Paul in his letter to Timothy showed him that a true slave of God would not be engaged in carnal fights and at another occasion, he makes it clear that Christians are not part of carnal warfares
The truth of the matter is that if that Centurion, or anyother person in fact wanted to become part of the spiritual convenant, they would have to make changes to their lives.