₦airaland Forum

@obanikoro,

Hehe, bros. . .  Infact, if he try am, una no go hear delay tactics at all. That will be his end!

davidylan:
we now hate because we quote from allah's book of love?

Maybe, the 'love' was reserved alone for only Muslims (apply the logic of haram and halal).


Incidentally, last night one of my Muslim friends (we used to debate the question of baptist-Muslims) was over at ours, and I had the SKY TV channel tuned in to UCB (a Christian channel). The moment my paddy hear John 3:16, the guy blood swell pass the banks of Jordan.

Hear him: "How can bible say that? Imagine! Allah must hate some people - he cannot love *efry-bodi!"

Bros, I tire for the guy - notin dey pass through am.


*efri-bodi = everybodi.

@TV01,

The verses you offered for qualifications for male leadership roles by no means nullify the complementary leadership roles for women according to Ephesians 4.

My point, I repeat, has been about:

(a) recognizing that women have leadership roles in the Body of Christ

(b) maintaining a balance by recognizing such leadership roles

(c) understanding leadership as a joint exercise where men and women partner together.

The one problem that you have to deal with is the idea you bring up as to "overall leadership/authority" being ascribed exclusively to men - and that idea is not even suggested by the verses you offered.

As for balance, let me offer you again something out of Titus from which book you quoted:

(a) male leadership offered in Titus 1:9 -
'holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able,
by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.'

(b) female leadership offered in Titus 2:3 -
'The aged women likewise, that they be . . .teachers of good things"

Just that one example for now.

Question: Do men teach? Yes they do.

Do women teach as well? Yes they do.

The issue (as has been repeatedly stated) is that the scope of leadership exercised by women is defined by two things:

i. she is not permitted to "teach" (in which a study of the word there is simply that she is not to assume to be "master" - James 3:1) in the church[b]es[/b];

ii. she is not to usurp authority over the man (not to be "masters" over men).

But is that saying she is not to teach at all? NO.

Is that also saying she has no leadership role? NO.

In Titus, both men and women are presented to us in their various leadership capacities. The problem for ages has been that people who see a men-only type of leadership in the Body of Christ have been reading only Titus 1. They need to go beyond that and read also Titus 2!!

That is why again I offer I Cor. 11:11, because one cannot speak about balance or harmony if leadership for them starts and ends in Titus 1 as if Titus 2 never existed in the Bible!

Lastly, two things must be commented on again:

(a) the verses you quoted do not place the so-called "overall leadership" in the hands of men - that is the prerogative of the Head of the Body, Christ Himself.

(b) leadership in the Body of Christ is a joint exercise managed by both men and women; for it is not an exclusive exercise ascribed to men.

The balance of leadership in the Body of Christ is then highlighted in Hebrews 13:7 -

Remember ^(A)them which have the rule over you,
^(B)[/b]who have [b]spoken unto you the word of God:
whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

Could I then break this down in bits?

Two things are presented to us in Hebrews 13:7 -

(A) "Them which have the rule over the saints" - this is leadership in partnership

(B) "who have spoken unto you the word of God" - is it only men who speak the word of God to the saints?



Now, I hope you can understand why the idea of "overall leadership" is something that is hard to defend in Scripture - it is not taught the way many people have persuaded themselves to believe. If at all, it belongs solely to Christ.

One cannot overlook the fact of what I Cor. 11:11 offers: "the man is not without the woman; neither the woman without the man" - that does not at all supposrt the idea of exclusivity, and we ought to be looking at the balance that God's Word offers.

Remember the example of Titus from which book you quoted - leadership does not stop in chapter 1 of that book, but we must go on from there to see that women indeed can be teachers of good things in chapter 2!

@Kuns,

Kuns:
Here you will find some information on William Shakespeare - English playwright & poet association with the British Freemasonary (scottsh rite 32 degrees) , which is still afilitiated to the church of Satan.

http://www.cephasministry.com/famous.html

Wetin dey do you, Kuns?

All you have been offering are excuses. The question has not been answered; and you have only come back confirming what I already offered you - that Willaim Shakespeare was an English playwright. How does that translate into his being the writer of the KJV Bible?

I already saw that weblink you offered, and yet another one which I saw the same week on about the same thing:

http://www.islipmasons.org/famos_masons.htm

belloti:
whats new about david hating musims?

the point is does it really matters?

Bros, I still want to know this: 

If someone (A) says he loves you but decrees that you will still enter a place where you dread, and then another person (B) points out what (A) has said, who's hating you - (A) or (B)? 

Or, put in another way:

Suppose you know that (A) has decreed to take you into a place you don't wish to even go near, and another person (B) is constantly asking that you remove yourself from that place by quoting the evidence for (A)'s decree, would you see (B) as a hater or lover? 

Oga belloti,

belloti:
Whosoever left islam was never a true muslims.

Hmmm. . . that's a new one on me. Did the Qur'an claim at all that anyone who leaves Islam was never a Muslim?

If that idea came from the Qur'an (or perhaps one of the fabricated Hadiths), why then seek to behead those who were never true Muslims? In other words, Muslims kill those who were never truly "Muslims" - simply because they left? Haa, something must actually be going on while we are "facing the east" O!! 

belloti:
whats the attraction in paganism and idol worshipping?

Exactly why they left Islam, my guy!!    Abi you never hear say Muhammad chose only one of the 360 pagan idols when he visited the Kaa'ba? Now tell me, bros. . . why do Muslims touch and kiss the BLACK STONE in Mecca??

@TV01,

TV01:
First, I have repeatedly said, that eldership (overall leadership), in the church amongst brethren is by males (plural), under lien from Christ.

You pushing for gender balance, partnership (i.e. equality at all levels of authority) and trying to equate it with my church/home harmony (the flow of God given authority between home and church) is either a misreading or simply disingenuous

There are clearly defined roles for both genders. All women and men are under authority, albeit it is normal for all women to be under male authority of some sort. Overall leadership in the church (eldership is the preserve of men, with regard to my first paragraph above).

Okay, I hear. Point is, there is no such thing as "overall leadership/authority" given to men: that is the prerogative of Christ. Trying to qualify this with comical adjectives is not helping your argument.

TV01:
Only a man can be a bishop/elder/shepherd/presbyter/pastor/overseer with oversight for the whole congregation/flock.

Sorry, that should mean then that you simply don't get the message of Ephesians 4:16. Please go over and see where I explained the gifts of verse 11.

TV01:
If a woman qualifies to be an elder, why can’t she teach?

Titus 2:3 - "The aged women likewise, that they be . . . teachers of good things."

TV01:
If a woman qualifies to be amongst the plurality of elders, how can she usurp any that are men? You can only usurp from a higher authority.

A woman can fulfill her LEADERSHIP role in the Body of Christ without necessarily usurping authority over the man. That is why I have offered how this ties in with understanding James 3:1; and that is why I have constantly reminded us of the pivotal message of I Cor. 11:11 and Heb. 13:7.

TV01:
That suggests the only usurping, could be of the Lord it also changes this;

Christ -> Man -> Woman to this,
Christ -> Man and/or Woman

I Cor. 11:11 -

"Nevertheless

neither is the man without the woman,

neither the woman without the man,

in the Lord."

TV01:
You are pushing a “neither fish nor fowl” line of reasoning by suggesting or inferring (as TayoD has) that in the home it’s the husband as head, whilst in church leadership, all positions are open to all. Unless of course that’s not what you are saying, one can never be entirely sure.

Thank you again. The one thing I notice is that you guys have had nothing to say to the several examples I have offered already for my persuasions. Meanwhile, I'm not entirely sure if you're deliberately refusing to consider what I have posted and the points I have repeatedly made earlier.

@TV01,

TV01:
Clearly tithing as a notion (and on whatever basis) has been subsumed into the Christian grace of giving.

Okay, I hear. Do I tithe? Yes, I do. No shakings from my rejoinder above.

@TV01,

TV01:
The thread title and poser ~ Re: To Tithe or Not to Tithe?

Was to determine if NT Christians were meant to tithe or not? If so on what basis. Meant reviewing it in context, OT & NT, types, shadows, symbolism and practicality.

I know what the topic says; but it would seem to me that the very thing I have asked that you attempt is now unwittingly being offered in the second line:

TV01:
So my summary would be; no mandatory tithe, voluntary tithing fine, but as in essence it's no different to giving, it's an individual thing. Brethren, enjoy your liberty.

Let me simply ask this:

Since the topic is "To Tithe or Not to Tithe", by admitting that voluntary tithing is fine
and it's no different to giving, are you not agreeing that Christians can indeed tithe?

The one thing you have said here is this: "YES, Christians can tithe - and its fine; because voluntary tithing is the same as giving!!

TV01, I no fit laugh!!



Bros, pay your TITHE (aka voluntary tithe. . . aka giving). Just do the one you want to do - label as you please, eh? Enjoy!!

@doski,

doski:
Emphatic NO!
have we forgotten how Eve hoodwinked Adam into eating the fruit of the forbideen tree?
If a woman leads a church the devil will posess her to lead the congregation astray because
they are the devils tool kit.

Okay, listen up. It was actually a man who betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver (and with a kiss). Eve led her husband; Judas betrayed Jesus.

In the course of Church history, none has been as serious as the case of a man (Judas) who was actually possessed by Satan himself to dastardly betray Jesus.

The point is that you don't argue that women are the devils tool kit and call that "the bitter truth" that must be told. We should rather be trying to see and appreciate the roles of women as joint heirs with men in the Body of Christ.

I Cor. 11:11 -- "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."

Cheers.

@TV01,

TV01:
And my consistently maintained position is that church order does not impinge on or overturn or void home order. There is harmony.

Oga TV01, what is the difference between "harmony" and "balance"? HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I BEEN CALLING FOR BALANCE, before you guys came repeating your questions endlessly in order to promote what you have not been able to defend from Scripture?

No, you have not been able to defend your persuasions soundly from Scripture. I am waiting for the Miriam, Moses and Aaron event in Genesis where you asked me to go read it carefully - just a reminder! That is why I keep on asking: do you guys take the time to go through posts before you post assertions in denial at all?

TV01:
Say a man has a wife who is more zealous, more involved, mature, active, Godly and any other quality or qualification you care to consider. And let’s say, in your book she qualifies for eldership, and you make her an elder, pray tell, in the home who has authority? And in the church who has authority over whom between the two?

Good question - and I applaud that, even though I may offer that the answer is given already in my previous rejoinder. Let me say it another way:

(a) Using the example of Deborah the prophetess, under who's authority would she be judging the entire nation of Israel - her husband's or God's authority? My answer is that she would be acting under God's authority rather than her husband's authority.

(b) The reason for the above is simple enough for me:

i. As prophetess is was called by God to the position of a leader over an entire nation

ii. As wife, she could attend upon domestic affairs as suited to her family.

I don't try to mix up the two.

When Deborah the prophetess gave the prophetic word from the LORD, she was acting in the capacity of a leader over the entire nation (including men and women) - the result of which the Bible states: "the hand of the children of Israel prospered, and prevailed against Jabin the king of Canaan, until they had destroyed Jabin king of Canaan" (Judg. 4:24).

This was a decisive moment in the existence of the entire nation; and I don't read there that she was prophesying just to the women of Israel. The clause "the children of Israel" verily includes both men and women ("the children of Israel came up to her for judgment" - vs. 5; . . ."she judged Israel at that time" - vs. 4)

The one thing constantly before me is this: gifting and calling are from God; and He also gives the authority for leadership in service. The emphasis on "overall leadership/authority" ascribed to men is a flat disregard for the true source of authority in the Body - the Lord Himself.

TV01:
I will review the OT references and possibly post. For now I will say this. There is no pattern of male/female leadership in the OT, that is not to say that women did not fully participate, just not as leaders in the normal course of things.

There are several examples - and I have offered one for you to digest. The one question I will ask you here is this: Was Deborah leader over the nation of Israel or not?

TV01:
Second trying to invent a whole new paradigm and ignore the clear scriptural leaning towards men in OT leadership just because of a few odd instances of prominent women is force-fitting. Kings, Priest, Prophets were always male.

You must be reading off-key again. You can ask sage - I did not in one instance state that women were part of the priesthood; so this idea of force-fitting anything has no bearing in my posts at all. Here, let me remind you again:

I have stated these already:

(a) In the OT, only men were called to be priests

(b) In the NT, both men and women are called to be priests together

(c) the NT worship is not a continuum of the OT worship

(d) worship is not to be confused for leadership

(e) because we are all priests as far as worship is concerned in the NT, NO MAN presides over the worship of NT believers (that is the prerogative of Christ alone)

(f) when it comes to leadership in the Body of Christ, there is a balance - and such leadership is a joint exercise by both men and women rather than exclusively for men!!

TV01:
As is clear from scripture, and I have consistently maintained OT shadows are not to be overlaid wholesale onto NT Christians. The NT contains more than enough detail on which to base Christian Church structure and that restricts eldership to males. Apart from stretched references to Junia and Priscilla, where is there female leadership (overall) in the NT narrative? Even the deacons where exclusively male.

If you can simply bring me one verse in the NT where OVERALL LEADRSHIP/AUTHORITY is ascribed to MEN, then perhaps I might again wlak you through the fact that NO MAN has OVERALL LEADERSHIP in the Body of Christ except[b] the LORD JESUS alone[/b]!!

Regards.

@TV01,

I'm going to try and be very quick on this one.

TV01:
Eldership is overall leadership
There is a deaconate and an Eldership. The Eldership has overall responsibility/authority (with regard to the Headship of the Lord)

I haven't seen it so taught in the Word; and that which I see is that the so-called "overall leadership" (if at all an overall) is Christ's alone. Leadership in the Body is a joint exercise: not just to state it, but to demonstrate it - and that I have done for the most part.

TV01:
If the bible says older (more mature) women should teach younger ones, is that not in
A sense a form of leadership, does it not suggest at least in that forum, there is authority?
So it can’t be too difficult to see the difference between overall leadership (by male elders) and possible subsidiary roles by others, male or female? Not every, but overall.

I don't want to misread you; but you're not making any issues clearer. The one thing that informed my entering this debate is the fact that many people see leadership in Church as exclusively a men-only exercise; and that is what I have tried to challenge by offering Biblical texts to the point in my persuasions that it is rather a joint exercise.

The idea that men have the "overall leadership" is simply rejecting the Biblical premise that women are called alongside to offer leadership in various capacities in the Body of Christ. The 'overall leadership' is Christ's alone; and that is why I have asked that we constantly recognize the fact that no one presides over the worship of NT believers in as much as we are all priests!! In this regard, I offered a distinction between worship and leadership; and then tried as well to bring us round the point of understanding the practical examples of leadership exercised by women.

TV01:
(a)If she is not allowed to teach the whole fellowship, is she allowed to teach in a smaller specific gathering, or at all?

Titus 2:3 - Are women said to be teachers of good things?

TV01:
(b)Please explain what constitutes usurping authority over a man/the men, if she is allowed to lead with them, if she is a partner and an equal in authority? You can only usurp one in  higher authority.

If you go back to where I offered an explanation for the contextual understanding of what usurping authority indicates in line with not being "masters" as James 3:1 teaches, you'd see my point. TayoD had offered the question earlier to me as to whether "teaching" is the only way a woman could usurp authority, and my answer was NO - with an attempt as well to explain just what it points to.

TV01:
Not overall, and certainly not eldership, but I await your post.

Please bear in mind that "overall leadership" is exercised by none other than Christ.

TV01:
If I state something that plainly cannot be right or does not make obviously sense, please don’t put on your sporting kit and run with it  .

I wasn't being forward at all; but I reckon that if I don't began to call you guys early enough to such ideas, you would continue to make runaway guesses.

TV01:
Could I be saying that Authority stems from the home? Of course I am not.

In other words, your earlier statement was wrong then about authority emanating from the family? This was your statement:

TV01:
My stance in contrast to TayoD', is order and authority emanate out of the family and are not inverted or done away with once we step into a church setting, but rather maintained and expanded on.

How do you make a statement and then come back contradicting it?

TV01:
What I mean in context is that the authority that is instituted in the home by God in Christ, is not subject to, subsumed or voided by that instituted in the church, by the same Lord. Clear?

And what was so difficult in what I offered earlier than that? I had said, the home setting may help us understand some aspects of Church life, but the home setting does not define Church life. You simply do not try to define authority in the Church as emanating/stemming from the home - and that was the reason why I used the example of Paul in Gal. 1:1.

TV01:
Further church life does not define home life or rule.

Did I anywhere suggest that it did?

TV01:
Does what you wrote even make sense to you? Even in light of your misreading me earlier? Does it sound like I could be suggesting that Paul’s calling/qualification as an apostle was predicted on his being married? Or having an ordered family life?

Don't make me laugh. Did your own ideas make sense to you afterall when you saw authority "emanating" or "stemming" from the family into Church life? You didn't make any sense there - and that is why I had to bring you round this point.

TV01:
If you want to read it that way, fine. But my extrapolation thus far has made it very clear that
1. Overall authority resides with men

Which is what I have clearly flawed by pointing out that "overall leadership" (which now you have come to assign as "overall authority" soley belongs to the Head - CHRIST!

TV01:
2. Being under authority does not mean you are not a leader or cannot lead ~ afterall, the men that lead are under Christ’ authority and The Son is under The Fathers.

So, if being under authority does not mean you are not a leader, my question is: can a woman be a LEADER?

Hey guys, make una cross atlantic small and watch these guys learn some real lessons!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZUFndhmJQk

@gbade. x, I wonder how many koboko the two of us for collect on our backside if we dey that class!! Watch the guy count up to 20 and 100!!

@topic,

Ever heard this maxim: "A man's worst enemy is sometimes himself"?

If that maxim holds true in some sense, e be like say some people go bury themselves quicker than the prayer go arrive voicemail O!

@I-man,

[quote author=I-man link=topic=54361.msg1252530#msg1252530 date=1183243513]Shouldn't the anger of Muslims be directed at Saudi Arabia instead of non-Muslims for rightfully seeking answers to what they regard as a comical legal provision?[/quote]Nope, Muslim anger is statutorily towards others rather than towards the ummah. Just apply it to any issue you might think of, and you'll see what I mean. Let's remind ourselves of two examples:

(a) The Islamic law of Qisas - Muslims who kill non-muslims cannot be queried, let alone arrested.

(b) A muslim can get angry with you (non-Muslim) for quoting Sura 19:71, even though it is in the Qur'an.

There are many more such issues; but that's just about the idea.

@pilgrim1, I almost got you there!

@gbade. x,

[quote author=gbade. x link=topic=62489.msg1260517#msg1260517 date=1183494189]Now where was i?

*suckle. . .suckle. . .suckle. . .[/quote]Lol, can we change your diaper now? For every suckle, remember the nappies will need changing! _{No mind me jare - I just wan relax for work wey wan kill man pikin!}

Just something to whet your appetites on frontal- and back-brain:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMJ0c-j3wYg&mode=related&search=

Cheers.

@TV01,

TV01:
You are really running hard but makiong no ground. Writing a lot but not saying anything. Answering question with posers and posers with queries.

Okay, thanks.

TV01:
I'll tell you what, why don't you just succinctly and specifically state your position on tithing (be that voluntary or mandatory) and giving,

Did so earlier.

TV01:
and the difference between the two if any. Please feel free to adumbrate anything else you think may clear the air.

If there's no difference, why the argument in the first place?

Cheers.

otuwe:
like it says "what seek ye"

anyone that seeks would find

Exactly my sentiments. I still don't see what the substance of the posts on the Grail Message has been. Is it that we truly have to suspend the frontal brain before the message will come through? And what happens afterwards to people who suspend their brains?

Lol, @otuwe, let's leave the thread open. Perhaps they have something to say but haven't been able to do so in a way that we can easily understand.

@Kuns,

Kuns:
This is the page you need to tell you what date the first edition of the KJV was authorised. It also tell you that this was a translation and the style use to change the meaning of things (watered down, edited, ) by adding new things and changing original stories to favour the new world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

That was the same link I offered YOU, Kuns:

stimulus:
Please visit these links and see the committees that did the translating work of the KJV of the Bible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Committees

I don't know what this is making you out to be; but that link does not tell your fabricated storyline of a Josepus Falvius Piso. Besides, you have scooted away from the gist of the questions I offered, and making more frantic adventures in this thread. Where is your Shakespeare Tinsdales in those links? What is happening to your assertions, pally?

@TV01,

TV01:
Simply not true. My reasons for opposing it on a mandatory or voluntary basis are made clear in my last post. As was my reason for having no problems with it (on a voluntary basis only).

In mentioning the "mandatory" subscript in your rejoinder to my enquiries, did you miss the point I made early enough that I don't argue tithing (or any other type of giving) in that connection? Why mention it again and again if it was not such an issue with you?

TV01:
A non-question sir. Who has claimed he was co-erced? Or gave it based on the law or a divine mandate? That can only be an arguement for those arguing for a mandatory tithe. Please think it through? As ever you seem to be arguing both sides and making a case for neither  !

Thank you, but I wonder if you ever attempt reading issues before making any case. I offered that question again because you simply have a hard case dealing with your "mandatory" default position - and I offered that was not my perspective on the issue.

TV01:
He gave a tithe, once, of the spoils of war. Not of His personal possessions. Not ever mentioned again (Jacob apart) until the law.

Whose are the spoils of war that people obtain after a warfare in the OT narratives? Do you even know what you're arguing here? So, Abraham took of possessions that were not his, and gave them as tithes to Melchizedek (king of righteousness)? Make that another non-question and let me know you have no answers.

TV01:
I have also repeatedly stated that the main thrust of the symbolism of Abrahams tithe to Melchizedek was to demonstrate the superiority of His High Priesthood over the Levitical/Aaronic type.

And to demonstrate the superiority had to be done by possessions that were not his, no?

TV01:
Happy now?

It isn't, it wasn't and I'm not.

I said this long ago: "God does not require, mandate, or command any type of giving from the NT Christian."  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.864.html#msg1206013

I don't see why you would have to present the question again after I had already stated the obvious.

TV01:
What's the difference between tithing and giving? Or the distinction between tithers and givers?

If there is no distinction between, why have you been arguing all along, TV01?

TV01:
Please share the distinctions between "types of giving (other than for a real physical need), with special emphasis on the tithe vs giving difference.

The one question I'd like an answer to is this: do you see any distinction between them at all?

You're sounding as if in real substance, they all are the same; and if that is what you're arguing for, that would mean only one thing: it is no longer a matter of tithing per se, but of "giving" in any respect.

@sage,

sage:
First Il like you make this issue clear.

1 Compare the roles of a Male Judge like Samuel to the role that a female judge like Deborah could play. (And include the role Miriam could play)

2 What role did/could women in the first century Church play within the Church?

Perhaps you would like to comment on the examples I already have offered earlier? This again is where I reminded you that a few have been offered already:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.160.html#msg1259802

In addition to that, please I want you to read my rejoinder to TV01 just above; especially the case he offered for Miriam and Deborah, and my views in that respect. I don't understand how we want to quickly dismiss issues without carefully checking them from Scripture before returning to post assertions in denial.

I am waiting for the Miriam, Moses and Aaron record in Genesis, where he asked me to go read them "carefully". Also, I am waiting to see how Deborah was only giving "advice" or "counsel" instead of what Scriprure declares - she was judging the nation! Why is it so difficult for us to simply reason together and see issues straight from Scripture?

sage:
Given that authority over the Church is given to Elders appointed by Holy Spirit and it was/is their duty to Oversee, Preside over, Shephard, Lead, Teach, Issue directives, within the Church

1 Explain which of these roles you say a woman can take on and in what context within the Church and

2 How that relates with the principle of headship within the Church

Again, please go through those already offered in my several rejoinders.

I think I've tried to hold this far in answering questions. Would it be too much for me to relax and suspend answers henceforth and begin asking critical questions as well? The repostes I've been reading from you guys seem to inidcate to me that you might not have been reading my rejoinders carefully enough before asking the same questions repeatedly in different verbiage.

Regards.

@TV01,

I've tried to reason along the lines of your persuasion; but then you're still stating the same convoluted statements in other ways. I apologise where I might be reading you wrongly; but let me put out like this:

TV01:
This was in response to TayoD' specific concern about "every man being seen as the head of every woman". Certainly related, but not in direct response to the main question of overall leadership in the church. Please read me carefully here. I am not saying that every (universally) position of trust/reaponsibility/authority or leadership in church has to be by men, only the overall (eldership), which is scripturally limited to men.

In the first instance, I have not seen the idea of "overall leadership" expressed in the NT as pertaining to the life of the Church - that is something only Christ Himself holds.

Second, if you're "not saying that every position of authority or leadership has to be by men", what then have you been saying in the idea that leadership is exclusively ascribed to men? That you don't see "every" position of authority as ascribed by men - wouldn't that be saying that women are also in leadership and authority?

TV01:
So even if a woman has a role or ministry in the church, she would in some way still be subject to her husband/fathers/eldest male relative's authority. To say otherwise would leave a gap in my reasoning on this whole issue. If my position is bettered from scripture, that's one thing, for it to fall down through inconsistency is another.

Let me remind you of what I have argued earlier:

The scope of leadership by women in Church is defined by two things:

      (a) she is not permitted to teach in the Churches

      (b) she is not to usurp authority over the man

I believe we are coming round now seeing the very same thing I have been offering severally. But even so, the point is that she is called to leadership - which is the very thing that has been difficult for many to see. The only thing left now is to put to rest this new idea that "overall leadership" is exclusively to men - and that I will do sometime soon ( I hope by grace before end of the week).

TV01:
My stance in contrast to TayoD', is order and authority emanate out of the family and are not inverted or done away with once we step into a church setting, but rather maintained and expanded on.

Order and authority in the Body of Christ emanate from the Head (Christ) and not from a domestic setting. The setting of the home may help us understand some aspects of Church life; but it does not define the life of the Church.

Paul was not married - we know that (I Cor. 7:7). But he was called an apostle - not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:1). If we have to stretch this idea of authority emanating from the home, that would be outside Scripture indeed; and we would have to wonder what domestic or family "qualifications" Paul had in order to hold apostolic authority.

This is why I find that argument hardly a standard one.

TV01:
So there is/should be male covering at all times, but it is not every male that covers.[/color]

"Male covering at all times" is saying the same thing as that leadership is an exclusive men-only phenomenon.

TV01:
Again, and as with TayoD, we differ on this point. I don't see order in the church as over turning or voiding order in the home. I see a perfect flow from one to the other. A harmony. So far, other positions suggest dissonance between home and church.

I did not insinuate that order in the church overturns or voids that in the home. The one thing I said was that the setting in the home helps us to understand some aspect of Church life; but the home setting does not define Church life. I have demonstrated the point above.

TV01:
No it's not a joint exercise or a partnership in gender terms. It's a responsibility assigned to men. and for men to relinquish that is to enter in to "Ahab" territory. Enuff said.

That is why Micah 6:4 continues to be denied by those who ask for a men-only leadership in Church. What was Miriam doing in that verse if it was not a joint exercise? Meanwhile, please note that it was God Himself who stated that He sent them: "I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam."

TV01:
Miriam ~  did not shepherd Israel alongside Moses (and Aaron), as she was not called or commissioned with them. Please read the Genesis account a little more carefully.

The event was not recorded in Genesis; and Micah 6:4 was God saying that He sent Miriam alongside Moses and Aaron! Are you hastily trying to deny this clear statement because you have no desire to see things yourself?

Where in Genesis is the event you want me to read?

TV01:
Deborah ~ Please keep reading on to Judges chapter 4. She offered judgement (sound and wise counsel) as a "mother in Israel". That can be done as I've outlined. People went to her to seek her Godly advise. She did not head or shepherd the nation. She reluctantly co-lead in battle, but pointedly proclaimed that it was not God's will. It removes the glory. Woman is man's glory and man is God's.

This is an argument from mere assumption and not what is stated in the Bible. First, my quote was from Judges chapter 4; and it was not merely "advise" that people came to seek her for. Other women could have given advise to others - Nabal's wife was such an example who indeed gave 'advice' to David: "the name of the man was Nabal; and the name of his wife Abigail: and s[b]he was a woman of good understanding[/b]". . . And David said to Abigail, Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, which sent thee this day to meet me: And blessed be thy advice, (I Sam. 25:3, 32-33); but this did not qualify her as being in the same position as Deborah the prophetess.

In the case of Deborah the prophetess (Judg. 4:4-5), it was a clear case presented to us as I have severally stated: "And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment."

It was not merely "advice" she offered - she was judging the entire nation!

Now, the reluctance you're interjecting into this declarative is another mechanical devise to deny the obvious. She did not "reluctantly" go with Barak - for this was what she said:

   "I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh." (vs. 9).

Now notice the power of this woman's word: it was not an advice, but a powerful prophetic word she gave! The effect was this: "And the hand of the children of Israel prospered, and prevailed against Jabin the king of Canaan, until they had destroyed Jabin king of Canaan." (vs. 24).

Your arguments cannot be sustained in the face of open declarations in God's Word. Deborah clearly prophesied (not "advised"; and the Word of the LORD in her mouth was felt in the entire nation - shaping the destiny at a decisive moment in their history!

TV01:
I have said that only in contingency situations are women to take the lead. I have repeated noted the proviso "mature, suitably qualified, available and willing males".

My dear TV01, contingency or not, the one thing that decides divine commission is not human ability; rather, it is a divine calling. Deborah was not a woman of natural ability to assume the role of "prophetess" over an entire nation - for GOD Himself called her to that service; and that is enough to have decided the destiny of that nation.

TV01:
I hope you appreciate that I did'nt just dismiss Sisters Miriam and Deborah as abberations and your own whimsy  !

No brother; I appreciate the challenges offered to make me go back repeatedly to check out my own ideas and see if they actually derive from the Word.  

TV01:
It's the same arguemts I hear all the time about "strong black women" leading homes. Sure they can lead homes, sure they are strong, but is that the ideal? Is that God's preferred way??

I am not basing my persuasions on what people do or prefer. For now, I want to simply deal with the Scriptural precedence before offering practical applications to what points could be delineated. Like I said earlier: my points are not about theorizing - it will simply not do to stop there.

TV01:
So pray tell, what authority if any does the eldership have? And can women be elders??

Yes, women can serve as elders (be patient with me until I show you how); and authority comes from the Head of the Body.

TV01:
No, it's not trying to limit, it's following the scriptural outline. The limit thing is for you to take up with the Author.

I don't see the 'Author' limiting anything - that was your idea and that is what I have dealt with. Surely you cannot assume to be taking His place; and I don't see why you have even ventured that line.

TV01:
I never said it was not permissable for men, or more fitting for women. I said it was allowed for women (although possibly in some instances preferred, empathy and all that).

That is why I still call again and again that we should not be polarized, but seek to be balanced in our views.

TV01:
Like I said, you are reading leadership into everything. Do two people co-lead one person? They were giving him deeper insight into Christian life and practice. It was counsel. It was not public. In fact if it had been Priscilla alone (without her husband), I would think nothing of it. It's akin to the Deborah role (I'm so tidy  !).

My dear TV01, please look deeply into what is written, not what you want to think of it. I do not read leadership into "everything"; if that were the case, why then would I have tried to offer an alternative point to the idea you have put forth as that authority flows from the home to the Church? It doesn't help reading me that way.

The question of two people co-leading one person is another thing that suggests to me that you seem not to understand leadership at all. More than "counsel", that couple in Acts 18:26 were "expounding the way of God more perfectly" to Apollos (in vs. 25, we read that "this man was instructed in the way of the Lord" already). What they did was more than counselling; for leadership entails what they did - they expounded the way of God more perfectly!

TV01:
Please don't weary me, I have answered this severally.

You hurriedly circumvented issues - not "answered" them. And if you have no answers, try not wearying me either.

TV01:
Women in overall leadership be that in the home or church is not ideal or scriptural. But can it be done? yes. Can men or women run/lead home/church in the adsence of the other? yes. Is it ideal?
the way it was designed? No. Give God Glory!

'Give God glory', son. . . I am not a Pharisee making pretentious statements. And I hope that you can see that my answers have clearly demonstrated how you mix up issues? I would be enthused with your offer for the Genesis account of Miriam and Moses; and in that example, I wonder why it is ever so difficult for you to calmly reason with people.

@Kuns,

Kuns:
The King James Bible was written in the year 1611 AD. Also the Name Tinsdales was ShakeSpears writing name.

This is not the Tyndales you have refered too.

Please visit these links and see the committees that did the translating work of the KJV of the Bible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Committees

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/transtoc.htm

The KJ Bible was not written in 1611 AD. That was rather the year it was published; but translation was done much earlier. Besides, there is no name as 'William Tinsdale' (Tinsdales) in the committee.

Kuns:
Also he left is signature (mark if his name) in one of the books of Psalms. I will get it for you the next time I am online.

I've offered in another thread that the idea was made up; it has no real substance to it (Psalm 46). https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-6539.0.html#msg1247821

@donnie,

donnie:
You are telling a lie and you know it.

Where and how was TayoD lying?

@TV01,

TV01:
You must be mistaking me for someone else. There is practically no one arguing for madatory tithing, at least not based on the law of Moses. Having said that in understanding the whole issue it was useful to look at it from the viewpoints of being

The one thing I would like to state is that my observations still stand - those who oppose tithing have often again and again ascribed it to a mandatory exercise. At least, I did not offer that as my persuasion; and when you go through the rejoinders again, you will see the point is simply that you have tried raising up the "mandatory" question yet once more.

Even so, since I haven't read answers from your latest reposte on some of my concerns, I would rather not keep asking that you do so as you're not obliged thereto.

TV01:
Moving on there seem to be 2 final points;

1. Some insight from Abrahams tithe to Melchizedek (which we are waiting for)
2. Assigning benefits to voluntary tithing which do not accrue to those who simply give.

My point being, that trying to sell a voluntary tithe on the basis of it accruing certain benefits not accruing to someone who simply gives (on the basis of need or blessing),  or claiming it makes one in some respect more spiritually mature is no where found in scripture.

Let me simplify issues:

I don't know so much at present about Melchizedek; but one question that I have asked and again continue to ask is this:

      If tithing was mandatory, (or by commandment, or coerced/forced,
      or obligated), I would like to know: who COERCED Abraham to "give" tithes?

It is unfortunate that I haven't read anyone on the opposing side address that question directly. Rather, what remotely was offered was someone saying that Abraham gave tithes only once! That simply circumvents the question as to the often strained "mandatory" subscript to the tithing issue.

If tithing is a mandatory exercise, who commanded/mandated or COERCED Abraham to do so? And if it is not, why do we often read again and again in your replies that you're so concerned about this question of tithe being "MANDATORY"??

Secondly, I have also asked about this issue of rather denying that the Scriptures teach that tithers and givers derive any blessing thereto. I offered the few verses that came to mind at the time. But for all that, you only gave a terse reply that did not touch upon my question directly. The one thing I have come to is this: if anyone wants to "simply give" and does not find any blessing in doing so, they could remain in that position and do as they please. BUT, they cannot claim that such an idea is what Scripture teaches for others who tithe or give.

TV01:
The only other thing is to see tithing as giving. In that case what is the point of making a distinction?

If there is no distinction of the types of giving we make in Scripture, I don't see any reason why some of you guys would be using the same terms described in Scripture in the first place and arguing against this disntinct service!