Female Pastors

[KingJ]

the point is, ignorant men trying to teach that which they have no clue of. that's point #1. the apostle was not silencing women as a whole. for they was prophets also. but if one would read the verses before verse 34 then one could see the reason why the apostle made the statement. and my second point. the word women here is "wife". because the only woman who have a husband is a wife. so the statement was directed at the wives for a reason. but women in GENERAL was permitted to speak, preach, teach and pray in church.

You are stretching far for a straw. I have asked you repeatedly... why the chip on your shoulder?...you have yet to answer.

Just read more of 2 Timothy!!! 2 Tim 11-15 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

The underlined is justification pertaining to woman, not separating single and married. Did you purposely exclude that verse?

If both a married and single man can pastor...surely that be the case with woman if permitted...duh? Which of the early churches established by Paul were run by a woman? In fact show me a respected church run by a woman before 1970. How many of the 12 disciples were woman?

What you need to do is better grasp God's divine order in 1 Cor 11:3 and that at the SAME time He is no respecter of persons. Hence....God and men like me are not ''unbecoming Christian / male ego'' , merely able to use our brains and discern that men and woman are different creations with different strengths and weaknesses.

I pray you fall no further into the nonsense this world teaches. Here is a useful link for you and woman who are confused. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/WOMENPASTORS.html

 

[101G]

2 k james, greeting in the name of the Lord Jesus the Christ.
You insult like a kid and you reach for straws like a cowboy. I have asked you repeatedly... why the chip on your shoulder...you have yet to answer.

as the apostle Paul said "i'll have some folly with you.

#1. You insult like a kid.
trix are for kids, want some lucky charms?

#2. you reach for straws like a cowboy.
this is not my first rodeo.

#3. I have asked you repeatedly... why the chip on your shoulder.
you can keep on asking, No chip. but I do have a question for you. "why the plank in your own eyes, get it out first.?".

#4. If both a married and single man can pastor...surely that be the case with woman if permitted...duh? Show me a respected church run by a woman before 1970. In fact, which of the early churches established by Paul were run by a woman? How many of the 12 disciples were woman?

before 1970? Romans 16:1 " I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea". you better understand the word "commend". and as for the 12?. that was under the OLD COVENANT, I don't know about you, but I'm under a new COVENANT. and under the new COVENANT females can preach, teach, and pastor, just as males.

#5. What you need to do is better grasp God's divine order in 1 Cor 11:3 and that at the SAME time He is no respecter of persons. Hence....God and men like me are not ''unbecoming Christian / male ego'' , merely able to use our brains and discern that men and woman are different creations with different strengths and weaknesses.
God and ,men like you?, like you. that's almost blasphemy. associating our Lord with you.

#6. Just read more of 2 Timothy!!! 2 Tim 11-15 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Have already, why don't you re-read it with his wisdom?. ask for wisdom, but without wavering, ask in FAITH.

#7. I pray you fall no further into the nonsense this world teaches.
finally, something that came out of your mouth worth while, "I pray". and two here's a useful link for you too, "the BIBLE", linking you from Genesis to Revelation. that's the best link of all times.


now no folly. no scripture, all talk, and it's worldy.
king j, yes you're ignorant, I know, because I been where you're at, and it sad to see it. you're the most dangerous kind of Christian, you have limited knowledge, a little knowledge is dangerous. yes, you're sincere in what you think that you're doing, but without knowledge. from all of your responses you're a parrot Christian, only repeating what you heard another person say, and that person repeating what they heard someone else said. and never taking the time to see exactly what you're saying. I know this by what you posted today. as of yesterday you didn't even know what the Greek word for woman really mean, did you?.
but since you want to give a links, I have a good link for you to read, Hebrews 5:12.

 

[KingJ]

I did amend my opening line, it was brash :unsure:.

Lets not dicuss any longer, I will only be agreeing with you when you agree with me ^_^.

God bless bud.

 

[101G]

2 kj,

as I have said before, I do not agree with someone because they agree with me. nor I with them. we, you and I MUST AGREE WITH THE WORD OF GOD. and if we cannot agree with the word of God then I cannot agree with you. Amos 3:3 "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?". I walk with the Lord, and agree with him, what about you?.

and as for, "Lets not dicuss any longer". that's fine with me. because "Let" is a conditional word, and if you comply with its condition, fine, I can discuss intelligently with, or without you. "LET" it be your choice.

be blessed.

 

[Wormwood]

That word should not be translated "wife." Look at the context?. yes lets look at CONTEXT, look at verse 15 of 1 Timothy 2, just a few verses down, "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety".
now wormwood, honestly and truthfully what kind of woman, legally suppose to bare Children?, that's right, a MARRIED ONE, by her OWN HUSBAND. case closed. now lets settle this thing across the bible. the same Greek word for woman in 1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law". now, how do I know that this verse is talking about a wife. remember CONTEXT, the very next verse say so. listen, verse 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". now again wormwood, honestly and truthfully what kind of woman have a husband?. that's right a wife. it said let them ask their HUSBAND at home. case close again.

I can't believe you missed that.

101G,

So not only are you more of a Greek scholar than the thousands who have given us all our translations, but you want us to believe that "the husband of one wife" is conditional, but "ask their husbands at home" is not. You seem to want to pick an choose segments of scripture to ignore and those you want to make mandatory. "The husband of one wife" is only conditional and permits single men to be elders (which I agree with) and women (no indication of this here). Yet the phrase, "Must ask their husbands at home" is absolutely mandatory and therefore this permits single women to teach, preach and be elders. How convenient (and utterly ridiculous).

Let me give you a brief historical lesson. The reason the word "wife" and "woman" are interchangeable because all adult women were expected to be married. In the first century world, it would be unthought-of of for a grown woman to be unmarried. Women were unable to trade and do most forms of work. This is why "widows" were considered such needy people. If a husband died, a woman would be destitute in that society if she did not have a grown son to provide for her. So "she must ask her husband at home" is absolutely no indication that a single woman could be an elder. Its only an assumption in Paul's day that a gown woman would be married. An adult, single woman was basically unheard of unless she was a widow. The biblical world is not 21st century America! This is an indication that every adult woman who was out of her father's house was married. Haven't you ever noticed how important it was for a father to get her daughter married so she could leave his home? Isnt this why Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah by Laban? Moreover, not only was it considered shameful for an adult woman to not be married, but it was also shameful for them to be unable to bear children. How many occurrences do we have in the Bible of women praying for children so their disgrace could be removed? In the ancient world, it was absolutely expected for an adult woman to be married and to mother children. If they were not married and were outside of their father's house, they were destitute and needed community care. Paul assumed adult women would be married. Period.

Obviously we live in a different culture and therefore do not see an unmarried woman as any big deal if she is outside her dad's house. However, this does not change the biblical understanding of women's roles regarding leadership in the church. Our cultural change of not seeing the necessity of women getting married has no bearing on the Biblical teaching and Paul's expectation that women would be married. In sum, your point, historically, makes no sense.

 

[101G]

2 wormwood, greeting
Yet the phrase, "Must ask their husbands at home" is absolutely mandatory and therefore this permits single women to teach, preach and be elders. How convenient.

so you're learning that the word woman means "WIFE", in the context setting slow but learning. yes, ask, where they can be on one accord, as to teaching the same thing, and preaching the same thing. meaning they, not just the male only, but femals also.

Let me give you a brief historical lesson
that's OK I'll pass. but one quick answer. get out of those old traditions. and get out of the old covenant, and those old society. LOOK WORMWOOD, YOU'RE NOT IN KANSAS ANYMORE. grow up and leave home. change is hard?


Obviously we live in a different culture and therefore do not see an unmarried woman as any big deal if she is outside her dad's house. However, this does not change the biblical understanding of women's roles regarding leadership in the church. Our cultural change of not seeing the necessity of women getting married has no bearing on the Biblical teaching of men being elders.

Obviously we live in a different culture. STOP, if you knew that why quote all that other stuff before? another lame excuse,

In sum, your point, historically, and today, makes no sense.
to you it don't but to us who are SAVED, it makes FAITH but to sum you up, 2 Timothy 3:7 "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth".


P.S. but one thing you learn, that "woman" don't always mean "woman", do it, LOL.

be blessed.



and next time add something, OK

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Having a hard time understanding why people are continuing to indulge this madness (or should I say madman?).

 

[101G]

Romans 16:1 " I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea"
we will look at the commendation given unto this YOUNG WOMAN, yes young woman, for she is refered to as a SISTER. commentary Gill: She is recommended as a sister, "our sister"; not in a natural, but spiritual relation; one that was a member of the church at Cenchrea, and in full communion with it; for as it was usual to call the men brethren, it was common to call the women sisters. Elderly men were called fathers, younger men brethren; elderly women were styled mothers, and younger women sisters, who were partakers of the grace of God, and enjoyed the fellowship of the saints.

Now what's interesting in this letter to the Romans. this young woman, was place before the men in this epistle. well is that not a FIRST. a YOUNG WOMAN recommended over a man?.
now the word "commend" itself.
G4921 συνιστάω sunistao (soon-is-tah'-o) (or (strengthened) sunistano soon-is-tan'-o, or sunistemi soon-is'-tay-mee) v.
1. to set together
2. (by implication) to introduce (favorably.
3. (figuratively) to exhibit
4. ) to stand near
5. (figuratively) to constitute
[from G4862 and G2476 (including its collateral forms)]
KJV: approve, commend, consist, make, stand (with)
Root(s): G4862, G2476

this YOUNG WOMAN was "approve" over the men mention in the letter?. this is not one who just server tables here. this woman was appointed, or constitute to her position, by the Apostle Paul.

another thing I have notice about our brother the apostle. he employ YOUNG PEOPLE in the service of the Lord. as in YOUNG Timothy, Another young pastor.

be blessed.

 

[Wormwood]

101G,

Nice job avoiding the points with insults. It seems everything I said went right over your head. If you want a debate, try responding with content, not snide remarks. I know Greek, you know Strongs word numbers. Big difference. You are like a monolingual American trying to give a Mexican Spanish lessons with your Spanish dictionary. A little funny, but a lot sad.

I don't think the Apostle Paul himself could get through to you.

 

[101G]

2 wormwood.
you want a debate, and can't even answer the question at hand. but debates is for the foolish, and vain of heart. do you think that the word of God is going to change on what you or I say argue about?. Oh NO. the scripture say "SEEK" the Lord. so if you want to debate, go ahead you have my permission.

now a different approach
1 Timothy 5:24 "Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after. 25 "Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid".

lets see the good works manifested. James 2:10 "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all". and likewise, scriptures cannot be broken. this is true. so is the deaconship as some believe is to be the husband of one wife. if this is broke then the principle is the same as with the law. break one then all is broken. if one scripture is broken the all are broken. the deaconship as to the husband and of one wife is the acid test. if this scripture is broke then all the rest of the scriptures are guilty as well. Our sister Phebe is this acid test.

so is anyone prepared to call the scriptures broken?, I hope not. so the alternative is the misinterpretation, and the misunderstanding of them. and in this case they have been misapplied, WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE.
so I ask, if the scripture is true, (which they are), then, our knowledge and wisdom is at fault in understanding the deacon of being the husband of one wife. this is plain and simple. this is the crust of the topic. so we need to re-examine the reason why the apostle said what he said.

any takers?.

 

[7angels]

if you all want a history lesson then know that back in Jesus' day women were considered merchandise and had no real value. women were not educated or anything. they were basically use just to bring male children into this world. dogs were of more value back then then women were. there is an old saying that goes women were meant to seen and not heard. also any time there were writing the man alway had his name also before the women's name because it showed who was better. if you notice within the bible there are places where the women's name come before the man's name. also if you ever decide to study the corinthian church you will find that because of women's new found rights according to scripture that the women started asking a lot of questions that were disrupting the services. because women were uneducated they knew basically nothing about the bible. thus women were full of questions that was causing them to disrupt the services and this is why paul stated that women are to wait until they get home to ask their husbands the questions they had because the husbands were educated and able to explain the questions the women had. remember that women had no real education and that with the coming of the gospel women had a chance to be someone. if you have never had value and then were given value you would easily understand what i am talking about. we take a lot of things for granted in the bible because in our society today we are all given value but back in Jesus' day it was not so.

reading scripture, doing word searches, interpreting the greek and hebrew language, and things are great things to do when studying the scriptures but it also requires historical research. many people neglect this side of research of the word and are brought into error because of it. as the old saying goes 'assuming makes an idiot out of you and me'. many christians were taught doctrine by others who were in error in the first place and ignorance can be damaging not just to yourself but to thers also. ignorance brings bongage where truth bring freedom. it is hard for a person to recognize they are in bondage until they are shown the light. even those that are shown the light are so caught up in religion that they refuse to believe anything that goes against their own beliefs. people are always willing to tell you what they think but few are actually willing to LISTEN to what someone else is saying. it is easier to dismiss thoughts that are not in line with our thinking then to try and understand where another is coming from. i better quit i need to go.

God bless

 

[KingJ]

It does make sense what you are saying. I agree. But it still does not negate scripture like 1 Cor 11:3.

You describe one extremity that sounds like traditional Islam :) . 101g is batting for the opposite but at an extremity. The truth is neither.

 

[101G]

2 kj,
It does make sense what you are saying. I agree. But it still does not negate scripture like 1 Cor 11:3.

How can one negate any scripture, if they don't understand the scriptures. Proverbs 4:7 "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding".

how to get wisdom?. James 1:5 " If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. 8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways". understand 1 Corinthian 11:3

instead of arguing with me, seek wisdom. I'm not your problem, your ignorance is. my motto, "where there is knowledge, stay not ignorant"

 

[Wormwood]

101G,

I think you are doing too many acid tests. Yes, this is a debate. Here is the English definition for debate (seems I have to tutor you on both English and Greek)

A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

So if debates are for the foolish and vain, you have been foolish and vain for 14 pages so far. But enough with semantics that dodge the real issues. Lets look at your hermeneutics...

I agree with you that the "husband of one wife" for deacons and elders is conditional. I do not believe deacons or elders have to be married men. You are beating a dead horse that no one is disputing. My point is that in the same breath you say "husband of one wife is conditional" you say that the phrase "must ask their husbands at home" is mandatory and therefore is only referring to married women. I say you need to be consistent. If "the husband of one wife" is conditional and is referring more to the character of the man (literally in Greek "a one woman man") then why can't "A woman must remain silent" and "she must ask her husband at home" be conditional for only those women who are married? You are flip flopping for convenience.

As far as the Phoebe situation, there is nothing there to indicate she had the office of a deacon. She was a servant of the church in Cenchreae which does necessitate that she held an official title any more than the ladies who serve in my church are official "deaconesses." This is a major assumption on your part. As far as the word prostatis is concerned, it can mean "lead, rule or direct" or it can mean "assist, help or care for." Like any language, the context decides. In English, the word "stud" can mean a board in a wall, a male horse, a large piece of metal that protrudes from a surface, or a word of praise to a guy. The context of the sentence determines how we understand the word. Clearly this word is not referring to Phoebe as one who "leads, rules or directs" as Paul says she is the prostatis of "many," including Paul himself. So are you saying she is the ruler and director of the Apostle Paul?

In any event, even if you grant Phoebe the official title "deacon" by this passage (which is immensely unclear), this does not mean she is a leader or teacher. No where does the office of "deacon" in Timothy or Titus suggest that these people filled the role of teaching elders (teaching is a distinct capacity for elders in Paul's writings). Thus, even if all your ranting about Phoebe being a "deacon" is correct, it does not mean she was a teacher or that women were qualified to be elders. You are making a huge leap from silence. I know your argument is that the "husband of one wife" is the same qualification for elders as deacons...thus if Phoebe is a deacon then women must be accepted in both positions...but this is simply untrue. Paul does hint at women being deacons.

“καὶ οὗτοι δὲ δοκιμαζέσθωσαν πρῶτον, εἶτα διακονείτωσαν ἀνέγκλητοι ὄντες. Γυναῖκας ὡσαύτως σεμνάς, μὴ διαβόλους, νηφαλίους, πιστὰς ἐν πᾶσιν.” (1 Timothy 3:10–11, NA27)

I know you cannot read this (though you often pretend you know Greek). In verse 8 it says, "Deacons must be dignified..." Then we get to verse 10 and 11 here and it says, "Gunaikas hosautos semnas, mey diabolous" which means "women/wives also dignified, not slanderous." So there is ambiguity here. It could mean women serving as deacons must also be dignified, or it could mean deacon's wives must be dignified. It is unclear. However, the point is, Paul does not use this construction when referring to elders. Thus, it is quite possible that deaconesses could be permitted here by Paul (and if Phoebe was a deaconess, this would probably be how we could understand this). Or it could mean that Paul is talking about wives only and Phoebe should be viewed as simply a woman who served and helped Paul and the church in Cenchreae. It could be any of these things. But one thing is clear, no where do we have any indication that women could be elders. There is no Greek construction that makes this a possibility and Paul expressly prohibits them from teaching.

 

[101G]

2 wormwood,
So if debates are for the foolish and vain, you have been foolish and vain for 14 pages so far. But enough with semantics that dodge the real issues.

LOL, I haven't been debating you, mostly teaching you, but your a slow learner. I have been giving facts, so if you were debating, you're the fool. B) and look, you were debating all by your self. see why I say it is for FOOLS.

Lets look at your hermeneutics...
I agree with you that the "husband of one wife" for deacons and elders is conditional. I do not believe deacons or elders have to be married men. You are beating a dead horse that no one is disputing. My point is that in the same breath you say "husband of one wife is conditional" you say that the phrase "must ask their husbands at home" is mandatory and therefore is only referring to married women. I say you need to be consistent. If "the husband of one wife" is conditional and is referring more to the character of the man (literally in Greek "a one woman man") then why can't "A woman must remain silent" and "she must ask her husband at home" be conditional for only those women who are married? You are flip flopping for convenience.
see why I'm not debating, (smile), Oh well.

#1. "you agree that the "husband of one wife" for deacons and elders is conditional". well you're learning. please tell that to the rest who don't believe.

#2. " I do not believe deacons or elders have to be married men". hey you're moving on up, might have to put you in the fast learner track.

#3. My point is that in the same breath you say "husband of one wife is conditional" you say that the phrase "must ask their husbands at home" is mandatory and therefore is only referring to married women. I say you need to be consistent. If "the husband of one wife" is conditional and is referring more to the character of the man (literally in Greek "a one woman man") then why can't "A woman must remain silent" and "she must ask her husband at home" be conditional for only those women who are married? You are flip flopping for convenience.
you just lost your fast learner "CARD". go back to the end of the line again. LOOK, having a wife have nothing to do with the qualification. anyone can be married. and in these few verses it was talking about married people. as to "ask their husbands at HOME just proves that the apostle was not talking to every woman in the church, only the one who have husbands. this have nothing to do with the deacons qualification. (see why no debat, it's foolishness)

you was doing good there for a while worm. but you got into the wrong apple. again,
1 Corinthians 14 have nothing to do with 1Timonthy 3 concerning qualification. but only to who he was talking to.

Please, please, re-read the opening topic and try to get some understanding, OK?.

 

[Wormwood]

101G,

Correction. You have been "teaching" errors and I have been attempting in vain to correct you. Thus we are debating.

#1 and #2 are the same claim and I have never changed my view on it. Think about it awhile.

LOOK, having a wife have nothing to do with the qualification. anyone can be married. and in these few verses it was talking about married people.

Id prefer to be in the back of the line based on your backward way of hermeneutics. So let me get this straight... When Paul says, "I do not permit a woman to speak" and says she must "ask her husband at home." He is only speaking to married woman who cannot speak. Paul only has married women in mind here and he is not including unmarried women? Paul is ONLY referring to married women here and excluding unmarried women? Is this right professor?

So when Paul says, "An elder must be the husband of one wife" he is only referring to married men. This only applies to married men? He only has married men in mind here and because he does not reference unmarried men he is excluding them here? Is this right professor? Oh wait...your goofy rules change on this one. Why is that? Oh, I get it...because you want them to and because you are the professor of inconsistent hermeneutics. Got it.

Both of these are conditional dear friend. All women are to be silent, and the ones with husbands should ask them at home (its assumed they will be married in this culture). All men are qualified to be elders, and the ones with a wife should be a "one woman man" (its assumed they will be married in this culture). Think carefully..it may just come to you....ahh who am I kidding. :lol:

 

[7angels]

i have just one question for all those that believe women are not to hold the position of elders. if we are the bride of Christ then that makes us the bride/female while Christ is the groom/male. now knowing that we are the bride then why does Christ still tell us to go after the leadership position?

a few more questions to ask yourself if you are up to the challenge of finding the truth.

does God reward and bless those that are doing wrong? if God does not bless those that are doing wrong then what happens when we are obediant and doing the will of God? don't we get blessed by God? so if a woman is an elder and God is blessing her then why do we condemn her when God has chosen her and blessed her? are we not told to look at a person's fruit to see if it is good? according to the Word a good tree cannot bare bad fruit. and yet many here claim that a good tree can have bad fruit. for example, a godly woman becomes an elder and since it is unscriptural only bad things will come out of it. if it is God ordained then how can we go wrong? things that are God ordained will have good fruit following to show that they are being faithful. now if there is no good fruit in a person then i agree that they should not hold any office be they male or female.

if we are all made in the image and likeness of God then why do we consider the woman inferior to the man? to say a man can hold one office and a woman cannot is discrimination even now a days so it would be wrong for God to do it. there is more to the bible then the letter written within. the reason i know this is because the pharisees and scribes could probably of quoted the bible word for word and yet they understood nothing of the underlying truths that were hidden within. that is exactly what is happening here is people are refuting people with the bible and yet don't understand the hidden meanings but are sticking to the word letter by letter. you will never come to the truth by sticking to the letter of the Word. i sound like a false teacher when i say we are not to stick only to the letter of the Word but to the spiritual meanings hidden within the Word. but it is the truth i speak to you whether you realize it yet or not.

the bible has no contradiction that cannot be explained but when we find a portion of scripture that seems to contradict itself we some reason get all defensive and it seems like we never really try to understand where anyone else is coming from but just refute any point that does not agree to our way of thinking. i have never seen a person explain how females pastors are allowed as well as 101g does.

the whole bible is based on redemption for manking and if we always bring it back to this point then we will have a hard time getting into false doctrine. how does only letting only men be elders make redemption better or worse? how does not allowing women to be elders have to do with redemption? allowing women into postions of authority can have a large impact on redemption. so why would we want to lessen any impact we can make for God's plan of redemption?

just because a woman becomes a pastor does that mean they will be lessen somehow? John Hagen has visited hundreds of different churches in which he stayed and taught at for 2-6 weeks at a time. he has observed the pastors and their faimilies and has said that out of them all only 2 of the pastors fit the qualifications for a pastor. if men cannot handle the mission God has then God will find someone else to do the job even if it is a woman. and God would not go against his written Word and do something that is contrary to it so either we are misunderstanding or God's Word is not to be trusted and that makes God a liar.

well that is enough for now

God bless

 

[101G]

2 wormwood,
just STOP! ok. nothing else said. if you can't produce something constructive, just be quite. no hard feeling, alright.


Now to 7angels,
touching on something you said earlier, you're correct, sometimes women names are placed before men or their husbands names. case in point, Romans 16:3 "Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus. notice the apostle place Priscilla ahead of her husband Aquila. but notice he sees them as equals, "my helpers in Christ Jesus". notice the "s" at the end of help, meaning both. but as the Roman epistle contuine there are many women named before men. the apostle Paul have been given a bum rap on women over the years. because it was do to the lack of wisdom, which God gives to those who ask.

the apostle Paul is a game changer, putting women in ministry, as well as the youth. training them up early. here in this 16th Chapter he describe many as helpers, labours, like Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord, and many more.

the apostle Paul broke many lines of discrimination, racism, sexism, and Ageism, or age discrimination. the apostle Paul was the apostle of all men and women. amen.

be blessed

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Having a hard time understanding why people are continuing to indulge this madness (or should I say madman?).

Agree. Probably going for the longest thread.

As the scriptures say... A person that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. [Titus 3:10 -11 KJV]

​

This thread ought to be locked!​

 

[101G]

2 jb, greeting, and bye, bye