Christians: women speaking in church meetings

[sojourner]

1 corinthians 4:17 Strongly suggest paul taught the same thing in every church.

Well, obviously he didn't, did he! Since it appears not to have been a general admonition, written in every extant letter of Paul's, I think we have to assume that it wasn't a general rule.

 

[sojourner]

IMO< I think there are several reasons paul regulated the women, first woman was not made in the image of God she was made in the image of man from the rib of man, second, she fell into sin by way of the devil, man fell into sin from the woman,making her easer to be decieved by satan. Yes both men and women have rules.

Un freakin' conscionable!
1. Humanity is made in God's image -- male and female, so the text reads.
2. Read it again. Nowhere is the devil mentioned. In fact, in ancient symbology, the serpent is the personification of wisdom -- not evil. Since the creation myth was gleaned from earlier myths, I think we can safely say that the serpent had the same representation here that it did in the parent stories.
3. Adam made his own decision. Eve didn't tie him up and force it down his throat.
3.a. If you remember, it was Adam -- not Eve -- who lied to God in the first case.

 

[kingsherald]

Un freakin' conscionable!
1. Humanity is made in God's image -- male and female, so the text reads.
2. Read it again. Nowhere is the devil mentioned. In fact, in ancient symbology, the serpent is the personification of wisdom -- not evil. Since the creation myth was gleaned from earlier myths, I think we can safely say that the serpent had the same representation here that it did in the parent stories.
3. Adam made his own decision. Eve didn't tie him up and force it down his throat.
3.a. If you remember, it was Adam -- not Eve -- who lied to God in the first case.

First of all, Paul does indeed say that Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived. Adam was the head, not the woman. The curse was not pronounced until Adam took the fruit and ate it. God placed the authority in Adam, not Eve. She was taken from his rib. This is a matter of authority, as given by God, and nothing else.

Man and woman were both created in the image of God. But only Adam represented mankind who were under his headship. He fell and the curse was pronounced against all his posterity.

But when the Last Adam came, the Seed of the woman, according to promise, even the Lord Jesus Christ, He obeyed fully and completely, and so all who are translated under Christ's headship are freed from the curse. Praise the Lord!

The account of God's creation of mankind is historic fact. The Bible presents it this way. It is not allegory! It is not mythology! Adam and Eve were literally the first two human beings to walk on this planet earth. They were formed literally by God the way it is described in Genesis, by the supernatural working of God. If not, why are their children, and their children's children, and generation upon generation of men afterwards named in Genesis? Yes, it quite literally gives their family tree. And in Luke 3, he gives the genealogy of Jesus, being, (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, right on down the line to Adam, the son of God.

The serpent is definitely not symbolic of wisdom, but of the very person of Satan. The serpent was the instrument of Satan. Satan was there tempting Eve. And God pronounced the curse against the serpent, that it would crawl on its belly, and be crushed by the Seed of the woman. But this is symbolic of the curse against Satan himself. Jesus is the Seed of the woman, who would crush the head of Satan and in the process would bruise His heel. That bruise happened at the cross.

Isaiah tells us of the coming Messiah, telling us things that have not been as though they already were, since God knows the end from the beginning, that "He was bruised for our iniquities" and so we see the spiritual realities portrayed in the physical historical events of Genesis.

Jesus Christ is the Seed of the woman whom God promised would come to destroy the reign of Satan over the souls of men, being bruised for the iniquities of His chosen people. The bruise is temporary and heals, even though it involves death by crucifixion! He was raised from the dead, and lives forevermore! Amen! But Satan's time is short, and he knows it. His reign of sin and death has been vanquished, by the work of the one Man from heaven- Jesus Christ! Praise the Lord!

 

[sojourner]

Mush, bunk, and complete balderdash.

First of all, Paul does indeed say that Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived.

Paul didn't author Genesis, did he! Paul's commentary has no bearing on the intention of the authors of Genesis. (BTW, Paul also says that "there is no more male or female...)

Adam was the head, not the woman.

According to the prevailing culture of the time. We know that not to be the case, just as we now know that the man doesn't plant the whole human seed into the fertile ground of the woman (as was thought then). Both contribute to procreation, therefore, both share equally in authority.

The curse was not pronounced until Adam took the fruit and ate it. God placed the authority in Adam, not Eve. She was taken from his rib. This is a matter of authority, as given by God, and nothing else.

This makes no sense. You said above that the sin was propagated by Eve, yet now you say that God didn't pronounce a curse until Adam ate, because Adam carries the authority of humanity. If Eve was the scapegoat, why didn't God just curse her at the outset?

The reason is very simple, but not explicit in the text. Together Adam and Eve completed humanity -- and it was humanity at fault. Both. In the culture that produced the story, shame and honor were sexually-imbedded traits. Men embodied honor and women embodied shame. That's why the culture placed the man as the head -- because he embodied the honor and, therefore, the law.
If you wanna go back to that kind of world view -- in fact, the world view extant in most Muslim 3rd-world countries -- you're welcome to! The rest of us would rather live in the more urbane 21st century, thank you.

Man and woman were both created in the image of God. But only Adam represented mankind who were under his headship. He fell and the curse was pronounced against all his posterity.

Who, then, did Eve represent? humanity who were not under Adam's "headship?" Or all women? Or all heads who were under Adam's manship?

But when the Last Adam came, the Seed of the woman, according to promise, even the Lord Jesus Christ, He obeyed fully and completely, and so all who are translated under Christ's headship are freed from the curse. Praise the Lord!

Hmm... I see not one mention of Jesus in Genesis. You're mushing two completely different myths and coming up with something quite unlike either one. Which is fine, but don't hold half the world hostage because of it.

The account of God's creation of mankind is historic fact.

HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ... [gasp] HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Pardon me... had to take a few moments to pick myself up off the floor and compose myself.

If that's "fact," (and that's a HUGE "if"), then it's also "fact" that the earth is a disk and the sky is a rigid dome upon which the sun, moon and stars are fixed.

The Bible presents it this way.

No, it doesn't. What's your basis for asserting this? Because the Bible doesn't have a disclaimer before the story? There's no disclaimer before Harry Potter, either. Therefore, are we to assume that there really is an invisible, magical school somewhere in England -- that it's historical fact?

It is not allegory!

[big popping sound as bubble bursts]
So... Snakes really did talk, then? And had legs? And God was able to actually walk in the garden?

It is not mythology!

It certainly isn't history, science, sociology, psychology, anthropology, archaeology, meteorology, geology, biology, or home economics... I don't know what else it could fairly be called!
Of course it's mythic! It's the same story shared years earlier under the guise of the Gilgamesh Epic.

Adam and Eve were literally the first two human beings to walk on this planet earth.

You've got to be kidding. And there are literal reindeer that fly all over the world in one night.
Study your Hebrew. That should give you a real good clue.

They were formed literally by God the way it is described in Genesis, by the supernatural working of God.

Uh, huh. This is getting better all the time. I can't believe you're serious.

If not, why are their children, and their children's children, and generation upon generation of men afterwards named in Genesis?

What does a geneology have to do with clay and ribs? I have a family tree, too. I came from an egg and a sperm...

And in Luke 3, he gives the genealogy of Jesus, being, (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, right on down the line to Adam, the son of God.

And, as anyone should know, Luke is exactly the same kind of literature, with exactly the same message, the same intended audience, using the same literary techniques, written out of the same culture. Therefore, since both contain a geneology, they must be true.
Dear God!

The serpent is definitely not symbolic of wisdom, but of the very person of Satan.

MK... where, exactly (and I want chapter and verse, please), does Genesis explain this?
[taps foot]

[waits]

[hears crickets chirping]

[glances at watch]

I didn't think so.

The serpent was the instrument of Satan. Satan was there tempting Eve.

Wait a minute... was Satan, or his instrument there? Or both? And, where, again, does that appear in the story? And, please explain what key Satan's instrument was tuned to? A-440? Equal temperament, or mean? Concert pitch, or -- wait a minute! Maybe it was a percussion instrument with indefinite pitch. Like a rattle...

But this is symbolic of the curse against Satan himself. Jesus is the Seed of the woman, who would crush the head of Satan and in the process would bruise His heel. That bruise happened at the cross.

Oh! Wait! The story is allegory, after all! [pops forehead with palm of hand]

Isaiah tells us of the coming Messiah, telling us things that have not been as though they already were, since God knows the end from the beginning, that "He was bruised for our iniquities" and so we see the spiritual realities portrayed in the physical historical events of Genesis.

Well, I should hope that anyone able to read could tell the end from the beginning...
Wait! Now Isaiah's in on the act? Who also never appears in Genesis? When does Jerry Falwell show up?

Jesus Christ is the Seed of the woman whom God promised would come to destroy the reign of Satan over the souls of men, being bruised for the iniquities of His chosen people. The bruise is temporary and heals, even though it involves death by crucifixion! He was raised from the dead, and lives forevermore! Amen! But Satan's time is short, and he knows it. His reign of sin and death has been vanquished, by the work of the one Man from heaven- Jesus Christ! Praise the Lord!

Feel better now?
What in the world does "sermonette #46" have to do with women speaking in church???

 

[kingsherald]

Mush, bunk, and complete balderdash.

The most puzzling thing here is how you list your religion as "Christian", that is, a follower of Jesus Christ, who Himself is called, "the Word of God", yet you don't believe any of God's words.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But it's still one of the historic pastoral offices. Even the episkopoi are considered to be pastors. That's why they carry the crozier. In fact, I'm not sure one could even argue that there is a "bottom of the totem pole" within the clergy. There are specific offices set aside within the whole baptismal ministry of the church for specific duties within that ministry. some are episkopoi, some fall within the presbyterate, and some are diakonoi. In fact, in Anglican tradition, the deacon is not subordinate to his presbyter, but works alongside him/her, at the discretion of the bishop.

It's presbyters that are historical pastors and their name comes down from Greek to Latin to English as "priest," transferred to "pastor" by Protestants.

Episkopoi are "overseers" which likewise goes from Greek to Latin to English as "bishop" - transformed to "Senior pastor" or "bishop" or other senior leadership roles in Protestant churches.

Example:

Ignatius to the Magnesians 6.1

"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest"

 

[sojourner]

The most puzzling thing here is how you list your religion as "Christian", that is, a follower of Jesus Christ, who Himself is called, "the Word of God", yet you don't believe any of God's words.

I didn't say I disbelieved any of God's words. However, the creation narratives aren't God's words. They're the words of the authors.

Jesus is, indeed, the Word of God. The Bible is not. Inspired, yes. Dictated from the sky, no.

 

[sojourner]

It's presbyters that are historical pastors and their name comes down from Greek to Latin to English as "priest," transferred to "pastor" by Protestants.

Episkopoi are "overseers" which likewise goes from Greek to Latin to English as "bishop" - transformed to "Senior pastor" or "bishop" or other senior leadership roles in Protestant churches.

Example:

Ignatius to the Magnesians 6.1

"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest"

The term "pastor" is the same root as "pastoral," and implies (for ecclesiastical purposes) one who is a shepherd. I understand what you're saying, and you're right for all practical purposes. What I'm saying is that all three historic offices are pastoral in nature. it's my understanding that they have been viewed in that way since very early on. Therefore, for a fundamental Protestant to summarily change the historic view and then attempt to apply a perceived Biblical principle is deceitful.

 

[kingsherald]

I didn't say I disbelieved any of God's words. However, the creation narratives aren't God's words. They're the words of the authors.

Jesus is, indeed, the Word of God. The Bible is not. Inspired, yes. Dictated from the sky, no.

The inspiration of the Holy Spirit means God-breathed, the very words of God, as He moved them to write the very words they used, to the precision of exact words and grammatical constructs in the original texts, otherwise the text would be prone to errors. (But God, the Sovereign LORD of the universe doesn't make errors.) And if prone to errors then also prone to evolution of doctrine, and the advent of additional authorities, as the Roman Catholic church and every cult employs. However, this is against the testimony of Scripture.

You also said something about Paul not writing Genesis, so when he speaks of Genesis in his inspired writings he is not authoritative on the matter. How can you believe anything in the Bible then, if you won't believe the Apostle Paul, who met the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, and received the Divine revelation that he then expounds in his epistles. These same epistles the Apostle Peter attests to that there is written in them some things hard to understand that the untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction.

"But wait Peter", you might say, "it's only the words of a man, the man Paul. How can some twist Paul's words to their own destruction?"

To which Peter would reply and tell you that the doctrine of Paul isn't from Paul but from God, and you better not twist his words, because then you arrive at false doctrines. Jesus says that His doctrine is from the Father. Paul's doctrine is in full agreement with Jesus' doctrine. Man is fallible. God alone is infallible.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Would God give us a fallible account under His inspiration? I think not.

 

[sojourner]

The inspiration of the Holy Spirit means God-breathed, the very words of God, as He moved them to write the very words they used, to the precision of exact words and grammatical constructs in the original texts, otherwise the text would be prone to errors.

Well, that would certainly be news to the authors...
The texts are prone to errors, such as the one I pointed out, which you have conveniently neglected to consider in your analysis.

(But God, the Sovereign LORD of the universe doesn't make errors.)

(No, but people do...)

And if prone to errors then also prone to evolution of doctrine,

The Church is an organic entity. As such, it grows and changes, or it dies. It's doctrine must, likewise, change and grow with it.

and the advent of additional authorities, as the Roman Catholic church

The Church had bishops, presbyters and deacons before the advent of the Roman Catholic Church. And that's all it has today.

However, this is against the testimony of Scripture.

Hmmm...
Bishops, presbyters and deacons are scriptural...

How can you believe anything in the Bible then, if you won't believe the Apostle Paul, who met the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, and received the Divine revelation that he then expounds in his epistles.

The veracity of the texts do not hinge on Paul. Paul was a human being, who processed and passed on the revelation of Christ through the lens of his own, very human understanding.

These same epistles the Apostle Peter attests to that there is written in them some things hard to understand that the untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction.

I would say that the universal application of Paul's injunctions against female leadership is a twisting of the passages that has destroyed half of the Church's potential leadership for far too long.

"it's only the words of a man, the man Paul. How can some twist Paul's words to their own destruction?"

Well, it's been done! To wit: 1. The universal application of his injunctions against female leadership, and 2. The injunctions against homosexuality.

To which Peter would reply and tell you that the doctrine of Paul isn't from Paul but from God, and you better not twist his words, because then you arrive at false doctrines.

Peter was also one who argued vehemently that Gentiles must become Jews in order to be Christians. Are you willing to do that?
Peter was unwilling to set aside his cultural lens in order to see the bigger picture. False doctrine (such as what Peter was advocating in this case) derives from a failure to see things from another's POV, insisting that the author must have meant what makes sense to you in your own culture, rather than what made sense to the author in his culture.

Paul's doctrine is in full agreement with Jesus' doctrine.

No it isn't.

Man is fallible.

Including Peter and Paul.

God alone is infallible.

The Bible is not God.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.

According to... whom?

Would God give us a fallible account under His inspiration?

No, but we might misinterpret that account.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The term "pastor" is the same root as "pastoral," and implies (for ecclesiastical purposes) one who is a shepherd. I understand what you're saying, and you're right for all practical purposes. What I'm saying is that all three historic offices are pastoral in nature. it's my understanding that they have been viewed in that way since very early on. Therefore, for a fundamental Protestant to summarily change the historic view and then attempt to apply a perceived Biblical principle is deceitful.

Gotcha :yes:

 

[sojourner]

Gotcha :yes:

You're still my Daddy!

 

[Senior NevaLes X]

first of all we must learn to put aside all selfish motives.

 

[sojourner]

first of all we must learn to put aside all selfish motives.

And to shelf all motivational asides...

 

[sojourner]

Plus there's always the scholarly speculation that the injunctions against women were later additions to make Pauline thought jive with Timothy...