Another sort of religious issue

Originally posted by Nyxie
It has become quickly obvious to me that there are people here who do not wish to learn. The hardest person to teach is a fanatic. What we have here are contradicting bible quotes.

Paul says this Jesus said that. I will take Jesus first. As a child I read the red letter edition and they asked me why. I told them the whole book was about Jesus, so to me his ...[text shortened]... you wish, and we can continue this debate without burying each other in our posts.

Nyxie

Generally, well-put. Only want to point out that Reform, Reconstructionist and (I think) Conservative Jews do have women rabbis. The Orthodox do not.

Originally posted by Nyxie
The first question : Does my argument and it's merit hinge on the fact of my gender?


The second question I answer as no.


Nyxie

The reason for the first question is very simple. If you were a man than the second question becomes rather superfluous.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

The reason for the first question is very simple. If you were a man than the second question becomes rather superfluous.

There is no reason for the first question that I can fathom here. I don't see how my being male or female will lend credence either for or against my debate.

Nyxie

Originally posted by vistesd
Generally, well-put. Only want to point out that Reform, Reconstructionist and (I think) Conservative Jews do have women rabbis. The Orthodox do not.

Thank you for that addition. I am not of the jewish faith so I can not claim to have any understanding of it.

Nyxie

ok I will try to answer pcaspians point about timothy here.

In 1st Timothy Chapter 3 and 5:17-19, Paul outlined in detail the office of the presbyter (elder). "After completing his list of qualifications for bishops and deacons (I Tim 3:1-10), he continued by including the women when he said, "qunaikas hosautos" or "women likewise." Hosautos links the entire list of qualifications into one single theme. It links the deacons with the bishops in verse 8 and then links them to women in verse 11. The usual translation for presbyter (elder) is "older men" and "older women" but the Greek word is the same one used for elders everywhere. If consistency is to be maintained, then "presbutero" and "presbuteras" should be translated as men presbyters and women presbyters. A more nearly correct translation would be, "Do no sharply rebuke a male presbyter, but appeal to him as a father, to the young men as brothers, women presbyters as mothers, and the younger women as sisters, in all purity."

The strongest comment made by Paul which for centuries has kept women from the pulpit is I Tim 2:12. When studying I Timothy, we must remember that this was a private letter written to Timothy, the young evangelist, informing him how to deal with problems that were unique to that one congregation, the congregation in Ephesus. The advice regarding women was not intended to establish conduct and rules of procedure for church congregations forever, but instead it was meant to address the circumstances of that particular first-century congregation. I Tim 2:12 reads as follows:

"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."

In the Greek language (Paul wrote in a dialect of the Greek language called "Koine"😉 the word "authentein" was translated as "usurp authority." Why would Paul disallow women to preach or lead in the church when he previously allowed them to do so?

Authentein is only found in this one passage (I Tim 2:12) in the Bible. It was a rare word considered to be slang, rough, rude or even vulgar. In 1611, the word was translated as "usurp authority" during the formation of the King James Bible. However, "authentein" never had this usage until well after the third century when the organized movement was underway to expel women for church leadership. The correct word would have been "exousia." Exousia means exactly what is implied in our Bibles today..."to rule over." Authentein when properly translated meant "an erotic or symbolic death" and never meant to usurp authority. The Ephesian church was troubled with false teachers who espoused a Gnostic type of Jewish Christianity. Gnostics believed that Eve received secret knowledge when she ate of the forbidden tree, therefore, female teachers could relay that knowledge. Paul countered in his teachings that Adam was not deceived but Eve was deceived (I Tim 2:14, Rom 5:14). Instead of receiving knowledge she fell into sin and received a curse, not secret wisdom. The Gnostics also believed that Eve was formed before Adam. Verses 13, 14 & 15 of I Timothy Chapter 2 are Paul's responses to the Gnostic allegations. Paul's message in the latter part of I Tim 2 was meant to counteract the Gnostic influence that was creeping into the early church. "Paul did not intend to establish a blueprint for church structure, but rather to deal with the circumstances that the church (and especially Paul's young associate Timothy) faced in Ephesus." Paul never intended to ban women forever from church leadership

Who is the ultimate authority (head) in the Church. The Bible tells us that without question Christ is the head of the Church.

Eph 1:22 "and (God) hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church..."

Eph 5:23 "even as Christ is the head of the church..."

Col 1:18 "and he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church..."

From the verses above it is obvious that Christ, not man, is the authority in the church. If Christ is the authority in the church, how can woman usurp authority over the man? She cannot usurp authority that he does not possess

So he means I would say that the females should not try to overtake the church?

Using I TIm 2:12 to keep a woman in religious subjection is counteractive to the teachings and example of Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul. Anyone who is called of God is called based upon a love and total commitment to Christ not on the basis of gender. This was explained well by Paul in Galatians 3:28. "The apostle's main purpose, therefore, was to assist a church suffering from heretical teachings." "In I Tim 2:12, Paul is not prohibiting women from preaching, nor praying, nor having an edifying authority nor pastoring. He was simply prohibiting them from teaching and using their authority in a destructive way.

I hope I've cleared up some points here, if not please continue.

Nyxie

Originally posted by Nyxie
There is no reason for the first question that I can fathom here. I don't see how my being male or female will lend credence either for or against my debate.

Nyxie

Usually men are discussing this issue. That's why, in my view, it would be nice if women discussing this issue would show themselves.

If you decide otherwise, that's fine with me.

Next I will try to answer the Corinthian letter.

Corinthian letter. In I Cor 11:3-16, Paul speaks of women praying and prophesying openly in the church and even instructs them as to "how" they are to dress while praying and prophesying. ("In some ecstatic cults, possession by deity was symbolized by the casting off of head covering, the loosening and shaking and tossing of the hair and the exchange of clothing between men and women." Paul was trying to prevent the Corinthian Church from being associated with these cults.) In the same statement Paul equates the women's ministry with that of the men. From these passages one can easily see that in the early church neither the male nor the female were silent. In Cor 14:34-36 Paul does a complete reversal and demands that women be silent. These passages deal specifically with public worship and are an edict for order in the worship activities. "For God is not a God of confusion, but of peace." (I Cor 14:33)

Why was Paul so terribly inconsistent? There are many theories explaining this, a few of which are listed below:


1-Some biblical experts say this was a local problem and does not

apply to any other congregation other than the Corinthian

congregation specifically addressed in that epistle.

2-One theory states that the women were silenced since they were

largely uneducated and disrupted services by shouting across the

room to their husbands for interpretation (again a local issue only).

3-Another theory is that all women were not silenced only the "wives."

4-Some scholars believe that Paul simply changed his mind.

5-There are those who believe that verses 34-36 were not in Paul's

original letter since they are obtrusive and do not seem to blend

with the continual thought and natural flow of the epistle. This

theory supports the idea that a copyist added verses in 34-36 at a

later date since it is a direct contradiction of I Cor 11:5. Many think

that a scribe included these verses as a paraphrase of I Tim 2:12

and to further support in suppressing the growing influence of

women in church leadership. "The evangelical scholar, Gordan

Fee, joined many other critical commentators in arguing

persuasively that the injunctions concerning women (vs. 34-35)

were not from the apostle's own pen, but was rather an

interpretation into the chapter. If this conjecture is correct, we can

dispense with the two verses as carrying no authority for the

church."We do know that at least one ancient codex was

discovered which did not include 34-36 in the body of the text but

instead placed them in the margin. A number of early manuscripts

placed these verses after 14:40. What was the mystery surrounding

these two verses?

6-The last theory is that verses 34 & 35 pertained only to the prophet's

wives. Since in I Cor 14:29 Paul told the prophets "to judge" each

other, then the context of these verses had to pertain to judging

prophecies. If so, in continuing the thought, it makes perfect sense

that Paul could have been addressing the wives of prophets only.

He perhaps was informing these wives not to ask their husbands

questions during the time that the husband was prophesying. They

were to ask him at home. In other words, they were not to disturb

the worship service.

7-Paul compromised the gospel in order not to upset the social

structures of his age."


In closer examination of I Cor 14:34-36 the passages state that, "it is not permitted unto them (women) to speak." Paul did not say "God forbids," "I forbid," "It is not proper," etc. This refers directly to the "other law" not the Bible. The other law, of course, was the "old" law, the Jewish oral law! Paul was quoting the Judaizers! He even refers to it in the last two words of verse 34 as "the law." It is not believable that Paul would instruct the churches to forever silence women since this was in complete violation of all that Christ practiced and taught (Luke 10:38-42, John 12:1-7 and numerous other examples found in the Gospels). "The apostle rested his case (not on the new law but rather, on the old law, the Old Testament as interpreted by the Jewish religious teachers."

Would Christ have stated, "it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (I Cor 14:35)? Never according to his example and practices.

Nyxie

Originally posted by Nyxie
It has become quickly obvious to me that there are people here who do not wish to learn. The hardest person to teach is a fanatic. What we have here are contradicting bible quotes.

I'd assume that was intended at me. Truthfully, I take little offense should that be your view.


Paul says this Jesus said that. I will take Jesus first. As a child I read the red letter edition and they asked me why. I told them the whole book was about Jesus, so to me his words were of more importance then any others contained in it.

Ok, such a view may be fair, but you lose much meaning from the Bible when focussing only on Jesus's actual words and actions. We know from the OT what a wonderful man David was on many an occasion. He was God's beloved. On two occasions he could have killed his persecutor (Saul), yet on both occasions refused as Saul was the King, annointed by God. Such is the Old Testament, scriptures that we know Jesus read and preached. Jesus, the fulfullment of the Law. Does this not imply that we need to understand the law before we can truely understand Jesus's purpose ?


If I am wrong here it's obvious that I need a new religion too. I will not hold close or praise a religion that claims half the world's population as subserviant to the other.

We are instructed to be subservient to others. That is what Christ preached. The scriptural subservience is one to one's husband. If you have a problem being subservient to the man you love, would you truely surrender your faith for such a thing ? Who are you putting first ? God or yourself ?


Jesus told the women to go forth, who are we to state he was wrong? Women preached and prophesized and led churches in the early days of Christianity. Women were instrumental in the building of the early Christian church. I believe the topic in question is specifically with regard to women being leaders instead of men. I've known some beautiful Christian woman in life, and they seem to have wonderfull relationships with God. I also know some male Christians that are great Christians. Should we assume that God has a purpose for each of us, would it be truely be horrible if our purpose were not to lead ?


Well that's my oppinion. If you want we can take the long posts and break them down because I have a short attention span, let us break them down one by one if you wish, and we can continue this debate without burying each other in our posts.

Ok, lets take it slowly. Lets start with examples (some of the most conclusive examples you provided) where Jesus actually promoted female preachers (ie: leaders of the church). I'm not particularly interested in what certain churches did in the early days of Christianity, as we know in many cased they did screw up, I am more interested in Jesus's relationship with such church leaders. For example, all Jesus's disciples were men. Other than preaching the Word of God (that which we know we are all (irrespective of sex) suppose to do, are there examples of Jesus instructing woman to form churches ?

pc.



Nyxie

[/b]

Originally posted by pcaspian
Originally posted by Nyxie
[b]It has become quickly obvious to me that there are people here who do not wish to learn. The hardest person to teach is a fanatic. What we have here are contradicting bible quotes.

I'd assume that was intended at me. Truthfully, I take little offense should that be your view.


Paul says this Jesus said t ...[text shortened]... do, are there examples of Jesus instructing woman to form churches ?

pc.



Nyxie

[/b]

The question is whether they should have leadership roles in the church. They have since the early days of christianity. I did'nt say "instead of" those are your words.

Jesus did have female disciples. I think I have made that point already.

No i'm not saying I will give up my religion, I say I do not accept one that says I have to be subserviant to men. We are all supposed to be subserviant to God. We are not speaking of marraige or household roles, that is another debate. I am specifically speaking of women leading a church.

Do you really believe that God wanted women to be slaves to men? Do you assert that women are incapable of leading a church? What are your views here? Are women inferior to men in a way that makes them incapable of holding any position that a man might hold?

Nyxie

Originally posted by Nyxie
The question is whether they should have leadership roles in the church. They have since the early days of christianity. I did'nt say "instead of" those are your words.

Many churches have done many things, good and bad. We cannot judge Godly morality based on the actions of churches.


Jesus did have female disciples. I think I have made that point already.

Could you elaborate more on these (take 1 or 2 as example) disciples ?
A disciple, used loosely, is a follower of Christ, as such we are all 'disciples' . Who did Jesus appoint for a purpose of leadership over men ?


No i'm not saying I will give up my religion, I say I do not accept one that says I have to be subserviant to men.

But you are following a religion that claims you are to be subservient to your husband, would that imply that any preacher (female) that is married would need to be subservient to a man, when she herself is a the leader of men ?


Do you really believe that God wanted women to be slaves to men?

Do you really believe that woman make better church leaders than men ?

C'mon nyxie, this game is childish. I won't put words in your mouth and perhaps you pay me the same courtesy ?


Do you assert that women are incapable of leading a church? What are your views here? Are women inferior to men in a way that makes them incapable of holding any position that a man might hold?

I hold few views in this matter. If God told me that only woman could lead the church, then I'd accept that view. I don't know why I find that easy to accept, I just do. As such I've asked for detailed scriptural evidence to support the view that 1. Jesus was in support of women leading churches, 2. Other authors of the Bible supported this view.
I care little for examples of where such and such have occurred, afterall we know that in some churches, members married their mothers, so the behaviour of churches hold little reason to copy their examples.

What I find interesting is that should God have made men subservient to woman, I would still have accepted my faith. Heck, I have little trouble with my wife making most of our decisions, perhaps because I had an older sister ? I don't understand why you would disregard your faith should the opposite apply though. Hypothetically speaking, should there be some reason for only men to be church leaders, why would you not just accept that to be the way God wants it to be ?

pc

Originally posted by pcaspian
Originally posted by Nyxie
[b]The question is whether they should have leadership roles in the church. They have since the early days of christianity. I did'nt say "instead of" those are your words.

Many churches have done many things, good and bad. We cannot judge Godly morality based on the actions of churches.


Jesus did have fe ...[text shortened]... o be church leaders, why would you not just accept that to be the way God wants it to be ?

pc

Because and to put this plainly, I don't see anywhere where God or jesus said that women could not lead churches. My views are therefore not in contradiction with Christianity.

Do you really believe that woman make better church leaders than men ?
You did'nt answer my question but I will answer yours, no I think that men and women are equal.

I notice now you go to calling me childish. You misquoted me and I corrected you, call that childish if you wish.

If your wife makes most of the descisions in your household, are you in contradiction of your religion?

I don't understand why you would disregard your faith should the opposite apply though

I see you also call my faith into question, this is something that happens in these threads a lot. I would think we as adults could have a decent religious debate without this happening.


Nyxie

The book of Judges Chapter 9

9:52 And Abimelech came unto the tower, and fought against it, and went hard unto the door of the tower to burn it with fire.

9:53 And a certain woman cast a piece of a millstone upon Abimelech's head, and all to brake his skull.

9:54 Then he called hastily unto the young man his armourbearer, and said unto him, Draw thy sword, and slay me, that men say not of me, A woman slew him. And his young man thrust him through, and he died.

9:55 And when the men of Israel saw that Abimelech was dead, they departed every man unto his place.

9:56 Thus God rendered the wickedness of Abimelech, which he did unto his father, in slaying his seventy brethren:

It would seem that a woman was chosen for this role.

Originally posted by Nyxie
Because and to put this plainly, I don't see anywhere where God or jesus said that women could not lead churches. My views are therefore not in contradiction with Christianity.

Authors of the Bible claimed this. So either you reject their views based on other scriptures, or you reject their views, because they contradict your belief of right or wrong. Should you base you belief on contradicting scriptures, I ask that you highlight scriptures that Jesus or God claimed which support your case.


Do you really believe that woman make better church leaders than men ?
You did'nt answer my question but I will answer yours, no I think that men and women are equal.

I was being sarcastic. I was attributing a question to you that I know you didn't support, just as you attributed a belief to me (women = men's slaves) to me. For example. pcaspian : "I think jam taste better than syrup" .. nyxie "Do you really believe jam is the tastiest spread of them all ?". I didn't claim women were men's slaves, so please dont attribute such beliefs to me in the form of a question.


If your wife makes most of the descisions in your household, are you in contradiction of your religion?

Not at all. My wife knows more about somethings and happens to be pretty good at organisation. She is however complient and obedient should I ask her to be.


I see you also call my faith into question, this is something that happens in these threads a lot. I would think we as adults could have a decent religious debate without this happening.

"I will not hold close or praise a religion that claims half the world's population as subserviant to the other. "

You called your own faith into question Nyxie. By your own admission (perhaps it was sarcastic) if your faith required subservience to men, you will discard it ? I've already stated that my faith is not dependent on the status of male/female relationships, I'm asking whether yours really is.

pc




Nyxie[/b]

Old testament Deborah

Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading [traditionally judging] Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided. She sent for Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and said to him, "The Lord, the God of Israel, commands you: 'Go, take with you ten thousand men of Naphtali and Zebulun and lead the way to Mount Tabor. I will lure Sisera, the commander of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his troops to the Kishon River and give him into your hands.'"

"Barak said to her, "If you go with me, I will go; but if you don't go with me, I won't go."

"Very well," Deborah said, "I will go with you. But because of the way you are going about this, the honor will not be yours, for The Lord will hand Sisera over to a woman." So Deborah went with Barak to Kedesh, where he summoned Zebulun and Naphtali. Ten thousand men followed him, and Deborah also went with him."

Deborah : a prophet a military leader and a judge, over men and women alike.

Nyxie

Let's forget about biblical references for the moment. Clearly, those who have contributed have done a good deal of homework and brought out a lot of references. Why is this such a volitale topic? I have some theories and I will stay clear of scripture to explain.

I think we are talking about several issues here. Control, power, and sex. Whether it is being the CEO of a company or pastoring a church with 50 members, there are similar dynamics at work. There is a seductive quality to power and it can be dangerous. When one has authority over anything, it just feels good because we are hardwired to like control over things and people. If you work under the principle that a certain group are not qualified for a certain reason, say being black or being a man or a woman, you are essentially saying "I am better than you." YOu aren't saying that you are better at something. You are sending a message that you are an innately better person. This is dangerous thinking as it follows that you are more deserving of more authority and more power and more control over people.