Are WOMEN Pastors Biblical??

[mustaphadrink]

Not one time does it mention the wife of a pastor doesn't help her husband.

Yes the Bible does say women teach you find that is Titus 2:1-5

I am not going to take along drawn out explanation, however, women in the body of Christ and are also called the "church".

(1 Corinthians 14:23-25; see also1 Cor 11:5, 14:6, 20) Christian women are to do this too.

The Apostle Peter said, to women and men, “Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God. If anyone serves, they should do so with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. ….” (1 Peter 4:10-11)

I will point out some of the glaring mistakes you are making in your attempt to justify your dogma.

Of course it mentions many times the wife of a pastor doesn't teach. In all the scriptures about teaching in the church, not once does it mentiion that women teach apart from older women teaching younger woman.

The bible does not tell us women teach in Titus 2 1-5. Titus is being instructed by Paul what HE is to teach.

Women are called church so that means they are annointed to teach. What a weird and wonderful interpretation of scripture.

In your reference to what Peter said it does not say women are to teach. It says you are to use the gift you have received. There is no indication of any kind that Peter would teach something that is contrary to scripture.

I am not going to continue this discussion as all you will do is take more verses out of context and make them say what they do not mean. I am not going to ditch 10 years of study by people who obviously know a lot more than you do. As for your 20 years, what other jokes do you tell?

 

[CS1]

I will point out some of the glaring mistakes you are making in your attempt to justify your dogma.

Of course it mentions many times the wife of a pastor doesn't teach. In all the scriptures about teaching in the church, not once does it mentiion that women teach apart from older women teaching younger woman.

The bible does not tell us women teach in Titus 2 1-5. Titus is being instructed by Paul what HE is to teach.

Women are called church so that means they are annointed to teach. What a weird and wonderful interpretation of scripture.

In your reference to what Peter said it does not say women are to teach. It says you are to use the gift you have received. There is no indication of any kind that Peter would teach something that is contrary to scripture.

I am not going to continue this discussion as all you will do is take more verses out of context and make them say what they do not mean. I am not going to ditch 10 years of study by people who obviously know a lot more than you do. As for your 20 years, what other jokes do you tell?

wrong! Maybe your wife doesn't teach but you don't know all the wives of pastors who do teach. And I guess all women should not read the Bible contextually for an application when they read Titus 2?

You are twisting what I said. Be honest or we can stop here.
I did not say "women are called the church so that means they are anointed."

Not all men of the body of Christ are anointed or called to be pastors yet all men and women can be anointed to teach, evangelize, and be used by the Holy Spirit and not have the title or calling of a pastor. You may think that is a "weird and wonderful interpretation of scripture." But it is Biblical nonetheless.


What Peter said doesn't say women are not to teach either.

FYI, you may not like it but women receive gifts from God too and of the Holy Spirit. Women prophesied in the Bible Both in the Old and New Testaments. They have been listed by many here and on other threads of this very same topic.

The only one who is taking things out of context is you. The application of women
to teach, evangelize, pray, be filled with the Holy Spirit to have the power to be a witness of the Lord Jesus just as men are collectively in the body of Christ.

Let me ask you this where Jesus said Preach the gospel to all men were women included? IN 1cor 12:3

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

in This verse can we apply women to this too and in the rest of the chapter? Or was this speaking to only Men 1cor chapter 12 ? Please answer?

 

[p_rehbein]

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

in This verse can we apply women to this too and in the rest of the chapter? Or was this speaking to only Men 1cor chapter 12 ? Please answer?

Your wasting your time I suspect, but you probably know this already.

Shoot, we ALL knows dem durn troublemaking wemmens need to hush up and listen to their husbandmens and be obedient...... Always causing trouble, dem durn wemmens........

 

[UCA4J]

Do you believe adult women can teach adult men outside of the church (both religious and non religious topics)? Do the verses which state that men have authority over women spill over in every aspect of life?

ok, what about childbearing or child rearing ?

 

[UCA4J]

Thankful to see there are comments in disagreement with the statement...phew, the human race is not so doomed after all!

welcome, nearly didn't notice you're new.

 

[mustaphadrink]

wrong! Maybe your wife doesn't teach but you don't know all the wives of pastors who do teach. And I guess all women should not read the Bible contextually for an application when they read Titus 2?

You are twisting what I said. Be honest or we can stop here.
I did not say "women are called the church so that means they are anointed."

Not all men of the body of Christ are anointed or called to be pastors yet all men and women can be anointed to teach, evangelize, and be used by the Holy Spirit and not have the title or calling of a pastor. You may think that is a "weird and wonderful interpretation of scripture." But it is Biblical nonetheless.


What Peter said doesn't say women are not to teach either.

FYI, you may not like it but women receive gifts from God too and of the Holy Spirit. Women prophesied in the Bible Both in the Old and New Testaments. They have been listed by many here and on other threads of this very same topic.

The only one who is taking things out of context is you. The application of women
to teach, evangelize, pray, be filled with the Holy Spirit to have the power to be a witness of the Lord Jesus just as men are collectively in the body of Christ.

Let me ask you this where Jesus said Preach the gospel to all men were women included? IN 1cor 12:3

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

in This verse can we apply women to this too and in the rest of the chapter? Or was this speaking to only Men 1cor chapter 12 ? Please answer?

Read my response to your last post.

 

[awelight]

Do you believe adult women can teach adult men outside of the church (both religious and non religious topics)? Do the verses which state that men have authority over women spill over in every aspect of life?

There is a basic principle laid down in the Scriptures, that is the Divine order. First Christ, then the man, woman and if applicable the children. This principle extends from Genesis, subsequent to the fall. Obviously, the Apostle Paul was primarily concerned with the assembly meetings and it's procedures for maintaining proper order.

Certainly, a woman can teach outside of the assembly meeting and join in any conversation that maybe taking place. We know that Scripture refers to Timothy's grandmother, as having taught him many great things. Women as fellow believers, should witness to others, just as any man, this is our primary obligation as believers in Jesus Christ. Men and women are equal, in every respect, in our fellowship with the Lord and each other. There is no evidence, that the limitations placed on women, in the assembly meeting, were to extend beyond the assembly and that, only in the worship service. Paul was not referring to the building.

 

[Magenta]

Not really. When God withheld children from some couples, there was a deeper reason, as we see in the case of Samuel. But the fundamental principle is laid out in the first chapter of the first book of the Bible.

Yes, really. Not every infertile couple later conceives. Many of the women in the Bible described as being barren, such as Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Hannah (Samuel’s mother), Samson’s mother and Elizabeth (John the Baptist’s mother), later conceive. However, there are other Biblical women, including Michal (David’s wife), who remain barren for their entire lives. For still others, like Dinah, Miriam and Deborah, the Bible records no offspring, which suggests they may have been barren. source

 

[awelight]

the women at the well preached Elizbeth Prophised Mary Propheised Hanna Prophesied The Holy Spirit is poured out on Women just as men they can witness, preach under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They can pray for the sick they can teach

BUT not during the assembly meeting. Quit trying to take my words and make them into some kind of rule that applies to women in every and all circumstances. The Holy Spirit can use a woman to do great many things. What about Ruth? A great woman of the Old Testament.

But the Holy Spirit is not going to reverse Himself, after having inspired Paul to write what he wrote. Logic would dictate, if the Holy Spirit empowered a woman to preach in the assembly, then this would make the Holy Spirit confused about what He had previously said in the Epistle to Corinth and to Timothy. God is of one mind and there is no confusion with Him.

 

[awelight]

I presented interpretation of the scriptures involved numerous times during the previous posts. We discussed them at length. You and others have presented your interpretation and I presented what I think was a more natural interpretation of authorial intent. Then you began to pronounce anathemas on those that did not interpret your way as being against God and offering strange fire, and I found your logic to apply more to your own hermeneutic than to those that oppose you.

Now you are back at the beginning of an endless loop wanting to discuss interpretation again. Ok fine. Present which scripture you would like to discuss and we can analyze it by walking through the common rules of interpretation and see which interpretation complies with all of the rules and seems to be the most natural interpretation of authorial intent.

Starting with 1 Tim 2 and the statement "I suffer not a woman to teach nor usurp authority over a man" Your interpretation of this is that it banns women from preaching and teaching in the church. My interpretation of this is that it is understood as the same subject matter we read in 1 Pet 3 and is specifically talking about the attitude of the wife toward the husband. I find 1 Pet 3 comparison STRONG evidence that I have identified authorial intent (both Paul and the Holy Spirit intent) and that Paul did not have public preaching in mind. I believe that Teaching here (the Greek word used only one time in the NT in this verse only) is to probably like Correction, or Enforcing opinion over the husbands opposing opinion. I believe that Usurping authority over the man is an explanation of the meaning of the kind of Teaching he was talking about. This does not happen when a women teaches the Bible even though you think that it does, I do not agree with that understanding.

I have presented this at length already and we have discussed it over and over. You and I will have to disagree. You can announce anathemas upon those that don't believe that your hermeneutic is superiors to mine but it won't scare anyone. Truth is my objective. Pleasing God will be accomplished by grasping the message that the Holy Spirit intended not by adherence to loud threats of condemnation for not agreeing with bad hermeneutics. If I feel pressure to accept what I consider a bad interpretation at the risk of judgment I know that is coming from the enemy and a good reason to think that hermeneutic is probably the wrong one. Doing things God's way is my goal and sometimes that means healing on the sabbath.

You take 1 Tim. 2:11&12 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. and then parallel that to a letter written by Peter and call this proper hermeneutics? Another Author cannot be used to explain what Paul was saying to Timothy. That is completely out of context.

The subject here, in Paul's letter, at the point of these two verses is what was right and acceptable in the sight of God. (1 Tim. 2:3). Peter was not even discussing that subject. If this is your idea of proper exegesis, then I don't know what to say. If there is a parallel to be made, then it must stay within the Pauline Epistles. That being said, this would take us to these verses:

1Co 14:34 let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law.
1Co 14:35 And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.

Here in this text, we see absolute parallels. 1) Women are the subject in both. 2) The woman is not to teach and in the other, she is to remain silent. The same principle is herein expressed. 3) She is not to have authority over the man and in the other, she is to be in subjection to her husband, Again, a similar principle is in view. 4) It is to her shame if she violates this teaching, (1 Cor. 14:35).

Paul knew, under inspiration, that there was going to be objections - just as there are today. This is why he included these verses:

1Co 14:36-38 What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone? If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord. But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant.

The Holy Spirit would not inspire Paul to write these things and then turn around and reverse Himself. The Holy Spirit is not confused!!!!! Nor has He changed His mind. Therefore, any woman preacher, claiming to be God called to that position, is a liar and the Truth is not in her. God has spoken on the subject and it stands written.

Some have asked.....What if the woman is not married? How does this apply to her? She should follow the example given in this verse:

1Co 14:30 But if a revelation be made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence. In other words, if a woman has a revelation to share with the assembly, let her first tell it to a brother and then he can bring it before the assembly meeting, on her behalf. The first here, would be the woman.

 

[Scribe]

You take 1 Tim. 2:11&12 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. and then parallel that to a letter written by Peter and call this proper hermeneutics? Another Author cannot be used to explain what Paul was saying to Timothy. That is completely out of context.

The subject here, in Paul's letter, at the point of these two verses is what was right and acceptable in the sight of God. (1 Tim. 2:3). Peter was not even discussing that subject. If this is your idea of proper exegesis, then I don't know what to say. If there is a parallel to be made, then it must stay within the Pauline Epistles. That being said, this would take us to these verses:

1Co 14:34 let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law.
1Co 14:35 And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.

Here in this text, we see absolute parallels. 1) Women are the subject in both. 2) The woman is not to teach and in the other, she is to remain silent. The same principle is herein expressed. 3) She is not to have authority over the man and in the other, she is to be in subjection to her husband, Again, a similar principle is in view. 4) It is to her shame if she violates this teaching, (1 Cor. 14:35).

Paul knew, under inspiration, that there was going to be objections - just as there are today. This is why he included these verses:

1Co 14:36-38 What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone? If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord. But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant.

The Holy Spirit would not inspire Paul to write these things and then turn around and reverse Himself. The Holy Spirit is not confused!!!!! Nor has He changed His mind. Therefore, any woman preacher, claiming to be God called to that position, is a liar and the Truth is not in her. God has spoken on the subject and it stands written.

Some have asked.....What if the woman is not married? How does this apply to her? She should follow the example given in this verse:

1Co 14:30 But if a revelation be made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence. In other words, if a woman has a revelation to share with the assembly, let her first tell it to a brother and then he can bring it before the assembly meeting, on her behalf. The first here, would be the woman.

1 Pet 3 3Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
1 Tim 2 9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
This should be enough to at least catch your attention. And yes it is a hermeneutical rule called theological textual context to compare where else the same subject is discussed in the New Testament.

They are both talking about the woman's beauty is found in having a submissive heart toward her husband as opposed to outward adornment. Peter was probably quoting Paul as he was known to do (remember that it was Peter who said ("even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles,") this type of statement from Peter gives us a strong reason to believe that he might have been repeating a common teaching of Paul about the women not adorning their outward body, being focused on outward appearance instead of the heart which he then uses the submissiveness to the husband as an example of being more attractive than outward beauty.

Now compare the two passages from Paul and Peter and notice the strikingly similar thoughts expressed by each. It becomes undeniable that they were talking about the same subject. Once you concede that you can stop reading into the text what Paul never mentions simply because "you think you know" what he meant and instead at least consider that he might have meant the same thing that Peter was talking about and did not have public speaking ministry roles in mind at all.

 

[Magenta]

Deborah was a judge and a prophet.
And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

That should settle the issue but some misundersant her telling Barak who asked her to go with him that ...
9And 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.
They think she was saying I will go with you but then a woman will get honor instead of you, as if she was speaking about herself. But she was talking about Jael who would kill Sisera with the tent peg. God had showed her that.

Also Anna, who prophesied about Jesus at the Temple of Jerusalem,
mentioned in Luke 2:36–38 during the presentation of Jesus at the Temple.

As well as Hulda, a prophet mentioned in 2 Kings 22:14–20 and 2 Chronicles 34:22–28. According to Jewish tradition, she was one of the "seven prophetesses", with Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail and Esther. According to Rabbinic interpretation, Huldah and Deborah were the principal professed woman prophets in the Nevi'im (Prophets) portion of the Hebrew Bible, although other women were referred to as prophets. wiki

 

[Dino246]

Here in this text, we see absolute parallels. 1) Women are the subject in both.

Wrong. In 1 Timothy, the subject is not "women" (plural) but "a woman" (singular).

2) The woman is not to teach and in the other, she is to remain silent. The same principle is herein expressed.

That's a conflation, not a parallel. Being silent is a far cry from not teaching.

3) She is not to have authority over the man and in the other, she is to be in subjection to her husband, Again, a similar principle is in view.

I can see a bit more of a connection here but it's certainly not an "absolute parallel". However, "have authority" is not the correct translation of authentein, so even that tenuous connection fails.

4) It is to her shame if she violates this teaching, (1 Cor. 14:35).

It's not a parallel when it only appears in one of the two passages.

Paul knew, under inspiration, that there was going to be objections - just as there are today. This is why he included these verses:

1Co 14:36-38 What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone? If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord. But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant.

The Holy Spirit would not inspire Paul to write these things and then turn around and reverse Himself. The Holy Spirit is not confused!!!!! Nor has He changed His mind. Therefore, any woman preacher, claiming to be God called to that position, is a liar and the Truth is not in her. God has spoken on the subject and it stands written.

It's eisegetical to conclude that Paul had foreknowledge. It's more rational to see verses 34-35 as a quotation to which Paul reacts strongly, like this:

"Our opinion is that women should be silent and in subjection as the law says."
"Say what? Did the word of God come through you men? Or did it only come to you men? (Implied No!) On the contrary, let my words (regarding the gifting of all believers) be taken as God's commandment."

I agree: the Holy Spirit would not change His mind, but my view is completely consistent with Paul's instructions to Timothy to let the woman learn (as the men do, before they approved to teach).

Some have asked.....What if the woman is not married? How does this apply to her? She should follow the example given in this verse:

1Co 14:30 But if a revelation be made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence. In other words, if a woman has a revelation to share with the assembly, let her first tell it to a brother and then he can bring it before the assembly meeting, on her behalf. The first here, would be the woman.

That is completely unsupported by the text. You're employing circular reasoning, beginning and ending with the idea that women should not speak aloud at all. You're also undermining the instruction given in chapter 11. My view doesn't put restrictions on any woman more than any man.

 

[Dino246]

There is a basic principle laid down in the Scriptures, that is the Divine order. First Christ, then the man, woman and if applicable the children. This principle extends from Genesis, subsequent to the fall.

From where, exactly?

 

[CS1]

BUT not during the assembly meeting. Quit trying to take my words and make them into some kind of rule that applies to women in every and all circumstances. The Holy Spirit can use a woman to do great many things. What about Ruth? A great woman of the Old Testament.

But the Holy Spirit is not going to reverse Himself, after having inspired Paul to write what he wrote. Logic would dictate, if the Holy Spirit empowered a woman to preach in the assembly, then this would make the Holy Spirit confused about what He had previously said in the Epistle to Corinth and to Timothy. God is of one mind and there is no confusion with Him.

That is completely unbiblical. Human logic doesn't dictate the word of God or its application of it. Context does and the Authorial intent. You need to understand what is normative and what is descriptive in the word of God. The Holy Spirit not can use women HE does use women and HE does today. What about Ruth? Ruth is a book showing the genealogy of Christ and the coming Messiah.

What about Joel 2 and Acts 2? What about what Jesus said in Mark 16 In the scriptures where it says for example Ps 49:18

"Though while he lived he blessed his soul: and men will praise thee when thou doest well to thyself"
Are women to praise HIM too?

Are women covered in the word of God where they are not mentioned or only men?

Are women to be saved or are they saved by child baring as Paul said? Do they need to repent or only men? do they need to confess Jesus Christ as Lord or only men? Does the Holy Spirit come into women when they are saved or only men? Do only men Prophesy? IF so why did Joel get it wrong and Peter?

 

[awelight]

1 Pet 3 3Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
1 Tim 2 9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
This should be enough to at least catch your attention. And yes it is a hermeneutical rule called theological textual context to compare where else the same subject is discussed in the New Testament.

They are both talking about the woman's beauty is found in having a submissive heart toward her husband as opposed to outward adornment. Peter was probably quoting Paul as he was known to do (remember that it was Peter who said ("even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles,") this type of statement from Peter gives us a strong reason to believe that he might have been repeating a common teaching of Paul about the women not adorning their outward body, being focused on outward appearance instead of the heart which he then uses the submissiveness to the husband as an example of being more attractive than outward beauty.

Now compare the two passages from Paul and Peter and notice the strikingly similar thoughts expressed by each. It becomes undeniable that they were talking about the same subject. Once you concede that you can stop reading into the text what Paul never mentions simply because "you think you know" what he meant and instead at least consider that he might have meant the same thing that Peter was talking about and did not have public speaking ministry roles in mind at all.

View attachment 224475

This really becomes tiresome. What is your point exactly? So these two epistles include similar subject matter as it relates to a woman being in subjection and her personal appearance. How does this change anything about the literal interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:11&12 and 1 Cor. 14:34&35? They say what they say. The language is plain and needs no interpretation.

Give something from Scripture that refutes the literal understanding. Your attempts are to force your understanding on the Scripture. I except the literal without trying to force some kind of other interpretation.

A woman is to learn in silence, that is what it says....period. Would you have this to mean in her home and/or in general public? Are is it in the assembly meeting? I will not have a woman to teach, is what it says.....thus the same questions must be asked....teach where?

Please try to keep the conversation on point and quit trying to cloud the issue. Nothing Peter had to say, alters what Paul was teaching. Nor does Peter's statements, alter the above questions, as to properly discerning where.

 

[awelight]

Wrong. In 1 Timothy, the subject is not "women" (plural) but "a woman" (singular).

This point is pointless, since Scripture often talks in the singular to be understood in the plural and vice-versa.


That's a conflation, not a parallel. Being silent is a far cry from not teaching.

Whatever.

I can see a bit more of a connection here but it's certainly not an "absolute parallel". However, "have authority" is not the correct translation of authentein, so even that tenuous connection fails.

The Greek word used here is, αυθεντειν which in English means: "Dominate or usurp authority over". It is translated "usurp authority over" in the KJV.... so once again you miss the mark.

It's not a parallel when it only appears in one of the two passages.

Wrong again. The idea of something being parallel, is when two lines of thought run along side each other. Or in mathematics when two lines remain parallel.

It's eisegetical to conclude that Paul had foreknowledge. It's more rational to see verses 34-35 as a quotation to which Paul reacts strongly, like this:

"Our opinion is that women should be silent and in subjection as the law says."
"Say what? Did the word of God come through you men? Or did it only come to you men? (Implied No!) On the contrary, let my words (regarding the gifting of all believers) be taken as God's commandment."

I agree with your basic conclusion but don't see how this changes anything previously stated.

I agree: the Holy Spirit would not change His mind, but my view is completely consistent with Paul's instructions to Timothy to let the woman learn (as the men do, before they approved to teach).

I am glad you agree in the first part but as to the second part not so much. Give Scripture to prove your conclusion. In particular, your Unbiblical conclusion, "(as the men do, before they approved to teach)".


That is completely unsupported by the text. You're employing circular reasoning, beginning and ending with the idea that women should not speak aloud at all.

Everything with you seems to be about circular reasoning? You say everyone you disagree with is using circular reasoning. Why couldn't it be "square" reasoning or perhaps "triangular" reasoning. Your so hung-up on this one form of geometry, sort like your Theology.

You're also undermining the instruction given in chapter 11. My view doesn't put restrictions on any woman more than any man.

Expand the post.....

 

[awelight]

From where, exactly?

First from Genesis:

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Secondly, the above was confirmed in Timothy:

1Ti 2:13-14 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Thirdly in Corinthians:

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Therefore the Divine order is: God (the Father), Christ, man and woman. Again children in subjection to the woman and all the above, if applicable. While children are not mentioned, there place can be logically deduced.

 

[Dino246]

First from Genesis:

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Secondly, the above was confirmed in Timothy:

1Ti 2:13-14 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Thirdly in Corinthians:

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Therefore the Divine order is: God (the Father), Christ, man and woman. Again children in subjection to the woman and all the above, if applicable. While children are not mentioned, there place can be logically deduced.

Christ is not less than God. The order given in 1 Corinthians 11 is not God-Christ-man-woman. Men and women are equal before God, and equal in Christ (Galatians 3:28). The "order" is given for marriage, not relationships in general. I have no problem with the idea that man was formed first, but I don't accept the idea that Adam's creation prior to Eve's grants males any primacy over females, for in the image of God He created them.

 

[Dino246]

This point is pointless, since Scripture often talks in the singular to be understood in the plural and vice-versa.

You claimed that they were "absolute parallels". They plainly are not. Deal with it.

The Greek word used here is, αυθεντειν which in English means: "Dominate or usurp authority over". It is translated "usurp authority over" in the KJV.... so once again you miss the mark.

The word for authority is exousia, which does not appear in this verse. Try looking at more than one source; authentein had about 50 different nuances of meaning in ancient Greek sources; there is no other instance in Scripture so translators must look to other sources to determine what the words mean, and which of the many senses Paul meant.

Wrong again. The idea of something being parallel, is when two lines of thought run along side each other. Or in mathematics when two lines remain parallel.

You really aren't paying attention. I stated, "It's not a parallel when it only appears in one of the two passages." In geometry, a single line is not a parallel. It needs something else with which to be parallel... or not.

I agree with your basic conclusion but don't see how this changes anything previously stated.

My conclusion is in direct contradiction to yours.

I am glad you agree in the first part but as to the second part not so much. Give Scripture to prove your conclusion. In particular, your Unbiblical conclusion, "(as the men do, before they approved to teach)".

My conclusion is drawn from a variety of sources. As to "proving", I can only provide information. Whether it convinces you is not my concern.

Everything with you seems to be about circular reasoning? You say everyone you disagree with is using circular reasoning. Why couldn't it be "square" reasoning or perhaps "triangular" reasoning. Your so hung-up on this one form of geometry, sort like your Theology.

Clearly you don't know what circular reasoning is. Instead of making ignorant comments, go and do your homework... and while you're at it, learn the proper usage of "your" and "you're".