If Women Can't Have Authority Over Men in the Church, Why Are They Expected to Teach in School?

[Dino246]

And the first person to cry and want equal rights was lucifer, who wanted to be God.

Fallacy: guilt by association. Irrelevant.

 

[Lanolin]

Usurping authority...Jesus did not want to be equal with God...isnt there something in the Bible about that? he submited to his Father. In everything he did only what his Father told him to do and then he was raised up to sit at His right hand.

With husband and wife I would think they are meant to be one flesh and side by side. If eve came out of adams rib she was close to his heart, she wasnt made out of his skull or his little toe.

So when people say women wanting equality is wrong I wonder what they mean. What is equality meaning anyway. In levticus is not the price for a male child more than a female. Doe they mean that men are worth more?

Maybe its just men are heavier than woman and its totally based on bone density!

 

[Dino246]

Usurping authority...Jesus did not want to be equal with God...isnt there something in the Bible about that? he submited to his Father. In everything he did only what his Father told him to do and then he was raised up to sit at His right hand.

Philippians 2 is where that idea (in bold) is found. "Usurping authority" has nothing to do with it; "usurp" only appears in 1 Timothy 2:12 (in some translations), and is a poor translation of a difficult word.

 

[Tinkerbell725]

Usurping authority...Jesus did not want to be equal with God...isnt there something in the Bible about that? he submited to his Father. In everything he did only what his Father told him to do and then he was raised up to sit at His right hand.

With husband and wife I would think they are meant to be one flesh and side by side. If eve came out of adams rib she was close to his heart, she wasnt made out of his skull or his little toe.

So when people say women wanting equality is wrong I wonder what they mean. What is equality meaning anyway. In levticus is not the price for a male child more than a female. Doe they mean that men are worth more?

Maybe its just men are heavier than woman and its totally based on bone density!

They are equal but they have roles. It is the perfect example that is not so hard to understand. Women who want to be pastors will go out of their way to twist the word of God to justify their evil ways. It is clear in 1 cor 11 that women should get covered by a worthy man or else she will cause trouble. The key is humility. These women who want to be pastors are blinded by their pride. Pride is sin. A blind person cannot lead the blind.

 

[Dino246]

They are equal but they have roles. It is the perfect example that is not so hard to understand. Women who want to be pastors will go out of their way to twist the word of God to justify their evil ways. It is clear in 1 cor 11 that women should get covered by a worthy man or else she will cause trouble. The key is humility. These women who want to be pastors are blinded by their pride. Pride is sin. A blind person cannot lead the blind.

Here's what I see: you can't refute any arguments from Scripture, so instead you throw a broad-brush accusation at any woman who recognizes God's call on her life.

And you talk about pride, sin, and blindness... smh.

Maybe it's time to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[Tinkerbell725]

Here's what I see: you can't refute any arguments from Scripture, so instead you throw a broad-brush accusation at any woman who recognizes God's call on her life.

And you talk about pride, sin, and blindness... smh.

Maybe it's time to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Except that women are not called by God to be pastors. They cannot even pray to God with their head uncovered. If women hear a call its a call from the devil.


1 cor 11:13

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

 

[Dino246]

Except that women are not called by God to be pastors. They cannot even pray to God with their head uncovered. If women hear a call its a call from the devil.


1 cor 11:13

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

Yawn. You have been told that 1 Corinthians 11 is a difficult passage to interpret, yet here you are quoting it as a proof text.

I'll take my exegesis lesson from someone who understands how to do it, thanks.

 

[fredoheaven]

1 Timothy 2:8-15, 1 Timothy 3:1-7: Ok so the Holy Spirit was wrong in using the masculine pronoun (including the Greek) for the role of pastor? A woman can be the husband of one wife? (This alone pretty much prevents women from pastoring, well up until this age) The fact that no women are found pastoring in the NT? Once again, either the Bible is our authority or its not. That's the only real question.

Here may perhaps the role of the women in the church: Authority is ruling and this gift of ruling the church are to men only. Women has the rule of helping...

1 Corinthians 12:28And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

 

[Tinkerbell725]

Exegetes believe they are so good that they think they are the authority in finding the true meaning of scriptures, disregarding the fact that God reveals wisdom to those whom He wants to receive wisdom. They belittle Bible believing christians. They are so good that they have become experts in twisting scriptures.

 

[Dino246]

Here may perhaps the role of the women in the church: Authority is ruling and this gift of ruling the church are to men only. Women has the rule of helping...

1 Corinthians 12:28And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

That is not a sound argument. There is no direct connection between "women" and "helps" in Scripture. Further, helping is not a "rule"; it is a gifting, and an activity. You have provided no Scripture to support your assertion that authority is given to men only.

 

[Dino246]

Exegetes believe they are so good that they think they are the authority in finding the true meaning of scriptures, disregarding the fact that God reveals wisdom to those whom He wants to receive wisdom. They belittle Bible believing christians. They are so good that they have become experts in twisting scriptures.

More broadbrushing with no evidence.

Please go and learn how to construct a sound argument. All you're doing here is throwing mud.

 

[Lanolin]

Philippians 2 is where that idea (in bold) is found. "Usurping authority" has nothing to do with it; "usurp" only appears in 1 Timothy 2:12 (in some translations), and is a poor translation of a difficult word.

Well queen esther couldnt speak only unless king xerxes said so on pain of death. She had to be invited to do so...but she was actually willing to risk it. She said if I perish, I perish.

I think women are now brave to speak but need to be aware they not speak out of turn and really the best is to wait to be invited to do so.

Its like when you are teaching a class (yes, I am sometimes a teacher) and you are the one teaching and speaking you expect your students to listen and learn in silence. Not constantly interrupt you and especially NOT to take over teaching. Why because you were given the authority not them.

Why is it gender based in timothys instance well it would seem thats just the order of things in a church setting men first, then women. Sure if eve was made first it would have been women having all the power and ruling all the time but it isnt thats just the way it is. Eve didnt die when she ate the forbidden fruit why because she was with child. GOd didnt want two people dead. But she bore Cain so that was probably punishment in itself when he killed abel. So God gave her another chance with Seth.

I dont think women teachers or pastors are evil. God obviously called many women to these positions because the men abidcated or abused their positions. I know MANY instances where men in schools had been molesting students, priests absuing parishioners, even principals viewing pornography. Even the early church had false teachers leading young women astray because they lusted after them. You dont ever want a lecher in a pastoral role that is way too horrible even to contemplate.

 

[oyster67]

Yawn. You have been told that 1 Corinthians 11 is a difficult passage to interpret, yet here you are quoting it as a proof text.

I'll take my exegesis lesson from someone who understands how to do it, thanks.

What verse is giving you trouble?

 

[Dino246]

Well queen esther couldnt speak only unless king xerxes said so on pain of death. She had to be invited to do so...but she was actually willing to risk it. She said if I perish, I perish.

I think women are now brave to speak but need to be aware they not speak out of turn and really the best is to wait to be invited to do so.

Its like when you are teaching a class (yes, I am sometimes a teacher) and you are the one teaching and speaking you expect your students to listen and learn in silence. Not constantly interrupt you and especially NOT to take over teaching. Why because you were given the authority not them.

Someone who is constantly interrupting an instructor and trying to take over the teaching is acting inappropriately, but that has nothing to do with gender. Similarly, Esther's risk of death had nothing to do with gender; anyone who approached the king without invitation put their life at risk (Esther 4:11 clearly states this).

Why is it gender based in timothys instance well it would seem thats just the order of things in a church setting men first, then women.

The only "order" spoken of consistently in Scripture is "first for the Jew, then for the Gentile" as in Romans 1. When Paul refers to Aquila and Prisca, he starts in that order. Later, several times, he puts her name first (Acts 18:2 A/P; Acts 18:18 and 18:26 P/A).

Sure if eve was made first it would have been women having all the power and ruling all the time but it isnt thats just the way it is.

That application is not clearly stated; it's inferred from the proximity of the two sentences. I understand that is a natural way to read the text; what I reject is that it makes sense in that way. I don't see any inherent logical connection between verses 12 and 13 outside of a correction to a false teaching. In that light it makes perfect sense.

Imagine it this way: "I don't allow Canadians to teach or to have authority over Americans. For Columbus discovered America first." There's no logical reason why the prior discovery of America extends any sort of hierarchical authority. Similarly, there's no reason why the prior creation of Adam extends hierarchical authority to all men over all women today. Many (most) people seem to read it as you do: they just accept it, apparently without considering the sense of it.

Eve didnt die when she ate the forbidden fruit why because she was with child. GOd didnt want two people dead. But she bore Cain so that was probably punishment in itself when he killed abel. So God gave her another chance with Seth.

That's an angle I haven't considered before. I don't think it's valid, because it doesn't explain why Adam didn't die. I think there are better explanations of 1 Timothy 2:15.

I dont think women teachers or pastors are evil. God obviously called many women to these positions because the men abidcated or abused their positions. I know MANY instances where men in schools had been molesting students, priests absuing parishioners, even principals viewing pornography. Even the early church had false teachers leading young women astray because they lusted after them. You dont ever want a lecher in a pastoral role that is way too horrible even to contemplate.

I don't think God called women because men abdicated or abused the position. There's nothing in Scripture to support that. Sin is not limited to male leaders; there have been many women in positions of authority who have abused that authority. Why is it only male priests who molest parishioners? Because only men could be priests in the RC system. Some nuns in Canadian Residential Schools were guilty of molesting First Nations children. It's not a gender-specific problem, so let's take it out of the discussion.

 

[Dino246]

What verse is giving you trouble?

Perhaps you misunderstood me. It's not that I'm having trouble with a particular verse; it's that the passage as a whole is well known to be troublesome. The sentences are clear; the meaning is not. Something is lost in translation. Thanks though.

 

[rubberball]

More broadbrushing with no evidence.

Please go and learn how to construct a sound argument. All you're doing here is throwing mud.[/

Exegetes believe they are so good that they think they are the authority in finding the true meaning of scriptures, disregarding the fact that God reveals wisdom to those whom He wants to receive wisdom. They belittle Bible believing christians. They are so good that they have become experts in twisting scriptures.

Exegetes believe they are so good that they think they are the authority in finding the true meaning of scriptures, disregarding the fact that God reveals wisdom to those whom He wants to receive wisdom. They belittle Bible believing christians. They are so good that they have become experts in twisting scriptures.

So your saying 'Exegetes' dont believe the Bible is the word of God and twist Scripture? So anyone who digs into the Greek and Hebrew language to search for understanding is twisting the word of God? Wow! So the Apostle Paul, who spoke koine Greek and understood OT Hebrew twisted the word of God when he read or studied or preached from the original languages? How can you even trust the Bible in your hand if exegetes twist the word of God? It took exegesis to translate the Scripture from the original language just so you could read it. The entire purpose off exegesis is to dig out the meaning of Scripture. Exegesis does not mean you cannot understand Scripture without knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. It does not mean the Holy Spirit is not your teacher. He is also the teacher of the exegete who has spent many hours studying so he or she can study the Bible on a deeper level. You criticise them for wanting to obey Scripture when it says for us to study to show ourselves approved unto God, a workman that does not need to be ashamed. I hope you try to rethink your argument here.

 

[Dino246]

So your saying 'Exegetes' dont believe the Bible is the word of God and twist Scripture? So anyone who digs into the Greek and Hebrew language to search for understanding is twisting the word of God? Wow! So the Apostle Paul, who spoke koine Greek and understood OT Hebrew twisted the word of God when he read or studied or preached from the original languages? How can you even trust the Bible in your hand if exegetes twist the word of God? It took exegesis to translate the Scripture from the original language just so you could read it. The entire purpose off exegesis is to dig out the meaning of Scripture. Exegesis does not mean you cannot understand Scripture without knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. It does not mean the Holy Spirit is not your teacher. He is also the teacher of the exegete who has spent many hours studying so he or she can study the Bible on a deeper level. You criticise them for wanting to obey Scripture when it says for us to study to show ourselves approved unto God, a workman that does not need to be ashamed. I hope you try to rethink your argument here.

You quoted two different people. Who are you addressing?

 

[Lanolin]

Someone who is constantly interrupting an instructor and trying to take over the teaching is acting inappropriately, but that has nothing to do with gender. Similarly, Esther's risk of death had nothing to do with gender; anyone who approached the king without invitation put their life at risk (Esther 4:11 clearly states this).


The only "order" spoken of consistently in Scripture is "first for the Jew, then for the Gentile" as in Romans 1. When Paul refers to Aquila and Prisca, he starts in that order. Later, several times, he puts her name first (Acts 18:2 A/P; Acts 18:18 and 18:26 P/A).


That application is not clearly stated; it's inferred from the proximity of the two sentences. I understand that is a natural way to read the text; what I reject is that it makes sense in that way. I don't see any inherent logical connection between verses 12 and 13 outside of a correction to a false teaching. In that light it makes perfect sense.

Imagine it this way: "I don't allow Canadians to teach or to have authority over Americans. For Columbus discovered America first." There's no logical reason why the prior discovery of America extends any sort of hierarchical authority. Similarly, there's no reason why the prior creation of Adam extends hierarchical authority to all men over all women today. Many (most) people seem to read it as you do: they just accept it, apparently without considering the sense of it.


That's an angle I haven't considered before. I don't think it's valid, because it doesn't explain why Adam didn't die. I think there are better explanations of 1 Timothy 2:15.


I don't think God called women because men abdicated or abused the position. There's nothing in Scripture to support that. Sin is not limited to male leaders; there have been many women in positions of authority who have abused that authority. Why is it only male priests who molest parishioners? Because only men could be priests in the RC system. Some nuns in Canadian Residential Schools were guilty of molesting First Nations children. It's not a gender-specific problem, so let's take it out of the discussion.

Well how do you read Pauls admonishishing (sp) then can you please explain it then. Clearly. If you did it before and I missed it sorry. But can you explain again what he meant by the 'for adam was first formed' bit.
Because it just makes zero sense. Was he talkig about a particular woman who was interrupting him or all women. Its not clear. Or was he just being chauvinistic, God forbid.

 

[Lanolin]

Someone who is constantly interrupting an instructor and trying to take over the teaching is acting inappropriately, but that has nothing to do with gender. Similarly, Esther's risk of death had nothing to do with gender; anyone who approached the king without invitation put their life at risk (Esther 4:11 clearly states this).


The only "order" spoken of consistently in Scripture is "first for the Jew, then for the Gentile" as in Romans 1. When Paul refers to Aquila and Prisca, he starts in that order. Later, several times, he puts her name first (Acts 18:2 A/P; Acts 18:18 and 18:26 P/A).


That application is not clearly stated; it's inferred from the proximity of the two sentences. I understand that is a natural way to read the text; what I reject is that it makes sense in that way. I don't see any inherent logical connection between verses 12 and 13 outside of a correction to a false teaching. In that light it makes perfect sense.

Imagine it this way: "I don't allow Canadians to teach or to have authority over Americans. For Columbus discovered America first." There's no logical reason why the prior discovery of America extends any sort of hierarchical authority. Similarly, there's no reason why the prior creation of Adam extends hierarchical authority to all men over all women today. Many (most) people seem to read it as you do: they just accept it, apparently without considering the sense of it.


That's an angle I haven't considered before. I don't think it's valid, because it doesn't explain why Adam didn't die. I think there are better explanations of 1 Timothy 2:15.


I don't think God called women because men abdicated or abused the position. There's nothing in Scripture to support that. Sin is not limited to male leaders; there have been many women in positions of authority who have abused that authority. Why is it only male priests who molest parishioners? Because only men could be priests in the RC system. Some nuns in Canadian Residential Schools were guilty of molesting First Nations children. It's not a gender-specific problem, so let's take it out of the discussion.

Your example with canadians doesnt makes sense. It would be the native americans who were indigenous and have authority over how the land is managed. Because they were there first and knew all about it.
Columbus didnt 'discover' america there were people ALREADY living there.

 

[Lanolin]

Someone who is constantly interrupting an instructor and trying to take over the teaching is acting inappropriately, but that has nothing to do with gender. Similarly, Esther's risk of death had nothing to do with gender; anyone who approached the king without invitation put their life at risk (Esther 4:11 clearly states this).


The only "order" spoken of consistently in Scripture is "first for the Jew, then for the Gentile" as in Romans 1. When Paul refers to Aquila and Prisca, he starts in that order. Later, several times, he puts her name first (Acts 18:2 A/P; Acts 18:18 and 18:26 P/A).


That application is not clearly stated; it's inferred from the proximity of the two sentences. I understand that is a natural way to read the text; what I reject is that it makes sense in that way. I don't see any inherent logical connection between verses 12 and 13 outside of a correction to a false teaching. In that light it makes perfect sense.

Imagine it this way: "I don't allow Canadians to teach or to have authority over Americans. For Columbus discovered America first." There's no logical reason why the prior discovery of America extends any sort of hierarchical authority. Similarly, there's no reason why the prior creation of Adam extends hierarchical authority to all men over all women today. Many (most) people seem to read it as you do: they just accept it, apparently without considering the sense of it.


That's an angle I haven't considered before. I don't think it's valid, because it doesn't explain why Adam didn't die. I think there are better explanations of 1 Timothy 2:15.


I don't think God called women because men abdicated or abused the position. There's nothing in Scripture to support that. Sin is not limited to male leaders; there have been many women in positions of authority who have abused that authority. Why is it only male priests who molest parishioners? Because only men could be priests in the RC system. Some nuns in Canadian Residential Schools were guilty of molesting First Nations children. It's not a gender-specific problem, so let's take it out of the discussion.

There is some scriputral support for men abidicating their position. Deborah and huldah. Called to positions of influence because men had failed.
King ahab was taken in by Jezebel and let her rule the roost. King solomons heart was turned BY his wives.
Women have influence. Samson and Delilah. And of course...adam and Eve...adam failed to protect Eve. Battle of sexes happened ever since.

Am justs giving example of priests but actually this happens in non catholic churches too. Especially youth groups. And also schools principals this happens a lot. You need a police criminal check to work with children now. In the school I work in, there are only 3 male teachers out of 20 or so. Bible in schools teachers were all female. Why the gender imbalance?

And this was like that when I was in primary school, and in high school there were male teachers that some students were wary of, why because they were being innapropriate with the female students. It was kind of hushed up, but it happened.