Purpose

[garee]

First and foremost, what are you doing going to a church where there's a lady pastor (1 Tim 2:11-15)?
Secondly, be careful when you say that God spoke to you, for it may be the other source of inspiration. In other words, if you are going to claim that the insight that you have to offer came from the Most High, it better be profound, wise and glorifying to God.
Thus, as Dino246 said, could you please explain the significance behind your perceived 'epiphany' and Genesis 1:26, and allow us 'test the spirit' and decide for ourselves if what you claim came from God, actually did (1 John 4:1)? In other words, I personally won't just accept it as such, simply because you claim it to be so (it's a very audacious statement to claim that God is speaking directly to you).
And again, if you're attending a Church where there's a woman pastor, I'm already doubting your understanding of scripture, and thus, your understanding of inspiration.

I would offer from another perspective. First and foremost I would offer God is not a man as us .He is not served by human hands in any way shape or form . Neither of male, nor female, Jew or gentile.

The separation is between the things of (mankind) the temporal seen. And things of God the eternal not seen? Not between man or woman . The wrestling is between the unseen spiritual truths.

I would think we are in a place where Satan would try and divide .He as a murderer from the beginning simply hates mankind. What God calls together as one he divides. And what God calls separate he desires it all as one. Turning things upside down as if inspired from earth taking away that which was inspired from heaven .

When it comes to teaching . We can plant the incorruptible seed and water it with the doctrines of God. But the authority to hear God and believe is not of us. Not male, nor female, Jew nor Gentile. Simply the Spirit of Truth

In the same way we are commanded not to call no man or woman teacher, Raabi on earth as an infallible master as that which also did apply to the Son of man Jesus. Jesus said of his own self: we are brothers and sisters not the master as our father in heaven .

The idea of promoting that we must have a man seen teach us usurps the promise of the unseen Holy Spirit who does teach us. It describes the antichrist, the man or woman of sin .A false prophet who would say hear me Thus sayeth the lord I had a dream... send $$$$$$.

Satan is not partial to the gender of those who violate the Holy Spirit final warning not to add or subtract from the whole witness of God. (Revelation 22) looking to widen the authority of false prophets would take away the authority of (sola scriptura). The power of oral tradition make God's traditions without effect as a law of men.


Matthew 23:8-10 New King James Version (NKJV) But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.

We can teach how we hear by looking at the prescriptions. He gives us new ears to hear. . . teaches what to hear and brings to our memories the things he has taught us.

In a assembly of two or three that do gather together under the authority of the word of God. Man does not rule or woman, or gentile over Jew. The work of two working together as one work . Roles even in a marriage can change .Like that with Mary and Martha .I call the dynamic duals . One serving one way the other another both necessary to accomplish one work .Same with pastors and wife's dynamic dual.

A family makes up a what is called a sect or a denomination . Just as when two of three thousand gather under the same unseen authority. The ministry is always two or three .

It not that God works through men but not woman. The teaching is not to be accredited to either one. We walk by the unseen called faith.

This is not any more than the teaching authority would be accredited to the Son of Man, Jesus. Who himself was under that law. . no man as teacher master .One is in heaven

Deborah was moved as the mighty of old and not a private interrepterion that came from her own fleshly mind .She was moved to deliver prophecy just as Abel or any of the renown that declare the will of the unseen father.

2 Peter 1:19-21 King James Version (KJV) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men ( mankind. . . men and woman,). of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

When Jesus was approached as good master or Rabi as infallible teacher. He did not say don't listen to the teaching a of a woman...

But rather Jesus refused to stand in the Holy place called the abomination of desolation .But rather gave glory to our unseen God called our Father. The holy place is where our new faith as it is written comes from. It is needed as the power to believe God .Who again is not a man as us.

Good is the unseen signature or finger print that God not seen has spoken .

Matthew 19:17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Again first things first. God is not served by the things seen the temporal.. . . Human hands as a will. Once that law that protects his unseen integrity is established the rest seems to fall in place.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Greetings saints.

I visited another church a few Sundays ago. As the Lady pastor was sharing the word, God said to me, look around you, look at each and everyone of them. And then He said "a life lived outside your purpose for existence, is a life lived ineffectively.

Genesis 1:26.

another church? is that a thing you do? travelling prophet type?

so God told you to look around at everyone and then gave you something that does not make sense and somehow connected it to Genesis 1:26

"Then God said, 'Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.

is the fact you mentioned the Pastor was a woman a clue? cause otherwise why not just say pastor?

I don't expect a clear answer if any at all

 

[7seasrekeyed]

so those who have Ears let them Hear what does that mean to you??
Or My sheep know my voice??
idk I would not b so quick to call them delusional those who Hear Him✌🏼

oh hello again

you state you are not a Christian, so what do you hear exactly?

Spiritual Status not ChristianWhen

saved When The Messiah Won the battle

 

[7seasrekeyed]

hmmmm

seems the 'prophet types' are hanging out

you can always tell by the 'mystery' they try to insert into their posts

that, and the idea that somehow they have an OT prophet anointing

 

[Dino246]

Angela, excuse my candor, but you have very bad exegetical practices. You made several elementary errors within your one post.

Could you please list all of the "elementary errors" that Angela made, as you see them.

 

[garee]

Revelation 2:20-22 has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with "women pastors". There is NOTHING in the text to suggest that Jezebel was functioning as a pastor. Further, the text says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about women in general, nor about female pastors in general. Jesus was addressing ONE situation regarding ONE woman.

Regarding your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14, unless you and the women at the church you attend are ABSOLUTELY SILENT from the moment you step into the church until the moment you are outside, you have no moral ground on which to stand. Don't even greet anyone, because that would be improper.

Then figure out how women could prophesy in chapter 11 without speaking aloud. Then make sense of Joel 2, which Peter quoted at Pentecost, where God said "Your sons and daughters shall prophesy."

... smh...

I would agree. The being silent as a sign is not to silence the gospel. I would think the mingling of men and woman. In a hope of woman counseling woman, and men counseling men .As a result of the reformation men and woman could cerebrate the cerinimoinal laws .Prior they separated by a wall and another wall separating gentiles. When the veil was rent down came the walls.

Woman now elevated to the status as first formed, one creation.

Men and woman came together to represent the one new creation. Both working together as one representative glory of the unseen head, Christ our husband . .

While men without a hair or head "covering" represent the unseen head Christ as one part of the two part representative glory . Woman are given as a glory to men who in turn represent our unseen head.. The woman literally represents the whole spiritual church made up of many living stones the spiritual house. as a bride. The husband remains as a picture of Christ unseen.

But woman are not left without a representative glory of their own, their hair .It must be covered or shaven off to show shame or unbelief. .

Together as one representative glory as sign to the angels as messengers of the gospel that long to look into salvation

 

[Flint321]

I have watched it but I don't believe the word of a Calvinist. Second: he is a man, NOT God. Why would God even care who spreads His word ... as long as it is spread far & wide so that we may save as many as possible? (this is a question) Thank you.

Context is King, 1st Timothy is about church instructions, so in an established church of men and women, only a male can lead the church as a pastor. Im not against women evangelizing, but the bible is clear that in a church or congregation only a male can lead it.

People rebel against God's word, because they are rebelling against the Lordship of Jesus Christ over his Own Kingdom and Church.
They wanna make up the rules, instead of bowing to God's Order, this is the wickedness of liberalism.

 

[DB7]

Could you please list all of the "elementary errors" that Angela made, as you see them.

Hi Dino, I did, right above the line that you quoted.
Starting from the 3rd line in my post, up to the line that you quoted.
Thx!

 

[garee]

Context is King, 1st Timothy is about church instructions, so in an established church of men and women, only a male can lead the church as a pastor. Im not against women evangelizing, but the bible is clear that in a church or congregation only a male can lead it.

People rebel against God's word, because they are rebelling against the Lordship of Jesus Christ over his Own Kingdom and Church.
They wanna make up the rules, instead of bowing to God's Order, this is the wickedness of liberalism.

The leadership is always in respect to two or three that assembly under the a unseen authority of one God. Woman are not separate from the work. Its a family affair again with a unseen head lovingly lording it over both.

Three strands are not easily broken.

 

[Dino246]

Hi Dino, I did, right above the line that you quoted.
Starting from the 3rd line in my post, up to the line that you quoted.
Thx!

Respectfully, I don't think anything that you mentioned in that post is an "exegetical error" on Angela's part. I think they are matters of disagreement. The gist of Galatians 3:28 obviously is not to make room for homosexuality, but rather to sweep aside the distinctions that people used to elevate some and suppress others. Ethnicallly Jewish Christians could no longer treat gentile Christians as inferior, free believers were not to look down on those still slaves, and men were not to expect women to serve them. The actual differences noted were (and are) still in place, but they are not to be used as the rationale for valuing others differently within the Church.

 

[Dino246]

Context is King, 1st Timothy is about church instructions, so in an established church of men and women, only a male can lead the church as a pastor. Im not against women evangelizing, but the bible is clear that in a church or congregation only a male can lead it.

People rebel against God's word, because they are rebelling against the Lordship of Jesus Christ over his Own Kingdom and Church.
They wanna make up the rules, instead of bowing to God's Order, this is the wickedness of liberalism.

I'll be blunt, as you have been blunt: you have a lot more homework to do.

 

[DB7]

Respectfully, I don't think anything that you mentioned in that post is an "exegetical error" on Angela's part. I think they are matters of disagreement. The gist of Galatians 3:28 obviously is not to make room for homosexuality, but rather to sweep aside the distinctions that people used to elevate some and suppress others. Ethnicallly Jewish Christians could no longer treat gentile Christians as inferior, free believers were not to look down on those still slaves, and men were not to expect women to serve them. The actual differences noted were (and are) still in place, but they are not to be used as the rationale for valuing others differently within the Church.

Hi Dino, the reason I called them exegetical errors is because she has overlooked the over-arching context in the pericopes that she quoted, in order to isolate certain verses, and then to give them an isolated context and interpretation. The is in violation of hermeneutics 101. That is why is said elementary. In other words, every single Egalitarian that i have heard to date, always does this, they are forced to isolate every sentence within a paragraph, and then apply a context to it. Absolutely absurd and inept, and this sentiment is not subjective!
Paul, the inspired author, does not speak in 3 different contexts within 1 paragraph, no one does! The bias and ineptitude is evident in those who say otherwise!

Without exception, Gal 3:28 is contextually speaking of salvation, and nothing else. Paul was struggling with the Judiazers, who demanded Levitical legalism to be saved (become Jewish). Paul is saying the contrary, and that all are eligible despite their circumcision or not, their nationality, the former faith, their gender or eye colour. He is not abrogating these distinctions as Angela was claiming. That was her first folly, and it was extremely biased and inept Dino, no contest! Paul makes the same enumeration with similar dichotomies in Col. 3:11, making the same point. This is wisdom that recognizes Paul's intent!

Both of you Dino, tried to isolate authentein in order to contrive your own context as being circumstantial. Meanwhile, didaskein is right beside authentein in order to refine the context, and then ultimately, verse 13 speaks on the most fundamental and intrinsic manner possible, 'Adam was firmed first'. All in the same context of thought! Dino, I am seeing nothing but denial here.

In 1 Cor 11, if someone would take the care to recognize the scope of the context, there would be no confusion as to the fundamental level in which Paul is speaking.

1 Corinthians 11:3-16
11:3. Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
7. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
8. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
9. neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
16. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God.

Go ahead, I challenge you to call me ignorant, irresponsible or frivolous, unwise or incompetent in my understanding of what I just analysed, and the process therein?

Was I being abusive and reckless by saying what I said? I am being very serious here, I take this extremely serious. I am outspoken because I find these errors as a denial of something very elementary. The entire Bible has a context, each book has a context, each chapter and possibly, each paragraph has a context. And each of these sub-contexts are still inline with the supra-context. Never does a sentence have its own context, which I have always seen Egalitarians attempt to claim!
When an doctrine comes down to such hair-splitting word analysis, someone is missing the very big picture!

 

[Angela53510]

Here's the thing. I brought up my Greek prof because he is a renowned world authority on translating Greek, including exegetical issues. His father, Robert Mounce is a renowned Greek scholar, his cousin, Daniel Wallace, is the top Greek grammarian in the world.

I told you to read his extensive Word Commentary on this passage after 40 some pages, Bill Mounce comes to the same conclusion as this not so famous old lady writing this. (And not so experienced!) The passage ultimately DOES rest on the single word, authentein, and how it is translated. Mounce himself said that to me in class. The word authentein is a tangled problem, because of being a hapax legomena! How you choose to translate the word depends more in your personal feelings toward the relationship between men and women. Are men special, and the only ones able to serve God in ministry? You simply have failed to prove it scriptural. Your exegesis is wrong!

Complimentarians harp on the roles God gave to Adam and Eve after the Fall in the Garden of Eden. Christ is the second Adam (Romans 5) and he has freed us from the Fall, and the ugly roles that were placed upon both men and women as a result of the Fall. Why would anyone not celebrate that Christ has set us free from sin, which includes sin in the Garden which we all bear, and the end of roles as part of the law. Jesus destroyed roles on the cross, by defeating Satan on the cross.

Why not live in the light of eternity, since Christ has born our place in the cross, and we are being set free from sin and death? We are being sanctified now, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Soon, we will see Jesus face to face, and we will be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

As for didaskein, it is a term used by rabbinical students. They were not to teach, until they were judged by their master to fully understand the truth of God's Word. Women, mostly illiterate, need to sit quietly and learn, first how to read, and then the gospel. Then the deeper things of God.

Instead of being second class, as in the Roman, Greek and Jewish societies, women were given the right to be saved, follow Christ and to study to show themselves workers approved. Jesus set women free from their bondage, when he died. That sin started in the Garden, but women and men were redeemed and changed by the power of God. If you want to park on Genesis 3 and the results of roles as a consequence of sin, go for it! I am living as a set free New Testament Christian, free to worship God, to learn and grow in my faith, as an equal to any man.

As for Gal 3, you have fallen into the same foolish trap Paul warns of in the beginning of the chapter. You are trying to live by the law, not the Spirit!

"You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Gal 3:1-6

Mid-chapter, Paul discusses the Seed which is Christ. And how we are one in him. Not first and second that is found no where in scripture. It is a lie from Satan to divide men and women from each other and Christ.

Your hermeneutics supports the division Satan created between God and humans, and man and woman. You are trying to keep alive the consequences of sin, not the result of Christ's death in the cross!
"Whom the Son sets free us free indeed!" John 8:36

Christ came to reconcile us to God and one another. look what Paul states later on in Galatians 3. Christ is the seed of Abraham and we do not claim our inheritance because of the law, but by grace.

"15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one." Gal 3:5-10.

The promised Seed is Christ Jesus. We are joint heirs in soteriology, but we can also claim to be heirs and equal with men, as Paul finishes the chapter, below!
(Your exegesis brings not only faulty, but learned from i Er zealous men!)

"So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal 3:26-29

I belong to Christ! I am Abraham's spiritual seed, the same as any man or woman who has given their life to Christ and follow him. I am free to follow the calling of God for my life. I am a pastor, I feed my sheep in my ministry. God called me once to go to seminary, and I did not go. My stumbling block was that only men are pastors. My life went downhill, so when God called me 15 years later to go to seminary, I answered the call and God trained me and gave me the most amazing ministry working with the hurting and broken. Praise God!

 

[Flint321]

Here's the thing. I brought up my Greek prof because he is a renowned world authority on translating Greek, including exegetical issues. His father, Robert Mounce is a renowned Greek scholar, his cousin, Daniel Wallace, is the top Greek grammarian in the world.

I told you to read his extensive Word Commentary on this passage after 40 some pages, Bill Mounce comes to the same conclusion as this not so famous old lady writing this. (And not so experienced!) The passage ultimately DOES rest on the single word, , and how it is translated. Mounce himself said that to me in class. The word authentein is a tangled problem, because of being a hapax legomena! How you choose to translate the word depends more in your personal feelings toward the relationship between men and women. Are men special, and the only ones able to serve God in ministry? You simply have failed to prove it scriptural. Your exegesis is wrong!

Complimentarians harp on the roles God gave to Adam and Eve after the Fall in the Garden of Eden. Christ is the second Adam (Romans 5) and he has freed us from the Fall, and the ugly roles that were placed upon both men and women as a result of the Fall. Why would anyone not celebrate that Christ has set us free from sin, which includes sin in the Garden which we all bear, and the end of roles as part of the law. Jesus destroyed roles on the cross, by defeating Satan on the cross.

Why not live in the light of eternity, since Christ has born our place in the cross, and we are being set free from sin and death? We are being sanctified now, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Soon, we will see Jesus face to face, and we will be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

As for didaskein, it is a term used by rabbinical students. They were not to teach, until they were judged by their master to fully understand the truth of God's Word. Women, mostly illiterate, need to sit quietly and learn, first how to read, and then the gospel. Then the deeper things of God.

Instead of being second class, as in the Roman, Greek and Jewish societies, women were given the right to be saved, follow Christ and to study to show themselves workers approved. Jesus set women free from their bondage, when he died. That sin started in the Garden, but women and men were redeemed and changed by the power of God. If you want to park on Genesis 3 and the results of roles as a consequence of sin, go for it! I am living as a set free New Testament Christian, free to worship God, to learn and grow in my faith, as an equal to any man.

As for Gal 3, you have fallen into the same foolish trap Paul warns of in the beginning of the chapter. You are trying to live by the law, not the Spirit!

"You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Gal 3:1-6

Mid-chapter, Paul discusses the Seed which is Christ. And how we are one in him. Not first and second that is found no where in scripture. It is a lie from Satan to divide men and women from each other and Christ.

Your hermeneutics supports the division Satan created between God and humans, and man and woman. You are trying to keep alive the consequences of sin, not the result of Christ's death in the cross!
"Whom the Son sets free us free indeed!" John 8:36

Christ came to reconcile us to God and one another. look what Paul states later on in Galatians 3. Christ is the seed of Abraham and we do not claim our inheritance because of the law, but by grace.

"15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one." Gal 3:5-10.

The promised Seed is Christ Jesus. We are joint heirs in soteriology, but we can also claim to be heirs and equal with men, as Paul finishes the chapter, below!
(Your exegesis brings not only faulty, but learned from i Er zealous men!)

"So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal 3:26-29

I belong to Christ! I am Abraham's spiritual seed, the same as any man or woman who has given their life to Christ and follow him. I am free to follow the calling of God for my life. I am a pastor, I feed my sheep in my ministry. God called me once to go to seminary, and I did not go. My stumbling block was that only men are pastors. My life went downhill, so when God called me 15 years later to go to seminary, I answered the call and God trained me and gave me the most amazing ministry working with the hurting and broken. Praise God!

Maybe the office of Pastor is assumed as a male office (btw so is the deacon office) because thats what Paul means? have you considered that argument? makes sense, since Paul in the letter just talked about Women remaining silent.....hmmm and then the position is assumed as a male position...hmmm, makes sense right?

have you considered this? your view is very unorthodox, maybe you should let the context declare the greek meaning of the word "authentein"

Like i said i don't really know greek or what your talking about much with the greek stuff, hope that helps, if it does

Also this verse after all that, its obviously very important if this is forbidding women, since:
1st Tim 3:14 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, 15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.

 

[Flint321]

I got another one for you:
1st Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, its right there!

Notice Teaching is forbidden, so are you saying that the word woman in the greek doesn't mean women, if so what does it mean?

What is Paul talking about then? if he assumes a male role in the office, then obviously he is not forbidding the men to be Pastors, right?

Ding, Dong.

Lets put this together in a simple way: the word "women" the word "forbid" and the word "teach"

Then a male assumed office is given, then a concluding statement that this is how it is to be in the churches.

 

[Flint321]

If, this is how its to be in the churches of God, does that mean that a women pastor needs to be married in a lesbian relationship?

"the husband of one wife", do you have a wife miss? (this is sarcasm).

 

[Flint321]

Maybe we can get one of the crazy pentecostals to speak direct revelation to you about this issue from God, since according to them God speaks to everybody most of the time, i say this because you said God spoke to you about this, are you sure about that? because you had some feeling? What if the devil put a verse in your head and your wicked heart (we all have one) grabbed on to it as some confirmation from God and then you felt good about yourself and this must be God's will.

 

[PennEd]

I got another one for you:
1st Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, its right there!

Notice Teaching is forbidden, so are you saying that the word woman in the greek doesn't mean women, if so what does it mean?

What is Paul talking about then? if he assumes a male role in the office, then obviously he is not forbidding the men to be Pastors, right?

Ding, Dong.

Lets put this together in a simple way: the word "women" the word "forbid" and the word "teach"

Then a male assumed office is given, then a concluding statement that this is how it is to be in the churches.

Paul doesn't say he FORBIDS in that passage. NOR does he say GOD forbids.

He says "I" do not permit. Saying anything else is adding to that passage.

 

[Janeaux]

Paul doesn't say he FORBIDS in that passage. NOR does he say GOD forbids.

He says "I" do not permit. Saying anything else is adding to that passage.

PennEd:
You have so much to say, but I wonder if you would not be much more effective if you left out the sarcasm and put-downs? It would be much more palatable and, therefore, your reach would be even greater than it now is.

Jesus was humble. Let us try to emulate Him.

"The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know".

 

[PennEd]

PennEd:
You have so much to say, but I wonder if you would not be much more effective if you left out the sarcasm and if you did not put people down quite so much ... perhaps a rewording would help? It would be so much more palatable and, therefore, your reach would be even greater than it now is.

Jesus was humble. Let us try to emulate Him.

Where's the sarcasm in the above post?