Women should not be allowed to preach in church

[Lucy-Pevensie]

[video=youtube;LS37SNYjg8w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w[/video]

 

[Icetech]

Genesis 3:6 disagrees with you:

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

I think the real question is if Adam was present during the conversation between Eve and the serpent.

 

[UnderGrace]

what He said because He said it?

Therein lies the problem I would say.

And a fine example that human nature does not change. Don't like what God has declared? Then simply change it or go around it to satisfy your own vanity.

God said women are not to preach and man says that is not what God really said. Women are equal says man.

What if God does not care about your opinion? What if God said and God expects you to accept what He said because He said it?

Human nature ruined by the fall.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[tourist]

I actually have an honest question for those who believe a women should not teach or speak in church. If a mother is in church with her child and her child asks what the gospel is and why Jesus had to die and she explains it and teaches her child this has the mother then in god's eyes sinned?

A legalistic Pharisee would say yes, the woman has sinned and is headed for hell. The nerve of such a mother teaching her child about Jesus and salvation.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

If Paul were here, I think he might rip his hair out that men were freed from their bondage and other men sought to yoke them again and put them under the Law of Paul. There's not a lot you can do but pray when men insist on going back to an outward keeping or insist on making new law for the outside with Pauls words.

 

[Icetech]

Smart aleck moment,(I do that)
Actually to prophecy is not always simply "Speaking God's words" some tend to be "false prophets" that tell of the future,of dreams,or even discern things "different" than God's prophets,also prophets of God's not only "spoke words of God's" but also "delivered his words to others" even "unto possible death".

Yes that was mentioned in Ezekiel 13:2 with the phrase "prophesy out of their own hearts."

[FONT=&quot]And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lord[/FONT][FONT=&quot] will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

[/FONT]Numbers 12:6

Prophesying will always be connected with the words of God. False prophets speak words that are contrary to what God said or commanded (Deuteronomy 13).

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Yes that was mentioned in Ezekiel 13:2 with the phrase "prophesy out of their own hearts."

And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

Numbers 12:6

Prophesying will always be connected with the words of God. False prophets speak words that are contrary to what God said or commanded (Deuteronomy 13).

And you think this is related only to women somehow?

 

[Icetech]

If Paul were here, I think he might rip his hair out that men were freed from their bondage and other men sought to yoke them again and put them under the Law of Paul. There's not a lot you can do but pray when men insist on going back to an outward keeping or insist on making new law for the outside with Pauls words.

[FONT=&quot]For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
Romans 11:13

What office is that? It is the one given to him by Jesus Christ Himself. What Paul wrote carries authority. [/FONT]

 

[Icetech]

And you think this is related only to women somehow?

It is related to what prophesying actually is. It is speaking or proclaiming what God had said. There are example after example in the Old Testament that will bear this out.

 

[garee]

'Giving' over authority to another does not necessitate repudiating one's own authority, as usurping authority does 'take' it from another.

There are two spirits as possibilities that we might do the will of. The god of this world, or the spirit of air. And the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit of God. Those led by the Spirit of God are sons of God .While those led by the spirit of this world as natural unconverted men are considered children of the devil or Satan. No limbo in between

Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Man is not created as a free agent but was designed to do the will of another .

To subject oneself in respect to spirits or gods (the unseen) is to violate the first commandments in so much as we are to have no other gods before our one God and savior. To deny Him is to blaspheme his Holy name as a authority by which we can believe. To Blaspheme that seen as the Son of Man was forgivable .Every time Peter denied Christ in unbelief (no faith) he violated the first commandment and did blaspheme the name of God.

'Giving' over authority to another does necessitate repudiating one's own authority, as usurping authority does 'take' it from another.

Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the "things that be of God", but "those that be of men". Mat 16:22

There must be a distinct difference between the things of God and those of men .Its where the prince of the air gets his foot in the door.

When Christ left he left clear instruction that although some did know him in respect to the temporal flesh as that seen .When he left we lose the temporal privilege and know him no more that way. Today blasphemy will not be forgiven if men have the faith of Christ, in respect to any man seen.

There is no temporal cushion called a daysman .a fleshly being set between God and man as some sort of infalible umpire (like a Pope) . God is not a man as us .never was never could be.

2Co 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.


Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men,(the Son of man) and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost (not seen)hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. Mark 3:28

 

[tourist]

Paul wrote what the Holy Spirit moved him to write. Moses wrote what God moved him to write.

The bible is not a book of the prophets and apostles opinions. The bible is a book that God wrote for us to live in and to shape our lives according to its precepts and principals.

Interesting to consider that in the book of Esther God is never mentioned.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Yes, the entire Word of God as written in the bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, even the writings of Paul who is my favorite bible personality. I believe that the book of Ruth is another book that does not specifically mention God. Odd, the two books on the bible centered on the two women do not mention God. The existence and character of God is certainly implied though.

 

[Mem]

There are two spirits as possibilities that we might do the will of. The god of this world, or the spirit of air. And the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit of God. Those led by the Spirit of God are sons of God .While those led by the spirit of this world as natural unconverted men are considered children of the devil or Satan. No limbo in between

Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Man is not created as a free agent but was designed to do the will of another .

To subject oneself in respect to spirits or gods (the unseen) is to violate the first commandments in so much as we are to have no other gods before our one God and savior. To deny Him is to blaspheme his Holy name as a authority by which we can believe. To Blaspheme that seen as the Son of Man was forgivable .Every time Peter denied Christ in unbelief (no faith) he violated the first commandment and did blaspheme the name of God.

'Giving' over authority to another does necessitate repudiating one's own authority, as usurping authority does 'take' it from another.

Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the "things that be of God", but "those that be of men". Mat 16:22

There must be a distinct difference between the things of God and those of men .Its where the prince of the air gets his foot in the door.

When Christ left he left clear instruction that although some did know him in respect to the temporal flesh as that seen .When he left we lose the temporal privilege and know him no more that way. Today blasphemy will not be forgiven if men have the faith of Christ, in respect to any man seen.

There is no temporal cushion called a daysman .a fleshly being set between God and man as some sort of infalible umpire (like a Pope) . God is not a man as us .never was never could be.

2Co 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.


Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men,(the Son of man) and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost (not seen)hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. Mark 3:28

Could you clarify if the premise here is that a woman is incapable of deferring to [righteous] authority? As I see it, the issue of appropriate of deference of one's will for another's is not conditional upon the gender of the deferer but upon the righteousness of the spirit by which the deferee is governed by.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Yes, the entire Word of God as written in the bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, even the writings of Paul who is my favorite bible personality. I believe that the book of Ruth is another book that does not specifically mention God. Odd, the two books on the bible centered on the two women do not mention God. The existence and character of God is certainly implied though.

Ruth does

Rth 1:16 KJV
And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God

Rth 2:12 KJV
The LORD recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the LORD God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust.

 

[Mem]

Could you clarify if the premise here is that a woman is incapable of deferring to [righteous] authority? As I see it, the issue of appropriate of deference of one's will for another's is not conditional upon the gender of the deferer but upon the righteousness of the spirit by which the deferee is governed by.

edit: Could you clarify if the premise here is that a female is incapable of deferring to righteous authority without male guidance?

 

[notuptome]

Ruth does

Rth 1:16 KJV
And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God

Rth 2:12 KJV
The LORD recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the LORD God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust.

Yet the book of Ruth does not place her in a position of authority or teaching in Israel. What it does do is place her into the line from which Israel receives her Messiah.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Yet the book of Ruth does not place her in a position of authority or teaching in Israel. What it does do is place her into the line from which Israel receives her Messiah.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I fail to see your point. I was only commenting that God was mentioned in a logical flow of conversation. Not everything a female says is an attempt to usurp men's authority.

 

[tourist]

Yet the book of Ruth does not place her in a position of authority or teaching in Israel. What it does do is place her into the line from which Israel receives her Messiah.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I fail to see your point. I was only commenting that God was mentioned in a logical flow of conversation. Not everything a female says is an attempt to usurp men's authority.

For a woman with no authority she sure had a lot of pull with her husband and others in her life.

 

[Blain]

[video=youtube;LS37SNYjg8w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w[/video]

Holy cow that is just too funny it's unfairly funny where on earth did you find that!?

 

[Blain]

A legalistic Pharisee would say yes, the woman has sinned and is headed for hell. The nerve of such a mother teaching her child about Jesus and salvation.

Well I mean as long as she did it in her husbands house and not in a way where it seemed like she didn't know better than man then she's ok right?

 

[Blain]

If Paul were here, I think he might rip his hair out that men were freed from their bondage and other men sought to yoke them again and put them under the Law of Paul. There's not a lot you can do but pray when men insist on going back to an outward keeping or insist on making new law for the outside with Pauls words.

That actually was very insightful I can easily see Paul saying this about this thread, in all honesty he might think a lot of the arguments are idiotic and we should not try to chew on meat until we have taken the milk. I am well aware of what Paul says about women speaking in church and having authority over man and granted I don't know exactly how else to interpret it but I can't help but feel it is misunderstood