Are Women Not Allowed to Preach in Every Case?

[Dino246]

You are wrong. It is very clear in the Bible that women are to submit to their husbands. It is very clear both by the outright statement of Paul in Timothy and in the illustration in Genesis that rebellious women are used by Satan, and this is even more the reason that women ought to submit to their husbands.

That's circular reasoning; you are basing your interpretation on your interpretation.

It is written expressly in the Bible that God made Man in his image. In the image of God he created him. Male and female God created them. Man is the glory of God as he is made in God's direct image. Woman is the glory of man as she is made in man's image, taken out of the man, for which reason he called her woman. Just as God is to be the head of every man, man is to be the head of woman. This is the good and true order of God.

More circular reasoning. God made adam in His image; male and female He created them. You have it stuck in your head that God created males to rule, but nothing you have posted supports that idea. You're using that as a basis to twist the word of God.

 

[Dino246]

It's probably not a big deal.....but......"them" is actually added by translators. It should say "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and rule..." אָדָ֛ם (Adam) is in the singular form there.

It's a clear implication, and given that the Bible clearly states, "male and female He created them", you can't avoid including females in the role of rulership... as much as you want to.

 

[Dan_473]

I addressed these things in post #13 and #304 briefly. In other posts, they have been dealt with in length. Whether there you want to read them all and the documents I posted is up to you.

Does the document linked to and post 13 give the age (in number of years) of a male above which you consider it inappropriate for a woman to teach that male?


Post number 304 is vague, referring to puberty and marriageable age. So do you mean legal majority? As in 18 years old in the USA? Or a particular puberty marker?


I'm inviting you into a discussion here. In your view, what is the age or puberty marker? Are there any churches around you that are practicing that?

 

[Diakonos]

While it's clear we're not going to see eye to eye on men having dominion over women and I don't feel like explaining context of passage after passage to explain that this was a cultural expectation since in the end I doubt either of us will change our views on the same passages the wickedness of the recent generations is not that women seek equality but that women have sought dominance. Which speaks to Timothy since the verb refers to being domineering not simply having authority.

See post 309, 10 and 313. These demonstrate that reason Paul gave theological reasons for not allowing women to teach exercise authority over man. Dino 246 has avoided my question in these posts, given that the lexical data is debunks his belief.

 

[Diakonos]

Does the document linked to and post 13 give the age (in number of years) of a male above which you consider it inappropriate for a woman to teach that male?


Post number 304 is vague, referring to puberty and marriageable age. So do you mean legal majority? As in 18 years old in the USA? Or a particular puberty marker?


I'm inviting you into a discussion here. In your view, what is the age or puberty marker? Are there any churches around you that are practicing that?

I don't remember. I read them 2 or 3 years ago when I was teaching through this subject.
but like I said in post 304:
"there is no explicit age given in the Bible.
But for the purposes of this discussion I don't think the exact age is important because a women that is continually teaching and excising authority over men is usually never near the age that a girl becomes a women. It's usually when that women has has known the Lord for years and know the Word well enough to teach it." I'm not claiming that there is an exact age. I'm not concerned with the details the Bible doesn't give us

 

[Diakonos]

In your view, what is the age or puberty marker?

there is no explicit age given in the Bible.
As I said in post 304:
"But for the purposes of this discussion I don't think the exact age is important because a women that is continually teaching and excising authority over men is usually never near the age that a girl becomes a women. Its usually when that women has has known the Lord for years and know the Word well enough to teach it."

( my opinion on this is not based on anything concrete, but because you asked, I will give you my opinion)
my best guess is that the age is between 11 and 25

 

[Bbrdrd]

See post 309, 10 and 313. These demonstrate that reason Paul gave theological reasons for not allowing women to teach exercise authority over man. Dino 246 has avoided my question in these posts, given that the lexical data is debunks his belief.

And that theological reason can be preserved by treating it as a rhetorical flourish to emphasize a culturally sensitive practice as the primary topic is false teaching and there are cultural reasons in Ephesus at the time that women would have been the primary false teachers. This goes back to Paul's writing style which often used Scripture as a means of making a limited point which leads to people ignoring the contextual limitations and turning them into much broader points.

 

[Dino246]

See post 309, 10 and 313. These demonstrate that reason Paul gave theological reasons for not allowing women to teach exercise authority over man. Dino 246 has avoided my question in these posts, given that the lexical data is debunks his belief.

I have merely ignored arguments based on circular reasoning.

 

[Diakonos]

I have merely ignored arguments based on circular reasoning.

Ok how about I ask a question that doesn't involve my position on the doctrine.

What is the contextual meaning of 1 Timothy 2:13-14?

 

[Diakonos]

....just in case anyone is interested in the modern scholarship. (not that scholars area always right, but they are supportive in providing perspectives that are well seasoned in the Scriptures)

 

[Dino246]

Ok how about I ask a question that doesn't involve my position on the doctrine.

What is the contextual meaning of 1 Timothy 2:13-14?

Already explained.

 

[Diakonos]

Already explained.

Im baffled by the immaturity

 

[garee]

That's circular reasoning; you are basing your interpretation on your interpretation.


More circular reasoning. God made adam in His image; male and female He created them. You have it stuck in your head that God created males to rule, but nothing you have posted supports that idea. You're using that as a basis to twist the word of God.

Circular reasoning. The reasoning as law or or complete circuit. It is how we can understand the laws of God. No laws of men as philosophy. We compare his interpretation to the same. Faith to faith.Face to face.

Rule with not lord it over.

 

[JeremiahsCup]

That's circular reasoning; you are basing your interpretation on your interpretation.


More circular reasoning. God made adam in His image; male and female He created them. You have it stuck in your head that God created males to rule, but nothing you have posted supports that idea. You're using that as a basis to twist the word of God.

No, it is not any interpretation for the Bible is of no private interpretation, but it is what the Bible says very bluntly. It's not circular reasoning either, it's very forthright. You have Paul and Peter and other such writers telling you the same thing, that man is to be head over the woman. You have the account of Genesis where God decrees it and which these writers make heavy reference to. You have examples in the Bible of both the good and the evil women. None of this is circular reasoning, it's merely that you can find ample support in the Bible for this; Paul is supported by the garden event in Genesis, Peter is supported by the writings about the good women like Sarah, and so forth and so on because their writings are not their own opinions, but are rather well founded and supported by the rest of the scriptures.

Correct, God made Adam, Man, in his image. God created the woman out of man's flesh and bone and so woman is made in the glory of man. Both were created by God, for God created everything that ever existed. Well, God did create and also decree that the man is to rule and have dominion over the earth, and yes, God even created the man to be the head over the woman. All of this is found in the Bible and has been pretty well posted all ready. Many of the wicked have tried to confuse or twist this holy and ancient order on its head starting first with the dragon named Satan trying to confound the holy order in the garden by lying to the woman. Especially in today's modern society, which is wrong about almost everything, and utterly wicked to such an extreme, they will try very hard to change the truth of God for a lie, yet God's words and judgements will not be changed and God's will shall prevail.

 

[Dino246]

No, it is not any interpretation for the Bible is of no private interpretation

Wrong. That is a faulty reading of 2 Peter 1:20.

 

[JeremiahsCup]

Wrong. That is a faulty reading of 2 Peter 1:20.

Incorrect, the Bible is not of private interpretations. Indeed like Peter also says which you reference, no prophecy of the scripture is of private interpretation. It is very simple to figure out that the Bible is not subjective. God is a God of Truth, so he does not leave us in the dark to grope and stumble over lies and peoples' sensual feelings. Nor does he leave us as a prey for the heretics and the pagans whom try as if it were possible to twist the scriptures to their own undoing. The Bible is written in such a way that any person can read it to draw closer to God and to understand that good ways of God.

 

[Dino246]

Incorrect, the Bible is not of private interpretations. Indeed like Peter also says which you reference, no prophecy of the scripture is of private interpretation.

Your reading of 2 Peter 1:20 is incorrect. The verse discusses the origin of the prophetic message, not the interpretation, subjective or otherwise, of Scripture. Therefore, all your blather based on your misreading is worthless and utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[JeremiahsCup]

Your reading of 2 Peter 1:20 is incorrect. The verse discusses the origin of the prophetic message, not the interpretation, subjective or otherwise, of Scripture. Therefore, all your blather based on your misreading is worthless and utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

No, the Bible is not of personal interpretation. Peter's letter about the prophecies being of no private interpretation, among other scriptures, supports that the Bible is not subjective, but that the Bible is rather true and is trustworthy.

 

[Diakonos]

You are both right.
Yes I agree with @Dino246 that the meaning of 2 Peter 1:20 tells us that ".....holy men spoke from God"....indicating that they didn't interpret what God said for them to write, but rather they literally wrote down exactly what He said. "All Scripture is God-Breathed."

....but....From the whole council of God, we derive that Scripture is not supposed to be interpreted, but rather declared and obeyed. The Word tells us when it is using a figure of speech.

Technically, @JeremiahsCup is correct about the principle he is getting at, but his use of 2 Peter 1:20 is not the right verse to support the position.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

The Bible is written in such a way that any person can read it to draw closer to God and to understand that good ways of God.

A person can't read the scriptures unless they are taught how to read the written spoken word. And a person can't read the word of God unless they are taught how to write the written spoken word first, because you can't learn to read without there being a book in which the spoken word is written. Well, except to those who believe the written spoken word evolved from the hieroglyphics of Pharaoh, or the cuneiform tablets of the Sumerians if you're Catholic.