Are WOMEN Pastors Biblical??

[Scribe]

There is no such thing as a female husband, only pretenders deceiving themselves and their inferiors.

Do you think that when Paul used polygamy as an example of what was NOT blameless, that he intended to remove the foundational revelation of the day of the Pentecost where Jesus specifically baptized women with the Holy Ghost for the purpose of giving them power to teach all nations? And Peter pointed it out that Daughters and Handmaidens were included in this call to ministry?

Isn't it possible that God has made it clear that women were included in the gifting's for ministry for carrying out the great commission which included all giftings that the Holy Spirit wills, and that Paul never expected anyone to exclude them from ministerial callings when he wrote about the moral blamelessness required for ministerial offices. '

Is it possible that you are putting an emphasis on the gender when Paul was putting an emphasis on polygamy. Sort of trying to read into his statements something to support an idea he did not have in mind?

Is it possible that the ones that will be stopped are the ones who attempt to criticize and condemn holy women of God called and anointed to preach? That they are the ones that need to worry about what Jesus will tell them in the day of judgment more than the women who gave their all to preach the Gospel and advance His kingdom?

The Bible is indeed clear, it is people who muddle it up. The Jesus revealed in the Bible is well pleased with women who are surrendered to the call of God to preach, teach, evangelize and plant churches. WELL PLEASED

 

[RomanticRevolutionary]

Modern pastors aren't OT priests, period. The connection you assert to justify your comments simply does not exist.


That's odd; He doesn't.

The modern pastors are indeed in the mold of the OT Levites. This is why Paul keeps the spiritual essence and requirements of that office, the strict monogamy codes being extraordinarily important since the pastor and his wife, just like the levitical priests and their wife, are a living representation of the God and his Church (in the OT, the God and Israel).

To answer you and others; Lord Jesus has all ready stopped them in the sense that they belong not to his Kingdom very clearly, they never entered to begin with. In the present the more they try to make confusions and abominations and fornications part of the Church the more Lord Jesus will draw the true believers out of those fallen churches like a great Exodus, and then yes, in the near future Lord Jesus will utterly destroy Satan's inverted backwards kingdom and toss them all into the lake of fire, in Jesus' name amen

 

[RomanticRevolutionary]

Do you think that when Paul used polygamy as an example of what was NOT blameless, that he intended to remove the foundational revelation of the day of the Pentecost where Jesus specifically baptized women with the Holy Ghost for the purpose of giving them power to teach all nations? And Peter pointed it out that Daughters and Handmaidens were included in this call to ministry?

Isn't it possible that God has made it clear that women were included in the gifting's for ministry for carrying out the great commission which included all giftings that the Holy Spirit wills, and that Paul never expected anyone to exclude them from ministerial callings when he wrote about the moral blamelessness required for ministerial offices. '

Is it possible that you are putting an emphasis on the gender when Paul was putting an emphasis on polygamy. Sort of trying to read into his statements something to support an idea he did not have in mind?

Is it possible that the ones that will be stopped are the ones who attempt to criticize and condemn holy women of God called and anointed to preach? That they are the ones that need to worry about what Jesus will tell them in the day of judgment more than the women who gave their all to preach the Gospel and advance His kingdom?

The Bible is indeed clear, it is people who muddle it up. The Jesus revealed in the Bible is well pleased with women who are surrendered to the call of God to preach, teach, evangelize and plant churches. WELL PLEASED

Women can still be part of the Kingdom of God, it's just simply a woman cannot be a pastor because a pastor is the living symbol of Christ and the pastor's wife is the living symbol of the Church. A pastor is a husband, a woman is not a husband and any woman that tries to be is not a woman of God. It really is just that simple, though obviously a wicked world in the midst of the most wicked generation to ever live in all of history portray rather their kingdom which is called Mystery Babylon, which is all a satanic inversion of God's Kingdom.

 

[Scribe]

Women can still be part of the Kingdom of God, it's just simply a woman cannot be a pastor because a pastor is the living symbol of Christ and the pastor's wife is the living symbol of the Church. A pastor is a husband, a woman is not a husband and any woman that tries to be is not a woman of God. It really is just that simple, though obviously a wicked world in the midst of the most wicked generation to ever live in all of history portray rather their kingdom which is called Mystery Babylon, which is all a satanic inversion of God's Kingdom.

Pastors do not have to be married or have kids. Therefore your "woman can't be a husband" reasoning is invalid. A pastor does not have to be a husband. Paul was saying "if he is marred he must be married to only one woman at a time" If he had kids they must be governed well. Not that He MUST have kids.

Now some people, understanding that in order to be intellectually honest with a mandate to be married from these verses, they would have to also insist that the pastor must have children, have proposed that a pastor must have kids also. But most do not agree with such a forced hermeneutic. Most concede that it means IF he has kids they must be controlled. Therefore if one is willing to concede that it means "IF" he has kids one must also concede that he means "IF" he is married.

 

[RomanticRevolutionary]

Pastors do not have to be married or have kids. Therefore your "woman can't be a husband" reasoning is invalid. A pastor does not have to be a husband. Paul was saying "if he is marred he must be married to only one woman at a time" If he had kids they must be governed well. Not that He MUST have kids.

Now some people, understanding that in order to be intellectually honest with a mandate to be married from these verses, they would have to also insist that the pastor must have children, have proposed that a pastor must have kids also. But most do not agree with such a forced hermeneutic. Most concede that it means IF he has kids they must be controlled. Therefore if one is willing to concede that it means "IF" he has kids one must also concede that he means "IF" he is married.

No, a pastor must be a strict monogamist, a married man. Kids are not required, but they can have kids and this is usually a good thing, a sign of a good pastor and good pastor's wife that they have many children and their children be godly. Many overlook the fact that the pastor's wife is also held to a higher standard than other women for she must also be a good woman; not a defiled harlot, not an unbeliever, not an odious argumentive woman trying to usurp man's authority, and she must also serve her husband with meekness and grace, just as he must tend her and lead her and provide and care for her like a husbandman tending his garden, or like a shepherd (literally a pastor) tends the flock. To be a pastor's wife is also quite an important position, though often overlooked, given the strict code and the gravity of that office being that she is the image of the Church and her husband, the pastor, the image of Christ.

 

[Dino246]

No, a pastor must be a strict monogamist, a married man. Kids are not required, but they can have kids and this is usually a good thing, a sign of a good pastor and good pastor's wife that they have many children and their children be godly. Many overlook the fact that the pastor's wife is also held to a higher standard than other women for she must also be a good woman; not a defiled harlot, not an unbeliever, not an odious argumentive woman trying to usurp man's authority, and she must also serve her husband with meekness and grace, just as he must tend her and lead her and provide and care for her like a husbandman tending his garden, or like a shepherd (literally a pastor) tends the flock. To be a pastor's wife is also quite an important position, though often overlooked, given the strict code and the gravity of that office being that she is the image of the Church and her husband, the pastor, the image of Christ.

Ultra-legalistic denominations may preach what you believe, but Scripture does not support most of your assertions.

 

[Scribe]

No, a pastor must be a strict monogamist, a married man. Kids are not required, but they can have kids and this is usually a good thing, a sign of a good pastor and good pastor's wife that they have many children and their children be godly. Many overlook the fact that the pastor's wife is also held to a higher standard than other women for she must also be a good woman; not a defiled harlot, not an unbeliever, not an odious argumentive woman trying to usurp man's authority, and she must also serve her husband with meekness and grace, just as he must tend her and lead her and provide and care for her like a husbandman tending his garden, or like a shepherd (literally a pastor) tends the flock. To be a pastor's wife is also quite an important position, though often overlooked, given the strict code and the gravity of that office being that she is the image of the Church and her husband, the pastor, the image of Christ.

It is impossible to concede that Paul meant IF he has children and not concede that he meant IF he is married.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)


and also for the deacons

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

You cannot make a case from the structure of the sentences that Paul is saying he MUST be married but then allow for IF he has children. It is one or the other.

He is saying IF he is married, and IF he has children or if you are going to insist that it means He must be married because being a husband of one wife requires being married, then you must use the exact same logic that he MUST have kids because ruling their children requires that they have children. You can't have it both ways.

And if you are willing to concede that it means IF He as children then you have already in effect conceded that it means IF he is married whether you admit it or not. They cannot be grammatically separated like that. Your reason for interpreting one in that way applies to the other. If you do not concede to this you are not being intellectually honest with yourself or anyone else.

Take a stand if you want and demand that he also have children in order to uphold your stand on insisting that he be married based on these verses but don't apply a double standard of interpretation of authorial intent in the same passage.

 

[RomanticRevolutionary]

It is impossible to concede that Paul meant IF he has children and not concede that he meant IF he is married.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)


and also for the deacons

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

You cannot make a case from the structure of the sentences that Paul is saying he MUST be married but then allow for IF he has children. It is one or the other.

He is saying IF he is married, and IF he has children or if you are going to insist that it means He must be married because being a husband of one wife requires being married, then you must use the exact same logic that he MUST have kids because ruling their children requires that they have children. You can't have it both ways.

And if you are willing to concede that it means IF He as children then you have already in effect conceded that it means IF he is married whether you admit it or not. They cannot be grammatically separated like that. Your reason for interpreting one in that way applies to the other. If you do not concede to this you are not being intellectually honest with yourself or anyone else.

Take a stand if you want and demand that he also have children in order to uphold your stand on insisting that he be married based on these verses but don't apply a double standard of interpretation of authorial intent in the same passage.

I think you're simply straining for the gnat. Right there what you posted shows how the pastor and his wife are meant to be strictly monogamists. Note how Paul points out that if a man cannot lead his household, how can he lead the church? It is indeed because, just as it was in the beginning with the ordinances for the priests of Israel, the man is the symbol of God and the woman is the symbol of the Church. This is why there is such a strict code of monogamy for the pastors and their wives.

 

[RomanticRevolutionary]

Ultra-legalistic denominations may preach what you believe, but Scripture does not support most of your assertions.

It is actually to the contrary. The Scriptures are very clear about the role of women and men, and it is the denominations of the fallen churches that are in a very deep transgression for casting aside God's way and embracing their own modern doctrines that are in every way a satanic inversion of the good and pure way. It's actually quite dark in our time the way the churches have turned over to Jezebel. But no matter, the Lord Jesus will draw the truly faithful that love his good way out of those corrupted houses of bondage, just like he led his people out of Egypt.

 

[notuptome]

You are employing the genetic fallacy: rejecting the argument because of its source, not its own merit.

You are fighting against the word of God. You reject the teaching of the Christ of the bible and substitute one of your own creation.

You question the word of God not to explore it's teachings more fully but find some means to make Gods word conform to your sense of moral superiority.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

Who is going to stop them?

Their husbands should have sense to correct their desires which God will not honor.

So are you thinking they are not saved? My interpretation of scripture is that Jesus is wanting to baptize women with the Holy Spirit and empower them to preach and to teach all nations. That was pointed out by Peter on the day of Pentecost. So if that is what Jesus wanted then why would anyone think that He does not want that?

All believers are baptized in the Holy Spirit the moment they become a Christian. All are filled to be witnesses of what Christ has done for them to the whole world. So some of what you say is true but the idea that God calls women to pastor is false and is rebellion to Gods word.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Dino246]

Their husbands should have sense to correct their desires which God will not honor.

Once again, you make the error of assuming that every Christian woman is married.

 

[notuptome]

Once again, you make the error of assuming that every Christian woman is married.

God does not discriminate single men need not apply either.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Dino246]

God does not discriminate single men need not apply either.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Not even Jesus Himself would qualify, clearly.

We've been around this mulberry bush already, and you haven't learned.

 

[Truth7t7]

The whole problem with all your ultra extreme right wing rantings, is that you really have not researched the words you use.

How many times is the word, "pastor" used in the New Testament to describe a church leader?

None!

The word Shepherd or ποιμένας in Greek, is a calling mentioned in Eph 4:11. It does not specify it is only for men.

So here is a whole thread dedicated to saying women can't be something or not, which is not even a biblical word.

Unbelievable!

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 1985: ἐπίσκοπος
ἐπίσκοπος, -ου, ὁ, (ἐπισκέπτομαι), an overseer, a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian, or superintendent; Sept. for פָּקִיד, Judges 9:28; Nehemiah 11:9, 14, 22; 2 Kings 11:15, etc.; 1 Macc. 1:51. The word has the same comprehensive sense in Greek writings from Homer Odys. 8, 163; Iliad 22, 255 down; hence, in the N. T. ἐπίσκ. τῶν ψυχῶν, guardian of souls, one who watches over their welfare: 1 Peter 2:25 ([τὸν παντὸς πνεύματος κτίστην κ. ἐπίσκοπον, Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. 59, 3]; ἀρχιερεὺς καὶ προστάτης τῶν ψυχῶν ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χρ., ibid. 61, 3; [cf. Sir. 1:6]), cf. Hebrews 13:17. specifically, the superintendent, head or overseer of any Christian church; Vulg. episcopus: Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7; see πρεσβύτερος, 2 b.; [and for the later use of the word, see Dictionary of Christian Antiquities under the word Bishop].

 

[Truth7t7]

The whole problem with all your ultra extreme right wing rantings, is that you really have not researched the words you use.

How many times is the word, "pastor" used in the New Testament to describe a church leader?

None!

The word Shepherd or ποιμένας in Greek, is a calling mentioned in Eph 4:11. It does not specify it is only for men.

So here is a whole thread dedicated to saying women can't be something or not, which is not even a biblical word.

Unbelievable!

Women Are Excluded From Being A Bishop/Pastor/Leader

The Man That Takes Care Of The Church Of God.

A Married "Man", Ruling His Own House Well, He, His, Women Are Excluded, Simple

1 Timothy 3:1-5KJV
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

 

[Truth7t7]

So, given that the same restriction is given for deacons, how is it that Phoebe is called a deacon? (Don't waste time with the "servant" argument; look at the word in Greek).

Phebe was a servant to the church, just as the KJV translators used the word (Servant)

Women are (Excluded) from being Deacons in the Church, Gods words aren't contradicting

Deacons must be married "Men" ruling their houses well also, just as the Bishop/Pastor

1 Timothy 3:8-13KJV
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Merriam-Webster: Noun1.succourer -
someone who gives help in times of need or distress or difficulty

Roman's 16:1-2KJV
1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.

 

[Truth7t7]

So, given that the same restriction is given for deacons, how is it that Phoebe is called a deacon? (Don't waste time with the "servant" argument; look at the word in Greek).

Do you believe a practicing Lesbian should be allowed the office of Pastor/Bishop/Leader?

Example: A Woman Married To Another Woman?

 

[Angela53510]

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 1985: ἐπίσκοπος
ἐπίσκοπος, -ου, ὁ, (ἐπισκέπτομαι), an overseer, a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian, or superintendent; Sept. for פָּקִיד, Judges 9:28; Nehemiah 11:9, 14, 22; 2 Kings 11:15, etc.; 1 Macc. 1:51. The word has the same comprehensive sense in Greek writings from Homer Odys. 8, 163; Iliad 22, 255 down; hence, in the N. T. ἐπίσκ. τῶν ψυχῶν, guardian of souls, one who watches over their welfare: 1 Peter 2:25 ([τὸν παντὸς πνεύματος κτίστην κ. ἐπίσκοπον, Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. 59, 3]; ἀρχιερεὺς καὶ προστάτης τῶν ψυχῶν ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χρ., ibid. 61, 3; [cf. Sir. 1:6]), cf. Hebrews 13:17. specifically, the superintendent, head or overseer of any Christian church; Vulg. episcopus: Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7; see πρεσβύτερος, 2 b.; [and for the later use of the word, see Dictionary of Christian Antiquities under the word Bishop].

First, Thayer is not a good source to use. There is a lot wrong, including having some very Liberal definitions.

Second, this definition in Thayers is not the gospel truth. In fact, it could have been written as a "person." Greek has had a flaw with regards to translations. The word "anthropos" means man, humanity, world. In the older Bibles (but also newer ones) some places have translated anthropos as "man" consistently. However, this term is mostly neutral. It means a person or people. Long ago, like when I was young, the word "man" included women. In Greek, if it refers specifically that is a man, the word "andras" or άνδρας is used. In some languages, like Spanish and French and German, there is a neutral word for person- in German it is mann, which means anyone. In the early 2000s, it came down that it was no longer acceptable to say "men" for both men and women. Yet, we don't have a neutral word for it in English. So, language hunters erased one word, without allowing for a gender neutral word to replace it.

At any rate, use of the word "man" in a lexicon means the translator was probably using it to include both sexes. And even if he was not, what some bad Greek lexicon says is irrelevant to what we are talking about. It is simply confirming your bias.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

God does not discriminate single men need not apply either.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Paul The Apostle didn't get your religious memo.

"Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do."
1 Cor 7:8