|
|
| Female Pastors Right or Wrong? |
| Right |
|
60% |
[ 14 ] |
| Wrong |
|
39% |
[ 9 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:36 am
 |
|
|
 |
the last mage no, i mean paul actually says that women are not to lead in the church. not in those exact words, but what i'm getting at is that it isn't "read between the lines" doctrine. and im still looking for for the verse(s).
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. --1 Timothy 2:11-12
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. --1 Corinthians 14:33b-35
I believe those are what you're looking for. However, this link says everything I was going to, but in a simpler manner.
If you don't have the time or patience to read all that, it's essentially saying that Paul accepted, even condoned, a lot of what women were doing in the church, including prophecy and some leadership. The verses above have a contextual meaning, and we can't take them as stand-alone. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:32 pm
|
|
|
|
Xandris the last mage no, i mean paul actually says that women are not to lead in the church. not in those exact words, but what i'm getting at is that it isn't "read between the lines" doctrine. and im still looking for for the verse(s). A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. --1 Timothy 2:11-12 As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. --1 Corinthians 14:33b-35 I believe those are what you're looking for. However, this link says everything I was going to, but in a simpler manner. If you don't have the time or patience to read all that, it's essentially saying that Paul accepted, even condoned, a lot of what women were doing in the church, including prophecy and some leadership. The verses above have a contextual meaning, and we can't take them as stand-alone.
But the article to which you linked, while allowing for a little relaxation on restrictions against women, reinforces the idea that men (specifically old, learned men - patriarchs, if you will) should not be challenged by women in the understanding of doctrine and encourages husbands to control their 'distruptive' wives. Why would that be? After all, it's not like the patriarchs have much to lose, right? |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:09 am
|
|
|
|
Xandris A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. --1 Timothy 2:11-12
If Paul says he would not permit something, this does not mean God would not permit it. Would perhaps another leader of the early church disagree? Nothing in this passage says what God's stance is, so at face it is not sufficient to deny women anything. This is true, even if one rejects everything about this passage that follows. Strict conservatives will disagree with the rest of this discussion, but they tend to do so based solely upon conservatism, not actual reasoning.
There is strong reason to believe 1 Timothy was not written by Paul. If so, the teachings of it could reflect the patriarchal society rather than any actual religious value.
Ignoring this, there is good reason to believe the passage may have been misinterpreted. Verse 12 supposedly requires women be silent, which would contradict Paul's other writings. To understand the meaning of the passage, it is important to consider the original Greek text. Specifically, the words "authentein" and "hesuchia." Using appropriate translations of these words, rather than those used by patriarchal society to reinforce their own preconceived notions, gives the passage a significantly different meaning.
1 Timothy was sent to the city of Ephesus. At the time, Ephesus was the center of pagan teaching, worshiping Artemis. These pagans taught women were superior to men. In addition, there was a sect of people who combined the Old Testament and Artemis worship, teaching a different version of the creation story. In this version, Eve received knowledge from the serpent, which she then gave to Adam, who was said to be her son. The main theme of 1 Timothy is to uphold doctrinal purity, so this passage would be meant to reject the dominant, pagan, beliefs of the city.
This interpretation resolves the contradictions of 1 Timothy 2. In addition, it explains why verse 12 and verse 13 have such a strange discrepancy, with verse 13 jumping back in time 4,000 years.
Xandris As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. --1 Corinthians 14:33b-35
This passage is almost certainly a forgery. Viewed without it, the chapter makes far more sense.
Ultimately, even if one chooses to accept both of these passages as actual words of Paul, that is not sufficient to discriminate against females. The contents of these passages contradict other writings by Paul, in which he positively refers to females as valuable teachers of the word of God. There is no justification to accept these passages as absolute condemnation while ignoring the other passages. People only do so because it fits preconceived viewpoints.
There are numerous instances of the Bible being mistranslated, willfully, to remove the positive portrayal of females. These passages are the closest justifications to discriminating against females, and the discrimination supposedly supported by them is far from evident.
One point which I find interesting is the people who use these passages never seem to know anything about them. I am willing to discuss any aspects of this topic, as I am sure there is a great deal of detail that could be discussed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:33 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:45 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:21 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:06 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:27 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:43 am
|
|
|
|
freelance lover Galad Damodred Wow. eek I didn't know that people forged bits of the Bible. You'd think the Almighty would put a stop to that. It's kinda like in Macbeth, a lot of Hecate's chatter to the Weird Sisters was so obviously not written by Shakespeare. rolleyes
Like there was that whole debacle with the Council of Nicea, arguing over which books should be included in the Bible. 3nodding I see, I see.
@zz1000zz: Beg pardon. Wasn't my intention. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:36 am
|
|
|
|
Galad Damodred freelance lover Galad Damodred Wow. eek I didn't know that people forged bits of the Bible. You'd think the Almighty would put a stop to that. It's kinda like in Macbeth, a lot of Hecate's chatter to the Weird Sisters was so obviously not written by Shakespeare. rolleyes Like there was that whole debacle with the Council of Nicea, arguing over which books should be included in the Bible. 3nodding I see, I see.
And I wonder how many of the council members were female. wink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:23 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:40 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:16 am
|
|
|
|
Kain1334 =P i dont think you guys are looking at this correctly at all. All ive heard is ppl saying "the bible has mistakes" and "there are parts of the bible taken out" honestly i think you people are just missinterpreting much of what is said if your going as far as saying the INSPIRED WORD of GOD has falsehoods, and things removed or reduced. honestly ppl you sound like faith has been zapped from your bones where u no longer have any. (first u say you believe in Jesus Christ, then say that the words that bring his being to fact has been reduced, or changed.<-sounds like me you dont truly believe. It also sounds like u guys can't admit your fools and that u make mistakes ALL THE TIME, why not just say "maybe i have misinterpreted" then go into deep study onto the issue...instead of running and basically screaming "THE BIBLE IS FALSE, THE WORDS IN WHICH I TRY AND TEACH ARE WRONG AND CHANGED!!!! WHAT IS THERE FOR ME TO BELIEVE IF I CANNOT BELIEVE WHAT I SAY I BELIEVE?")
We're not just saying the Bible has been editted without proof. There's hard proof that it has. We have older versions of text that differ completely from newer ones.
I don't feely my looser interpretation of the Bible shows any lack of faith. I think it strengthens my faith. I have to be in communication with God about what is right and what is wrong. I think the Bible has a good overall message, but I think authority comes ultimetly from God.
I explained this to you already via PM, but I'm going to post it again here for others' benifit. I think we need to take the Bible in the context it was written in. The time period and culture were radically different and we need to take that into account. I think we need to understand why certain statements were made and apply the spirit of that law or commandment to our lives, not necessarily the word for word law. The Bible has a message of love, faith, compassion, and forgiveness. I think, overall, that is how we should live.
For instance, as my boyfriend pointed out to me the other day, women weren't being educated up until a few hundred years ago. In Paul's time most women wouldn't even be able to read. Why would you let someone uneducated teach you in the church? But now women can go to seminary and recieve the same education as men. Now, why wouldn't you? They are just as capable and educated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:48 pm
|
|
|
|
1. you are right the time period of the bible was writen when women were being belittled, BUT at the same time it still rose up women (take Esther for example, she went to the king without his permission, which was punishable by death, just to save the jews, and she did just that. Also take Mary, and others, for instance, they found the tomb of Christ empty, yet again RISING up women again) you can say you have proof that it has been tamperd but i can tell you that that proof is infact false. Even though in this time(and the time it was translated) women were thought as nothing more than objects, they still translated the bible the way it was(which was LIFTING up women) if they wanted people to go to it(which they most certainly did) did they still empower women, which would push most from that time away? i say this in itself shows that the bible has not been tampered with, just translated as close as it could be translated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:25 pm
|
|
|
|
Kain1334 1. you are right the time period of the bible was writen when women were being belittled, BUT at the same time it still rose up women (take Esther for example, she went to the king without his permission, which was punishable by death, just to save the jews, and she did just that. Also take Mary, and others, for instance, they found the tomb of Christ empty, yet again RISING up women again) you can say you have proof that it has been tamperd but i can tell you that that proof is infact false. Even though in this time(and the time it was translated) women were thought as nothing more than objects, they still translated the bible the way it was(which was LIFTING up women) if they wanted people to go to it(which they most certainly did) did they still empower women, which would push most from that time away? i say this in itself shows that the bible has not been tampered with, just translated as close as it could be translated.
Did you go to the link that zz1000zz gave in his post about the passage in 1 Corinthians 14 that appears to be a forgery? Does it not confuse you that there is a conflicting message as a result of this apparent forgery? If two apparently opposing statements are made about women, how can both of them be true? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
