Lewis
Member
Jason I am a good friends with Candi Staton's ex husband John Susswell, he is a world renowned drummer.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Can Women Be Pastors & Preachers ?
- Thread starter Lewis
- Start date
G
gideon3213
Guest
A husband and wife are 'one flesh' so a husband and wife 'own' each other! Adultery is forbidden, and commitment to the marriage must be absolute! So if women don't want to be 'owned' by there husbands, they are sayin that they do not want to be loyal to there husbands; or be obidiant to them as the scripture commands them to be.
I do not condone abuse of women: but to stand against abuse of women did not originate with feminism: it originated in the Bible!
Here is a definition of feminsm for you:
Feminism is the desire of a woman to have a position which belongs to a man; the desire to be independent of mans God given authority; rebellion against man's authority; and the desire to be equal to men.
What do you think the "woman's liberation" movement of the 1960's was all about? What was it that they wanted liberation from? Ans; the authority and dominance of men. That's why women, for the first time in the history of the United States, started wearing pant's. Because they were trying to make themselves equal to men. (They erroneously thought that if they wore men’s clothing that that would some how make them equal to men. Of course it doesn't. But it is interesting that that which is inferior always wants to imitate that which is superior. Hence children wear the parent's cloths from time to time, because they want to be something that they are not; i.e. grown up. And likewise women wear men’s clothing because they want to be something that they are not; i.e. equal to men. There used to be a phrase that said “he wears the pants in this family’ That meant that he (her husband) made the rules and decisions in the family. And thus he had greater authority over her. Woman started wearing paints as a symbol that they had equal power with men. This of course in nonsense! <O
</O<O
</OBy the way, the Bible condemns cross dressing in Deut 22:5 which states "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God. (NKJV) Hence every woman that wears blue jeans and other garments that pertain to men is an abomination to God.<O
</O<O
</OHowever it is interesting that our culture has come to accept one perversion without excepting the other. For example; if a woman walks into a church wearing blue jeans, and a mans shirt; no one notices. But if a man were to walk into a church wearing a dress; the usher's would immediately escort him out! But you can rest asure that God considers any type of cross dressing to be evil!
Have a blessed day.
Last edited by a moderator:
C
coffeeelover
Guest
A husband and wife are 'one flesh' so a husband and wife 'own' each other! Adultery is forbidden, and commitment to the marriage must be absolute! So if women don't want to be 'owned' by there husbands, they are sayin that they do not want to be loyal to there husbands; or be obidiant to them as the scripture commands them to be.
I do not condone abuse of women: but to stand against abuse of women did not originate with feminism: it originated in the Bible!
Here is a definition of feminsm for you:
Feminism is the desire of a woman to have a position which belongs to a man; the desire to be independent of mans God given authority; rebellion against man's authority; and the desire to be equal to men.
What do you think the "woman's liberation" movement of the 1960's was all about? What was it that they wanted liberation from? Ans; the authority and dominance of men. That's why women, for the first time in the history of the United States, started wearing pant's. Because they were trying to make themselves equal to men. (They erroneously thought that if they wore men’s clothing that that would some how make them equal to men. Of course it doesn't. But it is interesting that that which is inferior always wants to imitate that which is superior. Hence children wear the parent's cloths from time to time, because they want to be something that they are not; i.e. grown up. And likewise women wear men’s clothing because they want to be something that they are not; i.e. equal to men. There used to be a phrase that said “he wears the pants in this family’ That meant that he (her husband) made the rules and decisions in the family. And thus he had greater authority over her. Woman started wearing paints as a symbol that they had equal power with men. This of course in nonsense! <o>
<o>
By the way, the Bible condemns cross dressing in Deut 22:5 which states "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God. (NKJV) Hence every woman that wears blue jeans and other garments that pertain to men is an abomination to God.<o>
<o>
However it is interesting that our culture has come to accept one perversion without excepting the other. For example; if a woman walks into a church wearing blue jeans, and a mans shirt; no one notices. But if a man were to walk into a church wearing a dress; the usher's would immediately escort him out! But you can rest asure that God considers any type of cross dressing to be evil!
Have a blessed day.
Women are equal to men. Don't confuse that with women being the same as men.
Feminism is a source of Justice and good in the world.
Women wearing pants isn't cross dressing.
handy
Member
Several things here...
Pants became common women's attire in the late 1930's and '40's when Rosie the Riveter went to work. Shorter skirts also become much more poplar then. The reason was that long skirts just weren't practical for the kind of work being done in the factories that men left empty to fight in the war.
I don't think we can underestimate the impact of WW2 on feminism. The guys left to fight in the war and the women, helpmeets, went out into the business world and picked up the slack.
Then the guys came home and the women went back to the home to have babies and keep house. After having been out in the "man's" world, housework, never all that exciting in the first place, was exposed as the excruciating boredom that it is. Then technological advances in appliances such as the washer and dryer, the dishwasher, the modern stove and oven and the microwave oven during the '50's, made the work that took the longest to complete was made far easier. The result, by the '60's, women began to wonder just what the heck they were on this earth for. Their time was loosened up enough that they started looking outside the home for work. As the automobile had by that time became so plentiful and inexpensive that most households could afford two, it was easy to enter the job market.
Looking back to the fact that they did the jobs of men and did them just as good as the men, and that many women in the work sector didn't get paid as much as the men did for the same job at the same quality, it quickly became intolerable that women faced discrimination in being hired and getting paid.
All this was the recipe for the women's movement of the '60's.
Which accomplished both good and bad, which is what all human movements throughout history accomplished, because mankind cannot do anything fully good. Just as the Reformation corrected important errors in Church theology but also sparked divisions, wars, and enmity within the Body, the women's movement corrected unfair wages and social inequalities, but at the cost of the family structure.
As for pants being "cross-dressing" I'm sorry, but that seems to be the same as saying that Jesus was a cross dresser because He wore a long dress, just like women did. The answer, of course, is that the robes for men were very different than the robes for women, just as pants for women are quite different than pants for men. A woman cannot wear men's pants. They don't fit right, they simply don't.
Now, back to a Biblical study on this issue:
As for women being equal to men, the Bible does tells us that we are equal. We do have different roles than men, yes, but we are all equal in Christ. Nor are women to be considered "inferior". If you want to say that women are to be considered inferior to men, you had best supply the Biblical texts that you are drawing that conclusion from so that we can study them together. Jesus never once treated any woman as inferior.
The "helper" that God gave man is man's equal, but she does have differing roles. Her first and foremost role though, is to help her husband to meet all of his responsibilities. She also holds the role as child-bearer and keeper of the home. That is, if she is a wife and of childbearing years.
We know though from both life and from Scriptures that not all women are married, have children or are keepers of a home. Lydia, for example, was a business woman and she was also the first Christian convert in Europe and the first Christian church in Europe met in her home. (Acts 16:14)
We are not given much information of Phoebe's home life, but we can safely assume she most likely didn't have young children, or else Paul would not have sent her to Rome and tell the church there to "receive her in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you". (Romans 16:1-2)
In order to sort out the differences in the roles of men and women within the church, it really is important to look at all of the Scriptures which deal with the subject of women in the church. In addition to Lydia and Phoebe, we have Priscilla, who, with her husband Aquila, were fellow workers with Paul. Notice this from Romans 16:3-5 "Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow-workers in Christ Jesus, who for my life risked their own necks, to whom not only do I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles; also greet the church that is in their house."
Notice that Paul included Priscilla equally in his greeting: "Greet Priscilla and Aquila", "my fellow-workers", "risked their necks" "greet the church that is in their home".
1 Timothy 2:12 is the verse that is most often referred to supporting the idea that no woman is to ever teach any man, ever. But, Paul was the writer of those words. And, Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, also was the one who wrote to the Romans to greet Priscilla, whom we know from Acts 18:24-26 taught Apollos "the way of God more accurately".
So many people write Paul off as a male chauvinist. Yet, when I carefully read what Paul has to say of the women of the churches that he worked with first hand, I find he is a man who had the utmost respect for women and valued the input of the women in the ministry.
I've asked several times now, for someone to explain why we need apply 1 Timothy 2:11-15 to all women everywhere and not to wives and their dealings with their husbands, especially in light of verse 15. Still waiting for someone to thresh that out.
I've read through the Scriptures now for well over 30 years and I've yet to see where God has assigned women to be less than equal to men, or that we are to be considered inferior. I do see though, especially in the role of wife, that the woman had the role of helper who submits, (not servant who obeys).
Pants became common women's attire in the late 1930's and '40's when Rosie the Riveter went to work. Shorter skirts also become much more poplar then. The reason was that long skirts just weren't practical for the kind of work being done in the factories that men left empty to fight in the war.
I don't think we can underestimate the impact of WW2 on feminism. The guys left to fight in the war and the women, helpmeets, went out into the business world and picked up the slack.
Then the guys came home and the women went back to the home to have babies and keep house. After having been out in the "man's" world, housework, never all that exciting in the first place, was exposed as the excruciating boredom that it is. Then technological advances in appliances such as the washer and dryer, the dishwasher, the modern stove and oven and the microwave oven during the '50's, made the work that took the longest to complete was made far easier. The result, by the '60's, women began to wonder just what the heck they were on this earth for. Their time was loosened up enough that they started looking outside the home for work. As the automobile had by that time became so plentiful and inexpensive that most households could afford two, it was easy to enter the job market.
Looking back to the fact that they did the jobs of men and did them just as good as the men, and that many women in the work sector didn't get paid as much as the men did for the same job at the same quality, it quickly became intolerable that women faced discrimination in being hired and getting paid.
All this was the recipe for the women's movement of the '60's.
Which accomplished both good and bad, which is what all human movements throughout history accomplished, because mankind cannot do anything fully good. Just as the Reformation corrected important errors in Church theology but also sparked divisions, wars, and enmity within the Body, the women's movement corrected unfair wages and social inequalities, but at the cost of the family structure.
As for pants being "cross-dressing" I'm sorry, but that seems to be the same as saying that Jesus was a cross dresser because He wore a long dress, just like women did. The answer, of course, is that the robes for men were very different than the robes for women, just as pants for women are quite different than pants for men. A woman cannot wear men's pants. They don't fit right, they simply don't.
Now, back to a Biblical study on this issue:
As for women being equal to men, the Bible does tells us that we are equal. We do have different roles than men, yes, but we are all equal in Christ. Nor are women to be considered "inferior". If you want to say that women are to be considered inferior to men, you had best supply the Biblical texts that you are drawing that conclusion from so that we can study them together. Jesus never once treated any woman as inferior.
The "helper" that God gave man is man's equal, but she does have differing roles. Her first and foremost role though, is to help her husband to meet all of his responsibilities. She also holds the role as child-bearer and keeper of the home. That is, if she is a wife and of childbearing years.
We know though from both life and from Scriptures that not all women are married, have children or are keepers of a home. Lydia, for example, was a business woman and she was also the first Christian convert in Europe and the first Christian church in Europe met in her home. (Acts 16:14)
We are not given much information of Phoebe's home life, but we can safely assume she most likely didn't have young children, or else Paul would not have sent her to Rome and tell the church there to "receive her in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you". (Romans 16:1-2)
In order to sort out the differences in the roles of men and women within the church, it really is important to look at all of the Scriptures which deal with the subject of women in the church. In addition to Lydia and Phoebe, we have Priscilla, who, with her husband Aquila, were fellow workers with Paul. Notice this from Romans 16:3-5 "Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow-workers in Christ Jesus, who for my life risked their own necks, to whom not only do I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles; also greet the church that is in their house."
Notice that Paul included Priscilla equally in his greeting: "Greet Priscilla and Aquila", "my fellow-workers", "risked their necks" "greet the church that is in their home".
1 Timothy 2:12 is the verse that is most often referred to supporting the idea that no woman is to ever teach any man, ever. But, Paul was the writer of those words. And, Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, also was the one who wrote to the Romans to greet Priscilla, whom we know from Acts 18:24-26 taught Apollos "the way of God more accurately".
So many people write Paul off as a male chauvinist. Yet, when I carefully read what Paul has to say of the women of the churches that he worked with first hand, I find he is a man who had the utmost respect for women and valued the input of the women in the ministry.
I've asked several times now, for someone to explain why we need apply 1 Timothy 2:11-15 to all women everywhere and not to wives and their dealings with their husbands, especially in light of verse 15. Still waiting for someone to thresh that out.
I've read through the Scriptures now for well over 30 years and I've yet to see where God has assigned women to be less than equal to men, or that we are to be considered inferior. I do see though, especially in the role of wife, that the woman had the role of helper who submits, (not servant who obeys).
jasoncran
Member
dora let me ask you this?
based on anotomical realities and also biblical points given.
should women do hard laborous jobs? do keep in mind that women have less muscle mass. weaker bone structure and less volume of blood and cant grow body mass as quickly as men without taking steriods and shutting down the estrogen producing organs like the ovaries.
and women do get injurious from that type of heavy labor, my wife is one of those.
based on anotomical realities and also biblical points given.
should women do hard laborous jobs? do keep in mind that women have less muscle mass. weaker bone structure and less volume of blood and cant grow body mass as quickly as men without taking steriods and shutting down the estrogen producing organs like the ovaries.
and women do get injurious from that type of heavy labor, my wife is one of those.
Thank you, not only for your observation but also for teaching well the word. This ability and your willingness to share and speak IS NOT against the word of God in any way, shape or form.
I'd like to point my fat old finger at something here (don't worry, Handy - it's not you).Genesis 3:6 KJV said:
It almost sounds like the Word of God is talking about "the woman" here and certainly at first glance it does seem like it. But wait. Take notice of something. Two words: "with her," as in, "... and gave also unto her husband with her"...
Notice that Adam was with her. Now, go back and read again. Why was Adam silent? The conclusion that you have drawn, "it was Adam's responsibility to correctly teach Eve God's commandment, and he blew it. He either didn't teach her correctly or didn't correct her misunderstanding. The result...the Fall," is more gracious than the one that I come to.
There is no escape from the fact that He was there, the man made from dirt heard what she said, he knew. Can knowledge save us? Would the fruit of that tree give him what he desired? When presented with the choice, the man, Adam, kept his mouth shut and then willfully disobeyed God. Now we all know what he did after, when the Lord asked, "Who told you that you were nakee?"
The WOMAN that YOU gave me... (shudder) She did bid me eat...
Finger pointing. And now, here I am, finger pointed. Silence is what slew her, his silence. Seems to me that the serpent was even more subtle than he is given credit for and that he targeted Adam while persuading Eve. God then chose to give the Promise (and His only begotten Son) to us through the seed of the Woman.
Men and Women now need to come to the true unity of the faith, to be bold to declare the truth and set aside fear. Is this not what our head says to all his followers? That we should love each other, submit to each other, refuse to consider any wrong suffered, remember how the longsuffering of God toward us is counted as our very salvation - and to bear long with each other, upbraiding cautiously, and only when needed?
I can talk the talk, the Holy Spirit empowers me to so ...
Am learning to walk the walk
Heaven help me. (( YOU TOO ))
This may be considered a little wide of field (by some) but I'd also like to point to something that I consider the prime cause of a great gaping wound in our society. Somewhere along the line, was it the depression era? Was it the hardship encountered during the world wars? But somewhere we have lost our focus.
We hear about "dysfunctional families" and such things. The question that should be raised is, "What is the function?" Can we agree that a primary function of any family would be to raise healthy children? How did we (men and women) get so divided? The man is now the 'provider' and 'bread-winner' where the woman is tasked with the childbearing and nurturing. She's the home-maker. He's the one who goes out and does the "real work".
Huh?
STOP! Think about what was spoken by the Holy Spirit through the Prophet, Malachi, "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." * And then silence. Silence until the time was right and the our Savior was born.
Let's break the "bread-winner" and "nurturing" roles some, shall we? We know that Jesus is the head of the church. We are the body. We are supposedly working together toward the unity of the faith. If that (the child-rearing process) was solely left to the woman then in our analogy we would be cutting Jesus out of the equation. Who here thinks that will work?
Can we know that John the Baptist was said (to those who could hear it) to be "Elijah" - the friend of the bridegroom, who is sent before his coming? Then can we also know that there will again come Elijah - but this time he will not cry out, "Make straight the paths," but "Turn your hearts, MAN - unto the Children..."
Let us renew our vows then, one to the other. Let our common goal and purpose be to fulfill the will of our Father, the One who desires the fruit of the earth. We are HIS! Both and each of us.
I'm male. Can a woman lead me? Can she shepherd me? Can she look over me and help me? Can she teach me? A godly wife, who can find? but then, when found? How can she help but not so do and this is very, very welcomed. Is it not simply love? Can two walk together unless they are agreed? Let us agree to run after God and to consider His ways in all our doings. Then this "argument" is silly, isn't it? There is no gender in heaven.
In much the same way, if any men were to fully and wholemindedly walk with the Lord... if they loved justice and mercy and delighted in the truth? If y (we) were to walk steadfastly in the Love unto which we were called and turn our hearts, our very hearts unto the children, who are also God's - what God Fearing woman would fail to respond to the delight she would find in the very sight of it? Nature itself has been made so that our Joy is complete as we continue. It is the romance story of the ages, is it not? The Love of God, found in man, joined together with the Gift producing what both their hearts need.... Sound irresistible to me.
*Malachi 4:5-6 KJV
We hear about "dysfunctional families" and such things. The question that should be raised is, "What is the function?" Can we agree that a primary function of any family would be to raise healthy children? How did we (men and women) get so divided? The man is now the 'provider' and 'bread-winner' where the woman is tasked with the childbearing and nurturing. She's the home-maker. He's the one who goes out and does the "real work".
Huh?
STOP! Think about what was spoken by the Holy Spirit through the Prophet, Malachi, "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." * And then silence. Silence until the time was right and the our Savior was born.
Let's break the "bread-winner" and "nurturing" roles some, shall we? We know that Jesus is the head of the church. We are the body. We are supposedly working together toward the unity of the faith. If that (the child-rearing process) was solely left to the woman then in our analogy we would be cutting Jesus out of the equation. Who here thinks that will work?
Can we know that John the Baptist was said (to those who could hear it) to be "Elijah" - the friend of the bridegroom, who is sent before his coming? Then can we also know that there will again come Elijah - but this time he will not cry out, "Make straight the paths," but "Turn your hearts, MAN - unto the Children..."
Let us renew our vows then, one to the other. Let our common goal and purpose be to fulfill the will of our Father, the One who desires the fruit of the earth. We are HIS! Both and each of us.
I'm male. Can a woman lead me? Can she shepherd me? Can she look over me and help me? Can she teach me? A godly wife, who can find? but then, when found? How can she help but not so do and this is very, very welcomed. Is it not simply love? Can two walk together unless they are agreed? Let us agree to run after God and to consider His ways in all our doings. Then this "argument" is silly, isn't it? There is no gender in heaven.
In much the same way, if any men were to fully and wholemindedly walk with the Lord... if they loved justice and mercy and delighted in the truth? If y (we) were to walk steadfastly in the Love unto which we were called and turn our hearts, our very hearts unto the children, who are also God's - what God Fearing woman would fail to respond to the delight she would find in the very sight of it? Nature itself has been made so that our Joy is complete as we continue. It is the romance story of the ages, is it not? The Love of God, found in man, joined together with the Gift producing what both their hearts need.... Sound irresistible to me.
*Malachi 4:5-6 KJV
Last edited by a moderator:
Bazz1040
Member
A woman can be but I believe that it is more appropriate for a man to be a pastor, because God intended men to be the leaders. Jesus chose 12 main men to His disciples even though there were women that followed and supported Jesus' ministry.<O
</O
Lewis
Member
God uses who ever He wants, and He does in the form of men and women. I have women ministers in my church, you can see some of them when you click on my signature. Now I have seen some women preach and you knew that they were called by God to preach the Gospel. Now it is clear that in the OT there were women who lead men, and ordained to do so by God. And you had some women in the NT that had some leadership positions, like Pricilla, who's name was mentioned first before her husbands name. Also women were the first one to see the rise of Jesus, and were the first ones to tell that Gospel. Now how about that. Why didn't God pick a man to do that, but guess what God chose women to be the first ones to see the rise of Christ and they were the first ones to talk to Him after He rose.
Bazz1040
Member
In rare situation when women lead men it was because the man or the men failed to stand up and be men.....they refuse to take the lead or their where no man to take the leadership position.....only spiritually, morally and psychologically weak men are lead by women. Someone must lead so if the men will not God will use a women to lead.
Last edited by a moderator:
But these “laws” were not found in the Bible, but were often generally understood traditions of men at the time of Christ.
The Word of God elevates women (contrary to the view of their time) to a place where she is rightly partnered with man and considered by God as "One with Him".
This is the essence of the mysterion (the mystery) -- and this is yet another notion that we in Western Civilization differ on. Their way of presenting a "mystery" was "Look, what has been hidden and is NOW revealed." Not just the simple "I wonder what this means." When Paul spoke of the mystery in Christ - he revealed it. This subject is worthy of a bible study in itself, but suffice it to say that given so many years, it is sad we have yet to hear the truth about gender.
Just one more thing, is passing - there was once given to me some excellent advice. When next you have a real problem and want to go to the Lord about it --take it to the grandmothers in your church. Take it to the women who have stood well in multiple generations and have sought the Lord for the things of their heart --> get them to praying for ya. (And listen to them.) Works for me.
Last edited by a moderator:
jasoncran
Member
bazz. i learned that any person who can carry a child to term isnt weak.
my mom was in labor for 12 hrs with me, and my wife with her oldest 24 hrs.
i wont ever assume that a women is weak.
they have different strenghts and we are complimented by them, and vice versa.
Bazz1040
Member
I never said anything about women being weak. I said that men that are lead by women are weak. They are weak because they have abandoned their God given responsibility to lead. God’s world tell us that man is the head of the woman, so if a man is being lead by a women it is like a person’s head acting like it is a body and wanting the body to become the head…..it is un-natural to God.
<O
</O1 Corinthians 11:3 (ASV)
<SUP>3 </SUP>But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. <O
</O
Last edited by a moderator:
Bazz1040
Member
jasoncran
Member
I never said anything about women being weak. I said that men that are lead by women are weak. They are weak because they have abandoned their God given responsibility to lead. God’s world tell us that man is the head of the woman, so if a man is being lead by a women it is like a person’s head acting like it is a body and wanting the body to become the head…..it is un-natural to God.
<O
1 Corinthians 11:3 (ASV)
<SUP>3 </SUP>But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. <O
so let me ask this. when a woman calls you out to repent are you going to listen? or not? as that is a form of submission or when the woman prophetess works in that calling or gifts or the gift of interpretion or teaches.
when you are listening to a woman talk abou the lord she is teaching the bible or a testimony that is submission.
Bazz1040
Member
Repent of what?<O
</OI only have leader and that person is Jesus. Because I listen to someone does not mean that I am going to do or believe whatever it is that they are saying, man or woman.....I don't blindly believe whatever someone says just because they teach something, or say they are speaking God's words.
I notice that you did not address the scripture that I post though.
jasoncran
Member
Repent of what?<O
I only have leader and that person is Jesus. Because I listen to someone does not mean that I am going to do or believe whatever it is that they are saying, man or woman.....I don't blindly believe whatever someone says just because they teach something, or say they are speaking God's words.
I notice that you did not address the scripture that I post though.
that is for marriage only. if not then why would paul say that the church should listen to and DO whatever chloe says . that implies a submission and that doenst have a time limit as for that job, she was sent to do something for the lord and that she was the person in charge of that directive given by paul.
and if you want to say that the church is the same as marriage as in male to women authority then see handy case.
so a single woman can have kids? if first timothy 2:5 is that verse for the male only gender for pastors?
Bazz1040
Member
That is what you say but that is not what it says though. It said nothing about marriage. Marriage was never the subject.<O
</OIt would be nice if you had post the scripture; in that way I would see if you are being truthful or twisting the scripture. I would like to examine the scripture and in what context it was said. Like I said I don't believe whatever someone says just because they are a Christian or believe they are.
jasoncran
Member
that verse from corinthians taken in context says that that the women is the glory of men and the man has the headship but is under christ.
that being said taken that verse to its proper exegisis. would we also assume that women shouldnt have jobs that put them in authority over men in the workplace? as there no seperation of secular and sacred.
that being said taken that verse to its proper exegisis. would we also assume that women shouldnt have jobs that put them in authority over men in the workplace? as there no seperation of secular and sacred.