Female Bishops?

[jasoncran]

i already knew that. that is why i mentioned that my church has them as pastors. but not has BISHOPS. a pastor isnt a bishop.a bishop is over the pastor but doesnt pastor a church. its and admin function only.

the problem is here in plain scripture that i cant get around.
one timothy 3:2

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

so lets do it you way.

a female bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife,vigilan, sober, of good behaviour,given to hospitaltiy, apt to teach.

that is a problem. that is why i said what i said. the word pastor isnt the same.

 

[Grazer]

i already knew that. that is why i mentioned that my church has them as pastors. but not has BISHOPS. a pastor isnt a bishop.a bishop is over the pastor but doesnt pastor a church. its and admin function only.

the problem is here in plain scripture that i cant get around.
one timothy 3:2


so lets do it you way.

a female bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife,vigilan, sober, of good behaviour,given to hospitaltiy, apt to teach.

that is a problem. that is why i said what i said. the word pastor isnt the same.

To me Paul is using the bishop as a man to make a point; they must not be polygamists/adulterers, sober and able to teach. You can swap gender roles and the point is the same. Paul using men as the example is not odd, its expected (you'll note in Corinthians he doesn't even mention the women when listing the appearances of Jesus to people even though they were the first ones to spread the message) but the gender really isn't the point of what Paul is trying to say.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[elijah23]

Britain is about to vote on whether to have female bishops. Whichever way it goes, it will be divisive for the Church of England.

Here is a picture of the lovely English Reverend Sally Hitchens wearing heavy make-up, jewelery and a short skirt (trust me on that last one).
I appreciate that you may not agree with having bishops anyway but how would you feel about her being a bishop? Does she and do women generally project the right image? Should women 'know their place'.

A prophetess named Deborah once judged Israel.

I have no problem with women bishops. That doesn't mean all women bishops are good, but then not all men bishops are good, right?

 

[Claudya]

To me Paul is using the bishop as a man to make a point; they must not be polygamists/adulterers, sober and able to teach. You can swap gender roles and the point is the same. Paul using men as the example is not odd, its expected (you'll note in Corinthians he doesn't even mention the women when listing the appearances of Jesus to people even though they were the first ones to spread the message) but the gender really isn't the point of what Paul is trying to say.

Let me add one thing (because the first time I said it it was deleted with the rest of the posting because we violated the LGBT restriction):
In Matthew 5: 27,28 Jesus is talking about lustfull looks at women, but does not talk about lustfull looks at men. So does that mean as a heterosexual woman I don't have to worry about looking at males in an indecent way, because Jesus doesn't mention that? Well... that would be awesome. :eyebrow
But unfortunately I don't think that's what Jesus wanted to tell us. We usually understand that command to be adressed at all people of both genders.

So if we understand Matthew 5:28 to be adressed at both genders although only one is mentioned, why not so in 1. Tim 3:2?

 

[King James]

Man-made positions like Bishops is just man or woman;) using animalistic forms of hierarchy. To add, these are splitting hairs debates. Do you really trust the churches? In the end times the churches will be blind, misleading, and corrupt. Keep your relationship with God with God. There are more important matters at hand than what masonic controlled churches do. Heck, most churches never even talk of the Bible outside of Paul's books.

 

[Claudya]

@King James: Good point. Well there's no reason to think that my church is masonic controlled or corrupt, but it is indeed a splitting hair issue and we have more important matters to take care of.

 

[jasoncran]

To me Paul is using the bishop as a man to make a point; they must not be polygamists/adulterers, sober and able to teach. You can swap gender roles and the point is the same. Paul using men as the example is not odd, its expected (you'll note in Corinthians he doesn't even mention the women when listing the appearances of Jesus to people even though they were the first ones to spread the message) but the gender really isn't the point of what Paul is trying to say.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

how he is talking about marriage?! a man of one wife. that line is the sole reason my pastor is against it.if he cant control his OWN house then he cant be one either.

 

[jasoncran]

@claudia that is because in jewry then at the time of christ the males were the ones teaching that adultery wasnt bad and women couldnt be adulterers. if you notice they didnt take the male to be judged but the woman to christ.

 

[Grazer]

how he is talking about marriage?! a man of one wife. that line is the sole reason my pastor is against it.if he cant control his OWN house then he cant be one either.

I never said Paul was talking about marriage. Your pastor is against women bishops because of 1 line in the Bible? Seriously??

 

[jasoncran]

in that context he was. he was saying the word husban of ONE of wife. a woman cant be a husband. that is the problem for you and claudia.if marriage wasnt the defined as not being a polygamist then why he have used the word husband if he felt that a woman could be a bishop?

 

[Grazer]

in that context he was. he was saying the word husban of ONE of wife. a woman cant be a husband. that is the problem for you and claudia.if marriage wasnt the defined as not being a polygamist then why he have used the word husband if he felt that a woman could be a bishop?

I think I've already covered that

 

[jasoncran]

see my problem on that. if you take that then one could argue that a woman can be the head of the house hold.

paul alludes to the creation account which it says eve was decieved., any jew then in that church knows that God told eve that thy desire shall be for thy husband and he shall RULE over you.

that is why i said what i said. males in jewish history tended to be the problem with sexual sins that is why in the tanach and brit chadash its mentioned that men are to be pure most of the time. today we have that same tendency men taking advantage of woman misleading them.

 

[Aardverk]

..... In Matthew 5: 27,28 Jesus is talking about lustfull looks at women, but does not talk about lustfull looks at men. So does that mean as a heterosexual woman I don't have to worry about looking at males in an indecent way, because Jesus doesn't mention that? ....... So if we understand Matthew 5:28 to be adressed at both genders although only one is mentioned, why not so in 1. Tim 3:2?

This seems to me to be the most logical argument so far.

Passages referring to male or female were, in all probability, simply consistent with the then current culture. Now that culture has changed (for the better) there is no obvious reason why women should not be equal in all respects. Or should we still be making suspect wives drink bitter water?

 

[farouk]

Ephesians 1 speaks of the Lord Jesus being head over all things to the church.

Unbelieving secularists don't believe this in any case.

1 Corinthians 11 refers to representative symbolism within the church in the light of the the Lord Jesus being head of the body.

Again, unbelieving secularists don't believe this in any case.

So it doesn't make sense to re-write the New Testament to accommodate those who don't believe it anyway.

 

[So4P]

I'm new to this site I joined because I was sick of seeing people bad mouthing Christians, I don't sit there all day saying rude things about atheists, I believe everyone has a right to believe what they believe regardless. In this respect I also think that yes femail ministers should be aloud. You talk about 'projecting the right image' but would it really be the right image for people looking to convert to Christianity to see us valuing men over women, saying that a woman has no place in the top of the church. In gods words we are all his children, small physical differences should make anyone better then anyone else. Also Adam was created before eve that does not mean he is more important or should have more responsibility I was born after my brothers and I have the same responsibilitys as them.

 

[jasoncran]

adam was created first arbitrily by god.the reason is that this can go anywhere if we ignore plain texts. ie jesus being the head of the church. that alludes to a marriage and well even a jewish wedding.his return is compared to(and advent)to a wedding.

 

[Nick]

I'm new to this site I joined because I was sick of seeing people bad mouthing Christians, I don't sit there all day saying rude things about atheists, I believe everyone has a right to believe what they believe regardless. In this respect I also think that yes femail ministers should be aloud. You talk about 'projecting the right image' but would it really be the right image for people looking to convert to Christianity to see us valuing men over women, saying that a woman has no place in the top of the church. In gods words we are all his children, small physical differences should make anyone better then anyone else. Also Adam was created before eve that does not mean he is more important or should have more responsibility I was born after my brothers and I have the same responsibilitys as them.

We are to be wittnesses to non-Christians. But we are not to water down the Bible to encourage people to come to church. We need to present and live out the Bible as it truly is. So the Bible offends people. Yes it does. So what. It's the truth - it's God's Word. What He says goes.

 

[Grazer]

Michael Wenham, who's name sounds familiar to me but I can't place why, has written an interesting open letter on the subject;

http://mydonkeybody.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/women-bishops-apology.html

I think he makes some great points.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[stovebolts]

I never said Paul was talking about marriage. Your pastor is against women bishops because of 1 line in the Bible? Seriously??

Did God really say that if you ate of it you would die?....

Nothing new under the sun my friend. Nothing new...

The truth is simple, yet the abberation of the truth takes many words. You can justify anything with enough words. The bible is clear on the matter in the utmost simplicity.

 

[jasoncran]

grazer ignores that my pastor and demonation allows female pastors.i will ask on how that can be.