naomi3

Genisis 3:6 She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. verse 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened. This shows that they were together because their eyes were opened at the same time.

I think it is funny when men talk of this like Eve started this whole thing. If you really look at it God told Adam about the tree and it was Adam's responsibilty to share this with Eve. It is obvious that he did not comunicate this corectly because when Eve was tempted she said 'we can not touch the tree'. God never said you can't touch it. So she was the one who was attacked because she did not receive the complete truth of the Word from Adam so which made her more able to be deceived. Many people bring this verse up like Eve is week because she was deceived but it was Adam's responsiblity to make sure she wasn't and he didn't. He was even standing right there while she was being tempted and never corrected the serpent himself which shows he was being deceived as well. I just think it is funny that many men are not willing to look at these verses as there are and they like to just quote them and say look what women do that is wrong. But the first problem was Adam not clearly giving the command to his wife. Sorry, know that was a little off subject but it gets tiring to see so many woman bashing verses when it really is both parties that are as guilty. I actually see this that Adam was the first to not take care of his responsibility. JMO.

Can I just say control and authority are two diferent things. No one should ever control.

The Word is still being confirmed because the Word has not been completed yet. Meaning Revelations has not occured yet. We still have the Word and rely on the Word because we have not been taken up yet.

Hey naomi3, In regards to your above comment I am not to sure as to what you mean. Are you saying that this "time" is when Christ comes again and therefore bieng the end of times. If this is what you mean it does not fit in with the context of the chapter. 13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. This vs point out that it cant be the end of time or when Christ comes again because when these things happen we will not need hope or faith. Good point though. Hey johnP, Your argument is very similar to naomi3. (great minds think alike, HAHA!) You are saying that the perfect is use at the end of times. Again it does not fit the context. (correct me if I am wrong with anyone

My husband and I have been on staff at a church before so I also see this from a different perspective. We had someone come to our church. We personally at our home had received a phone call from another pastor about someone. We had been in prayer for weeks before this pastor called because something had changed in our church and we didn't know what. There was definitaly something going on in the spirit that we could not see that we were interceding about and asking the Holy Spirit to show us what was going on. Well this pastor had been following this lady who left his church. She was an actual witch. She would go to churches and try to get into leadership to be of influece in the church. This person had a history of working her way into leadership. She would get in leadership all of the sudden people would commit suicide. Suicide followed this lady every where. Now in bringing that up I know this is pointing out an extreame. And please know I am not saying you are a witch at all. In our church we asked the lady about this and she admitted that death seems to follow her everywhere she goes. And she is the one who stopped coming and it wasn't we asked her not to come. But it is a HUGE responsibility for a senior pastor to protect his flock. And you could honestly be inocent. So what I suggest is go to the source. Too many times we leave a church offended and not dealing with the issues at hand. Go to them with every intension to work this out in peace. I don't know what is being said but the Word says this: Matt. 5:23-24 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the alter, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. When you explained your story you said gossip started and you left. You never mentioned confronting this issue. Now every church (altar) you have attended since then you being reminded of this. The scripture doesn't say if you have offended someone it says if they have offense with you then you go to them. So I would go back in hopes to be reconciled with your brother. And I don't mean go back to church there although if it works that way then praise God! But set up an appointment with the pastor during the week. Try to be reconciled to your brother. If it doesn't work out then you can stand up straight and know you have done exactly what the Word of God has told you to do.

You are right. I guess I just felt attacked. Feeling and being are two diferent things. Please forgive my accusation. Naomi :hug:

First off, many scholars do not, only a few do. Many sue to however the writing style is extremely similar to Paul. So much so that many scholars believe that the Book of Hebrews might have been one of Paul's earlier works before he began writing other epistles. This also matches up logically in that Paul's ministry first started to the Jews and then moved onto the Gentiles. Almost all of his epistles are written to Gentiles, yet Romans is the only one written to the Jews. Thus, many scholars believe it is Paul. The reason he would not have assigned his name to it is due to the fact that early on he was a hunted man by the Christians and Christians would avoid him. Early Hebrew Christians would have been fearful that they recieved a letter from the infamous Saul. Again, just theory, but there is nothing to indicate that Priscila wrote the book of Hebrews. Likewise, the refrence to Timothy and the tone of fellowship also point to Paul as the author. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest Priscila wrote Hebrews, it's nothing more than a though made out of a vivid imagination. Hebrews, according to the evidence and lingquistic studies, leads us to believe Paul wrote it. However, there is evidence that Peter might have written it as well, but that is off topic so I'll stop. First and foremost, name one scholar you know of that is a major proponent of this belief. Secondly, that's sexist to state that all men would write their names (as if though it were arrogant). Paul did later so everyone would recognize that the letter was written out of authority. However, as I explained earlier, Paul would have had his reasons not to ascribe his name to Hebrews. Okay, so I think I covered it. First off, for me to say that there are many scholars who believe Percilla wrote Hebrews is not wrong. Did any one even know of this before I brought it up? If not then that would make it many to them. If you recall I also said I neither believe nor disbelieve this. Only pointing out other beliefs. To bring them up is not wrong and not worthy of being attacked. And why do you defend that Paul did so harshly when you have no proof yourself, it is ALL here say. We don't know who wrote Hebrews, everyone has there opinion and it is right to say an opinion on a matter which has never been proved is wrong. Please forgive me for using the word man. I was using this word generically and did not think it would offend. If I could retype it I would type person. Please accept my appoligy. But to call me sexist is wrong. You are the one who is defending Hebrews tooth and nail when you have no proof yourself. It is easier for you to believe that a man wrote it because he is a man. I honestly love Hebrews and it would not change for me if I knew Paul or Priscilla wrote it. Blessing to you. :il:

You can do a search on the internet. Just type Percilla, author of Hebrews and it will pull up diferent sites for you. Now I never said I believe or disbelieve this. Just stating that there are many who believe it to be true and can't help but ask myself what if it where.

That doesn't make His word fallable, it would just mean those who would doubt it just because a woman wrote it would be judgemental. Then who wrote, what man wouldn't sign his name? Someone obviously didn't sign for a reason. And this isn't my conclusion it is suspect to bible scholars who have studied this topic.

I would also like to add there are MANY well know bible scholars who believe Priscilla to be the one who wrote Hebrews but never signed her name because she was a woman. If this is true.......wouldn't that make her an authority in all our lives. A teacher and pastor to us all? Just thought I would throw that out there.

Just as Deborah being a judge. It was not for woman to judge at that time but ultimately someone in authority over her saw it fit for her to be in that position. She did not place herself in that position. What about the scripture that says ALL authority is from God. How come it is easier for someone to believe that ungodly authority is still from God then recognize a woman being a supply in a church. We can accept that Bill Clinton was authority only because God allowed it but have more problems with a woman who has a heart for God. Who fears the Lord. Why would it be wrong if she has placed herself under the authority of the senior pastor?

What else do you want me to say........you have to observe and see who is ultimately in authority. The senior pastor is in authority. I never think a woman should be senior pastor but it is not right that some think just because a woman speaks from a pulpit that no one should listen or recieve. If she is not the senior pastor then you have to recognize that she is a woman under authority.

Okay let me clarify a bit. As I feel called to be a pastor and a women I have my opinions in this area. I do not feel called to be a senior pastor nor will ever want to be one because I don not want to be one who rules over men. But say I am a womens pastor and the senior pastor asks me to preach for a weekend. Is this wrong? Some would say yes but I would say no because I would have placed myself under the authority of the senior pastor. So it would not be me in authority the senior pastor is still in authority but he is allowing me to teach.

I would like to bring up another point. Does it say anywhere in scripture about a child being one who teaches in the church. Isn't a woman in authority over a child? But yet you see Jesus teaching himself in the temple. So there is no direct scripture of a child being in authority but yet you see Jesus do it himself.

One thing you have to recognize is you r trying to compare cultures. At that time women were not even permitted to sit with there husbands. This is why they were told to stay silent because the women was not allowed to direct questions to the person teaching in the temple herself. So women would yell questions to their husbands for them to ask. This would cause much disturbance so that is why it was said for the woman to stay silent. Our culture is no longer like that. The woman is now permitted to sit with her husband and it is no longer considered wrong for the woman to ask questions herself. You have to be willing to look at these scriptures and know that some of it is dealing with culture.

I have been working on hitting my one hundred posts so I can type on this subject. Yeah! I did it. Now to the subject at hand. If the men whom God had called to do this work would actually step up and do it then God wouldn't have to raise up women. There are many times in the bible where the Lord used a woman to do His work because there was not a man strong enough or brave enough or even willing to do it. JMO. I believe that the Lord is getting His word out because He is coming soon and is looking for a willing vessel.

You are right. What you are describing is called the Trinity. God, Jesus and Holy Spirit = Trinity (One) They are all 3 but they are also one. If you read in Genesis 1 God said let US create man in OUR own image. It is obvious He is speaking with someone else but he refers to them as us. Genesis 1:26

Anyway back to the subject at hand..... I believe that since the Perfect One has not returned and we are not yet perfected that ALL the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still available today.

I never said He was not both, but simply said He is SO much more and should never be limited to gender.

Yes, this is what I am talking about. He basically said that Jesus is out of the picture when He is the picture. Neuter gender should not make us think it has nothing to do with Jesus. Because He is male, female and also at the same time He is neither by being a Spirit. When you read the scripture you have to look at the full picture of who Christ is. Am I making any sense?

Like I said before I am not making this a female or male thing. I am only trying to point out in scripture that God is not just man nor just female. He is both and more. My question was how can we disqualify Jesus to being the Perfect One because he took the form of a man/male? I am simply trying to say that Jesus is not just a man. But the author of this thread said Jesus could not be considered perfect or the perfection is this scripture because the definition of this word is neuter gender. This is a direct quote from the person who started this topic,again. The word perfect comes from the Greek word teleios which means to complete, i.e. accomplish, finish, fulfil, make perfect. It is also a neuter gender word which means it is neither male nor female. This rules out Jesus being referred to here or the church as the church is female.(bride of Christ) My question is not to you but to point out that we can not say this scripture is not talking about Jesus because of His gender. I believe this scripture is talking about Jesus and His second coming. Which then we will become perfect at that time. But the Perfect One comes in order for us to be perfected. So in essence Jesus is the Perfect One that this scripture talks about. You can't just say we are or will be perfect because we can't without Him and His return. So then this points back to Him.

My point exactly. If male and female are in God then they are in Jesus. My question is this person believes Jesus not to be defined as the Perfect One because of Jesus taking on the male form. We both agree God has both male and female charcteristics. So how can we say Jesus is male only and then disqualifeis Him to be the Perfect One?