Women pastors

[OopsMartin]

It wasn't forgetting; it was ignorance, says Josh, 10: "Eve was new in the Garden of Eden." In other words, Eve was new in the garden and didn't know her way around.

I like this one. Didn't Adam have an experience with the animals and the difference between them and God? Didn't he name the serpent? Did not Eve lack the same knowledge and experience that Adam had of the difference between God and creation?

I didn't think about Adam naming the serpent. He named them according to characteristics. He would have known something about the tricky nature of it..... whatever it was like then.

How do we know that?

He named them according to their characteristics, like Lion, Tiger, etc. He didn't name them like 'leo' or 'tigger'. He learned about the animals. Adam even named the woman according to her characteristics having come from man. So he had quite the lesson in the garden. Eve didn't.

Actually the man did not name the woman until after they were kicked out of the garden. He named her Eve, the mother of all living or something like that. The designation of male and female was given by God and it was God who brought and introduced and explained who she was. You don't think God brought an it to him do you? I think the man just exulted in his first song repeating what God told him.

[firehill]

It wasn't forgetting; it was ignorance, says Josh, 10: "Eve was new in the Garden of Eden." In other words, Eve was new in the garden and didn't know her way around.

I like this one. Didn't Adam have an experience with the animals and the difference between them and God? Didn't he name the serpent? Did not Eve lack the same knowledge and experience that Adam had of the difference between God and creation?

I didn't think about Adam naming the serpent. He named them according to characteristics. He would have known something about the tricky nature of it..... whatever it was like then.

How do we know that?

He named them according to their characteristics, like Lion, Tiger, etc. He didn't name them like 'leo' or 'tigger'. He learned about the animals. Adam even named the woman according to her characteristics having come from man. So he had quite the lesson in the garden. Eve didn't.

Actually the man did not name the woman until after they were kicked out of the garden. He named her Eve, the mother of all living or something like that. The designation of male and female was given by God and it was God who brought and introduced and explained who she was. You don't think God brought an it to him do you? I think the man just exulted in his first song repeating what God told him.

Yes, I didn't mean to say that Adam 'named' her in that kind of way before the fall. And God did bring the woman to him. I'm sure God explained the operation and all... No I don't think God brought him an it. That's right, in 2:21 it says that God fromed the 'woman' from the rib so she was already designated before she was even brought to the man. The man then bursts into song upon seeing her.

[Vickilynn]

You laugh. But you cannot argue against what Paul wrote: "For the man was created first."

There was plainly a reason that the serpent chose Eve. To deny such is in contrast to the part of the verse which states that he was the most crafty of all the beasts.

Nobody is making a mockery of women, nor is it an insult to women to have the protection of the God-ordained order which He established in the creation. In creation all things are ordered and perfect. The evidence is plain just by looking at it.

Shalom Ovedya,

This is SUCH a simple but profound post based on indisputable Biblical truth. I wish more people in this thread would stop and really take a look at this. It is EXACTLY what I've been saying in other threads, but you said it more eloquently than I.

Thank you.

[firehill]

You laugh. But you cannot argue against what Paul wrote: "For the man was created first."

There was plainly a reason that the serpent chose Eve. To deny such is in contrast to the part of the verse which states that he was the most crafty of all the beasts.

Nobody is making a mockery of women, nor is it an insult to women to have the protection of the God-ordained order which He established in the creation. In creation all things are ordered and perfect. The evidence is plain just by looking at it.

Shalom Ovedya,

This is SUCH a simple but profound post based on indisputable Biblical truth. I wish more people in this thread would stop and really take a look at this. It is EXACTLY what I've been saying in other threads, but you said it more eloquently than I.

Thank you.

To be more exact, Ovedya left out Paul's connection TO Adam being created first, which is that Adam wasn't deceived and we've just been discussing why.

[Smalcald]

hi Hr,

You said:

Do you or St. Worm follow the clear commandmnet that women are to remain silent in Church? "And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." Do you follow that? Why not? Context is key. This was commanded in the same culture and context as the qualifications for pastor were given. If you hold to one, why not both? My point is that people are quite hypocritical in practice. If you are going to observe one of Paul's commandments regarding women, then observe all Paul's commandments regarding women. Do not pick and choose based on an arbitrary formula derived from the culture and logic of man. At least I am consistent. I believe Paul's supreme dictate on this subject was that there is no male or female in the Church. If you do not believe that, why do you attend a church where women are allowed to speak at all? You are in violation of the commandment of Paul. Consistency is the key. Do not pick and choose; be consistent. No women pastrors? Then women can not even speak in that Church. Why? Context is key, and both commands were given in identical context. Consistency, not convenient theology should be practiced.

The short answer is yes we follow that. It varies by congregation in our denomination, but the congregation I belong to is indeed consistent on those issues you mentioned. So on this issue we try not to pick and choose, and on others also but being human I am sure we fall short on many issues.

But I do agree with your point about consistency.

However the passage in Galatians is about salvation and our standing before God, it has nothing to do with who should be ordained and who should not be ordained and how scripture calls us to organize our churches. So I guess given your interpretation of that scripture; men can be mothers and women can be fathers, we are all the same right? The passage does not mean we don't have different roles to play.

The cultural context argument is the EXACT argument used by the gay lobby to pressure to ordain gays. Big surprise that the major denominations which began ordaining women in the 1960

[firehill]

However the passage in Galatians is about salvation and our standing before God,

No it's not. Please read carefully what Paul is saying.

[firehill]

We both must realize that Paul did say "it was a disgrace for women to speak in church."

No he didn't. It was a Jewish belief, not Paul's. Paul quoted his opponents then he refuted them.

[Scarletprayers]

However the passage in Galatians is about salvation and our standing before God,

No it's not. Please read carefully what Paul is saying.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise."

Do you see that the "if" and "then" relationship? "If" they all belong to Christ "then" they are all heirs according to the promise. Scripture never once rejected any of these groups regarding salvation if they came into the nation of Israel, but the right of "heir" never belonged to the slaves, the women or the Gentiles in practice.

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/09/ar...ust-like-males/

Oh for goodness sakes, evidently firehill and oops need to rewrite the whole Bible with a commentary, because for over 2000 years nobody has actually understood anything in it correctly. Theres also another verse in Galatians that says if anybody trys to bring you another other gospel than the one first delivered, even if it is an angel let him be eternally condemned..........................Ya'll better hope your right, cause if your not.

[Vickilynn]

Oh for goodness sakes, evidently firehill and oops need to rewrite the whole Bible with a commentary, because for over 2000 years nobody has actually understood anything in it correctly. Theres also another verse in Galatians that says if anybody trys to bring you another other gospel than the one first delivered, even if it is an angel let him be eternally condemned..........................Ya'll better hope your right, cause if your not.

Shalom SP!!

Now, don't hold back, tell us what you REALLY think!!

[firehill]

We both must realize that Paul did say "it was a disgrace for women to speak in church."

No he didn't. It was a Jewish belief, not Paul's. Paul quoted his opponents then he refuted them.

No, He plainly stated in 1 Cor 14 "34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

He did not go on to refute that. Where did he refute that statement?

Yeah, which LAW of God WOULD THAT BE?

36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

Notice previously Paul just got done saying that all may speak, and all may speak prophecy, (vv.1-33) and then he tells women not to speak? What's he gonna do? Turn around and contradict himself? Common, Paul nor the bible does that. He refutes his opponents in v. 36 and then ties in his refutation with what he was previously talking about - that all may speak and prophecy.