we are testy aren’t we? Maybe you should read the Bible.
Are you not reading my posts? Where did I say that women should not preach? It is called a discussion to maybe arrive at that truth.
Unpc, if you can’t even define the word “preach” how can you make a determination whether or not a woman can “preach”?
Looks to me like you’re just repeating something Grandpaw told you a long time ago, without giving any thought about it.
“Yep, if Grandpaw said it, I believe it. End of story.”
Go back and study your Bible.
should be definition of silent, not specific.
Well, they sweat a lot. and they squeal loudly! Like, ‘Yes go ahead and blame Bush.’ ‘liberals hate….’ on and on, ad naseum (sp).
I have never wrestled with a pig. Tell us more about it. Sounds like fun.
Let me explain it again. Here is what I said:
“But going on the general definition of silence as we all know, I would say that Paul menat what he said.”
Note the word GENERAL as opposed to specific. We all know the general definition of specific as used in our language. That as opposed to a more specific definition pertaining to the original language.
Arguing with some folk is like wrestling with a pig. After a while you get the feeling the pig is enjoying it.
Do you have a burr under your saddle blanket?
Well no, I don’t know how to use one of them concordances. But I do generally know how to read a post. Can you show me where I said that we should take Paul’s writings literally?
Do you even know how to use a concordance? I’ve used one for over 12 years, so I think I know a little bit about one.
One word can have different meanings; it depends on the Hebrew or Greek word from which it was translated. So you can’t use the same definition for “preach” or “silent” for every instance of the word in the Bible. It’s a common mistake for people to make.
“And did God inspire Paul’s word’s? And is the translation of Paul’s words accurate? You know, they decided to leave out several writings when the Bible was put together.”
First you say we should take the Bible literally, that it says exactly what it says, and tell women to sit down and shut up.
Now you question the accuracy of the translation, and if it even means what it says.
Which is it?
my response to the definition of silence is the same as the response to the definition of preach. I don’t know. And I don’t think a typical concordance would anser that either. As we see, you have stated what you think it means but I doubt that is in the concordance.
But going on the general definition of silence as we all know, I would say that Paul menat what he said. If he had meant not disrupt he probably would have said that. so again, the question is do we take Paul’s words to apply today? And did God inspire Paul’s word’s? And is the translation of Paul’s words accurate? You know, they decided to leave out several writings when the Bible was put together. Did they leave anything else out or change or misinterpret anything? What I am saying is that it is not as simple as looking in a concordance.
Unpc, what is your definition of “silent”? Should women just sit in the pews like bumps on a log and not utter a sound?
Or is it ok for them to at least say “amen” once in a while?
I don’t think that’s what Paul had in mind, do you? I think it’s more along the lines of to not disrupt the service.
If you have a Strong’s concordance, you can find where the word “preach” came from. In both Hebrew and Greek, it is derived from a word meaning “to call out, or proclaim”. I think women have the right and duty to proclaim the Gospel just as much as a man does.
Now that is a real woman. I would go to her church and shout and dance and roll in the floor and say hallelujah.
I don’t really have a definition. I am no Bible scholar and do not know the original language. But I think what you said is credible. Exept for one thing – women shall be silent in church. so if we take the Bible literally and that is the correct translation then I suppose it would be okay for them to preach but not in church. Unless they used sign language.
I think it comes down to your perceived definition of “preach”.
If by “preach” you mean pastor a church, then I agree, women shouldn’t pastor.
Our Bible tells us that one who desires to be a bishop (pastor) is to be the husband of one wife, and I don’t think a woman can be the husband of one wife.
If you define “preach” as merely carrying the Word of God, then, yes, I believe women can, and do, preach. Kids can preach. Anyone who God deems fit to carry His word can preach.
You can call it “giving a message”, you can call it “speaking”, or “preaching”, it’s pretty much all the same. Carrying and announcing the Word of God.
So, unpc, what is YOUR definiton of “preach”?
I sneaked back to look on the inernet while my wife is taking a shower :)
A premise doesn’t lead to a fact.
You (or I) don’t “know” anything about the inerrancy of the bible. You raised the issue, not me.
Like I said, I believe that Christ is the Son of God. I also believe You are the Son of God. I just don’t limit God to one gender, race, or religion. That is my belief, and I think that it is logical and leads to a rational conclusion.
It works for me.
If you say that the Bible is not inerrant, you cannot logically usethe quotes of Christ in your argument. If the Bible is not inerrant how do you know those quotes are accurate?
Well, I don’t think the Bible says that gays can’t preach. I think it does say that those who practice homosexual behavior are going to hell. So you might argue that a gay could preach, on his way to hell. And a straight women cannot preach, though she is on her way to Heaven. But I am not sure that makes sense.
As to limiting scripture to what Christ said, you are doing just that, limiting scripture. You may as well just use Christ’s quotes. I would make for a much shorter Bible.
I think the respector of person thing may deal with the fact that we are all sinners and none better than others in that sense. But that does not mean that people are equal and it does not mean that all are equally qualified for various positions. I think the Bible also bears that out.
But again, to dismiss the stated qualifications of a preacher/pastor you have to say that all of the Bible is not correct because Paul gave those qualifications in on uncertain terms. If you base your argument on that then the discussion must turn to – is the Bible inerrent?
“…or that the Bible was not completely inspred by God,….”
A strong case can be made for that.
I attend a mainline Christian denomination church and we regularly have ministers who are female. And black. And, err, no gays yet.
I am not a Bible scholar, but I would like to see any passage of scripture where Christ said you had to be male to minister. Quite the contrary, in fact.
I believe Christ is the Son of God, but I also believe you are the Son of God. I just cannot limit God to dealing with a certain race, sex, or religion. Otherwise, to me, he would not be God. Then he would be a respecter of persons. The King James Version of the Holy Bible says he is not.
no need to get your pants all twisted up. I know your wife is sitting there telling you what to type but that is your fault not mine.
As to being afraid of women, just watch the Dog Whisperer and you will learn that domination is not based on fear but it is based on the dominee being weak. That is why some men dominate women, because the women are weak and invite it. That does not make it right but it is a fact. It is instinct brought down from when we were animals. Some men have not evolved to the point where they can keep their instincts in check. You will notice that not many of these dominating men try to dominate a 250 pound linebacker. No, they dominate someone who is weak. And bty, the same applies to the so called fear of gays. Gays are seen to be weaker so men tend to have a dominate or attack mode toward them. Now, if a straight man encountered a 250 pound gay linebacker he would probably really be afraid of him. But he would not bash him. He would say gay is great, especially if he sacked the quarter back several times.
So, with the fear thing out of the way, let’s get back to the Bible. I am not an expert but I have read several passages that say women should not preach. I have yet to find one that said clearly that they could. The Bible is pretty straight forward on that. You have a few verses that you could possibly say support women preacers vs several verses that are explicitly against women preaching.
So as I said earlier, in order to suport your claim you would have to make a case that parts of the Bible were meant only for that time and circumstance, or that the Bible was not completely inspred by God, or that some verses were changed due to various reasons. In other words, was Paul God’s spokesman and was his words accurately recorded and were they meant to apply today?
As I think I have said before, I have no strong opinion on this one way or the other. I am just questioning your argument.