toldailytopic: Women Pastors. Good idea, bad idea?

[Ktoyou]

My main pt was that women were the deceived ones, man was not... Does that mean i think men are better than women? No... but myabe in some ways you could say that.. but whatever...

Whatever is the question; Eve being deceived by the most powerful force, under God, Adam being convinced by Eve, a person. No matter how big you write, you are still wrong. :loser:

 

[Krsto]

. . . not surprising . . . but I'm not exactly the best source for textural criticism . . . so . . . I suggest you get (and read) the book.

Read the book.

Paul semi-attacks a heresy that hasn't even occurred yet . . . Gnosticism (perhaps he was being proactive).

Pastoral epistles The three pastoral epistles are books of the canonical New Testament: the First Epistle to Timothy (1 Timothy) the Second Epistle to Timothy (2 Timothy), and the Epistle to Titus. They are presented as letters from Paul of Tarsus to Timothy and to Titus. They are generally discussed as a group (sometimes with the addition of the Epistle to Philemon) and are given the title pastoral not because they are uniquely caring or addressing personal needs, but because they are addressed to individuals with pastoral oversight of churches and discuss issues of Christian living, doctrine and leadership.​

The reasons I listed aren't necessarily the "best" reason but you'd gain better insight if read the book . . . I'm rather busy and have better thing to do than bat the shuttle with you.

Right - lot's of time to wrangle on TOL, but not enough to support your assertions. Okeedokee then.

Your underlined above mentions "pastoral oversight" which you seem to equate with a heirarchy which must have been added later by a forgeror - I would agree that anyone setting up a heirarchy, like Clement and Ignatius did (immediate successors to the apostles), would be suspect, I don't think the blame can be put on the pastoral letters as they support ministry as "leading and serving" when the words are properly translated more than "ruling and expecting obediance" as the esteemed panel of KJP translators preferred.

 

[Krsto]

Whatever is the question; Eve being deceived by the most powerful force, under God, Adam being convinced by Eve, a person. No matter how big you write, you are still wrong. :loser:

Seems to be Paul's argument though.

 

[serpentdove]

(1 Timothy 2:12) seems to be the only verse you throw out there...

There's more.

See:

"What does the Bible say about the role of senior pastor?"

Equal value. Different roles.

"...From the very beginning, women fulfilled a vital role in the Christian church (Acts 1:12–14; 9:36–42; 16:13–15; 17:1–4, 10–12; 18:1–2, 18, 24–28; Rom. 16; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 1:5; 4:19), but not one of leadership. The apostles were all men; the chief missionary activity was done by men; the writing of the New Testament was the work of men; and leadership in the churches was entrusted to men. Although the Apostle Paul respected women and worked side by side with them for the furtherance of the gospel (Rom. 16; Phil. 4:3), he appointed no female elders or pastors. In his letters, he urged that men were to be the leaders..." Full text: The Role of Women Grace Community

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence [1 Tim. 2:11–12].

"These verses have to do with the learning and teaching of doctrine. Keep in mind that the women led in the mystery religions of Paul’s day, and they were sex orgies. Paul is cautioning women not to speak publicly with the idea of making an appeal on the basis of sex..."
McGee, J. Vernon: Thru the Bible Commentary. electronic ed. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1981, S. 5:440

 

[Silent Hunter]

Right - lot's of time to wrangle on TOL, but not enough to support your assertions. Okeedokee then.

READ the book . . . the "support" can be found there.

Your underlined above mentions "pastoral oversight" which you seem to equate with a heirarchy which must have been added later by a forgeror . . .

. . . the WHOLE THING is a forgery . . . though other books do have latter additions and subtractions (Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11 are two well-known examples).

. . . - I would agree that anyone setting up a heirarchy, like Clement and Ignatius did (immediate successors to the apostles), would be suspect, I don't think the blame can be put on the pastoral letters as they support ministry as "leading and serving" when the words are properly translated more than "ruling and expecting obediance" as the esteemed panel of KJP translators preferred.

. . . "properly translated" meaning "conforming to YOUR interpretation" . . . you sound like gr . . . :loser:

 

[Psalmist]

Women pastors?

What about pastor who has died and his wife is the co-pastor, should she retain the pastorate?​

Yes, I believe she should retain the pastorate. The only man she was to submit to was her husband, and once that tie is broken by his death, there is nothing restraining her from keeping the pastoral office alone.

That's what the denomination we are members of does in that situation. The pastor's wife (widowed) holds the pastorate for the following year from the date of her husband's death, an associate/assistant pastor is selected to serve with her, preferably someone not fresh out of Bible school or seminary and who is married, the associate/assistant can be someone from the congregation, with the approval of the church board and a vote of confidence from the congregation.

Then at the end of the year, she can be retained with the approval of the church board and a vote of confidence by the congregation, if the woman pastor decides to step down, then associate/assistant assumes the role of pastor, the board and congregation can retain the associate/assistant to be the pastor, or ask the local/district leadership to help find a new pastor, and temporary associate/assistant pastor can be retained in that position.

The same applies if the pastor resigns. I was involved in that when we went through that process when I was on the church board. The pastor resigned, within a month we had a new pastor and no associate/assistant, with the approval of the new pastor and the board, followed by a vote of confidence by the congregation we had a new associate/assistant pastor, I served with the understanding that it would be for one year. The one year only clause was due to our (Mrs Psalmist and me) heavy involvement in the nursing home ministry, at the end of that year we were blessed to have young man and his wife take my place and with my blessing to be the associate/assistant pastor's position, I say my blessing, one year was enough. Nursing home ministry is where the placed us.​

 

[Samstarrett]

READ the book . . . the "support" can be found there.

. . . the WHOLE THING is a forgery . . . though other books do have latter additions and subtractions (Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11 are two well-known examples).

. . . "properly translated" meaning "conforming to YOUR interpretation" . . . you sound like gr . . . :loser:

Sorry, Hunter, but 'read the book' isn't good enough. Post your arguments or a link to where the particular arguments germane to this discussion can be read for free.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Sorry, Hunter, but 'read the book' isn't good enough.

. . . rather . . . not good enough for you . . .

Post your arguments or a link to where the particular arguments germane to this discussion can be read . . .

. . . LOL . . . tried that already . . . but you're free to search "Pastorial Epistles" , "1 & 2 Timothy" , "Bible Forgeries" at your leisure . . .

. . . for free.

. . . or a LIBRARY . . . those are free . . . or so I'm told.

either you care about the "truth" or you don't . . . makes no difference to me . . . living in ignorance is what Christians do best I've learned.

 

[Samstarrett]

. . . rather . . . not good enough for you . . .

OK...

. . . LOL . . . tried that already . . . but you're free to search "Pastorial Epistles" , "1 & 2 Timothy" , "Bible Forgeries" at your leisure . . .

When you tried it, Krsto argued against your position, and you hid behind Bart Ehrman. BTW, I know about his past inasmuch as I know he used to be a Christian, but that doesn't mean he is one now. Past≠Present, and Bart Ehrman is not a Christian. Ergo, he is not a Christian scholar.

Further, I have searched it, and will probably search it more. It's an open debate, though I'll admit the majority of scholars now hold your view. Still, truth is not determined by majority vote.

. . . or a LIBRARY . . . those are free . . . or so I'm told.

You can't count on all of us having this relatively new book in our libraries. Besides, it's pretty bad form to just say 'read the book' and leave it at that. Then we have to go flipping through the book(if we can get it) looking for what's germane to the debate so that you don't have to argue yourself. If you can't defend the point, don't advance it.

either you care about the "truth" or you don't . . . makes no difference to me . . . living in ignorance is what Christians do best I've learned.

OK then. There is absolutely no way to respond rationally to this one, so, :cheers:

 

[Krsto]

READ the book . . . the "support" can be found there.

. . . the WHOLE THING is a forgery . . . though other books do have latter additions and subtractions (Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11 are two well-known examples).

. . . "properly translated" meaning "conforming to YOUR interpretation" . . . you sound like gr . . . :loser:

You need a lesson in internet forum etiquette. Posting references to another source rather than engage in discussion is a :nono:

I prefer to flesh out the reasonings with the poster first to determine if it's something I really need to take the time to pursue to be better informed as my time is valuable. At first blush you haven't provided anything to let me know it won't be a waste of time.

Sorry you can't accomodate.

 

[Krsto]

READ the book . . . the "support" can be found there.

. . . the WHOLE THING is a forgery . . . though other books do have latter additions and subtractions (Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11 are two well-known examples).

. . . "properly translated" meaning "conforming to YOUR interpretation" . . . you sound like gr . . . :loser:

You sound like a 12 year old.

 

[Silent Hunter]

When you tried it, Krsto argued against your position, and you hid behind Bart Ehrman.

. . . LOL . . . I did not . . . that you think so is :chuckle:.

BTW, I know about his past inasmuch as I know he used to be a Christian, but that doesn't mean he is one now. Past≠Present, and Bart Ehrman is not a Christian. Ergo, he is not a Christian scholar.

. . . semantics . . . now who's hiding?

Further, I have searched it, and will probably search it more. It's an open debate, though I'll admit the majority of scholars now hold your view.

. . . practically ALL . . . minus the lunatic fringe . . .

Still, truth is not determined by majority vote.

. . . I see you're still ignorant of Christian origins.

You can't count on all of us having this relatively new book in our libraries.

. . . out just late last month . . . I got my copy last Friday.

Besides, it's pretty bad form to just say 'read the book' and leave it at that.

. . . I have neither the time, inclination, or money to pay for copyright infringement to post excerpts . . . sorry to inconvenience you. However, I did supply links to other sources.

Then we have to go flipping through the book(if we can get it) looking for what's germane . . .

. . . LOL . . . it's not that big a book (<300 pages) and well chaptered, subtitled, and indexed.

. . . to the debate . . .

. . . LOL . . . you guys are so hung up on "debate" you don't know how to discuss things any more.

. . . so that you don't have to argue yourself.

. . . been there . . . done that. If you really wanted to know anything about the subject you'd do more than complain about minor issues.

If you can't defend the point, don't advance it.

. . . if you guys don't quit breaking my irony meter . . . I'll sue.

 

[Silent Hunter]

You need a lesson in internet forum etiquette. Posting references to another source rather than engage in discussion is a :nono:

:yawn:

I prefer to flesh out the reasonings with the poster first to determine if it's something I really need to take the time to pursue to be better informed as my time is valuable. At first blush you haven't provided anything to let me know it won't be a waste of time.

. . . not a problem for me . . . stay ignorant . . . it will only make you look foolish later . . . :loser:

 

[Silent Hunter]

You sound like a 12 year old.

. . . :rotfl: . . . better than "sounding" like gr or sd.

 

[Samstarrett]

. . . LOL . . . I did not . . . that you think so is :chuckle:.

No response to this would be adequate, except to point out that your response to Krsto amounted to 'read the book'.

. . . semantics . . . now who's hiding?

Still you. There is nothing 'semantic' about distinguishing between a Christian and an apostate former Christian.

. . . practically ALL . . . minus the lunatic fringe . . .

Define lunatic fringe.

. . . I see you're still ignorant of Christian origins.

Not in the slightest. Are you by some chance referring to the Ecumenical Councils?

. . . out just late last month . . . I got my copy last Friday.

Yeah...

. . . I have neither the time, inclination, or money to pay for copyright infringement to post excerpts . . . sorry to inconvenience you. However, I did supply links to other sources.

Yet your response to Krsto when he challenged your arguments was 'read the book'.

. . . LOL . . . it's not that big a book (<300 pages) and well chaptered, subtitled, and indexed.

Granted. Still, the point stands. 'Read the book' is bad etiquette. Either engage in discussion, or don't.

. . . LOL . . . you guys are so hung up on "debate" you don't know how to discuss things any more.

Said the guy whose idea of discussion is to recommend a book.

. . . been there . . . done that. If you really wanted to know anything about the subject you'd do more than complain about minor issues.

Whatever.

. . . if you guys don't quit breaking my irony meter . . . I'll sue.

If you don't quit breaking mine, I'll put you on ignore, and go do something less stressful, such as repeatedly banging my head against the wall.

 

[Silent Hunter]

No response to this would be adequate, except to point out that your response to Krsto amounted to 'read the book'.

. . . not true and you should read more. My response wasn't limited to the single post you managed to read.

Still you.

. . . or so you assert . . . as if to do so lends it credence.

There is nothing 'semantic' about distinguishing between a Christian and an apostate former Christian.

:yawn:

Define lunatic fringe.

. . . those who hold on to any particular notion despite the mountain of evidence against.

Not in the slightest. Are you by some chance referring to the Ecumenical Councils?

. . . partially . . . Christianity exists as it does because of who (which group) "won" various doctrinal disputes . . . not because of who was "right."

Yeah...

. . . you know . . . you don't have to buy the book . . . just go to B&N and read excerpts there . . . like I often do (but don't tell anyone).

Yet your response to Krsto when he challenged your arguments was 'read the book'.

. . . not the only response . . . but you wouldn't know that since you only seem to have read what you thought important (that you could attack) . . . which was that I said . . . in one (or two) post(s) . . . "read the book."

Granted. Still, the point stands. 'Read the book' is bad etiquette. Either engage in discussion, or don't.

. . . I DID . . . that you think I didn't is evidence of your lack of reading ability . . . :loser:.

Said the guy whose idea of discussion is to recommend a book.

:yawn:

Whatever.

:chew:

If you don't quit breaking mine, I'll put you on ignore, and go do something less stressful, such as repeatedly banging my head against the wall.

. . . oh, please do (the fewer fundamentalists I have to deal with the better).

 

[GoingGoldenWCU]

just being honest but this sounds very presumptuous.

for one thing i never said that those were the only reasons. The primary reason women shouldn't be priests (ministers) is because Jesus did not choose any women apostles. I get sick and tired of hearing ppl say things that imply this is unequal or unfair. Men can't carry babies for 9 months in their womb (well, not when they do things God's way anyhow... geez)

and that part about men being disobedient so why should they be ministers? uh... geez... Didn't you know that Jesus (a man) was resurrected? Now both genders can be... can rise above mere human stuff... That is not to say that it is always easy to rise above... but anyway.. My main pt was that women were the deceived ones, man was not... Does that mean i think men are better than women? No... but myabe in some ways you could say that.. but whatever...

in any case it is VERY presumptuous to say that such and such woman is not easily deceived even tho some other(s) such as myself may be.. You have NO idea what goes on inside a person. People act all the time... They are one person in public and another in private... one person when w/ spouse, another when w/ someone else...

and if you are a guy, you dont know much about that thing about women virtually hating other women... I know quite a bit about that..

If you found that to be presumptuous, I apologize. That was not my intent. I was simply trying to point out that you cannot put everyone into broad categories like that.

 

[GoingGoldenWCU]

No one questions the job they do. :dizzy: Should they lead?

...feather problem.

"He loves nature in spite of what it did to him." ~ Forrest Tucker :freak:

I think the ministry is a little different. It's our souls and hearts that are called to it. Why should people tell me that my soul and heart's calling is less legitimate for this profession because it happens to reside in a female body?

 

[Krsto]

. . partially . . . Christianity exists as it does because of who (which group) "won" various doctrinal disputes . . . not because of who was "right."

I would tend to agree. The councils weren't about truth so much as they were about politics, and who would be able to use the powers of Rome to further their own grasping for authority among the people.

Having said that, truth does reside within the church, and the gift of eternal life is through Christ.

 

[Silent Hunter]

I would tend to agree. The councils weren't about truth so much as they were about politics, and who would be able to use the powers of Rome to further their own grasping for authority among the people.

. . . they certainly had a lot of influence on what was promoted as "orthodox" in the past . . . and what many Christians accept as doctrine today . . . that's for sure . . . "political" power isn't limited to "govenment."

Having said that, truth does reside within the church, and the gift of eternal life is through Christ.

. . . it's funny how you can make such an excellent observation in one blurb and totally contradict it in the next.

"Truth" (whatever that really means in relation to religion) is in the eye of who has the most influence and has the ability to "convince" (I prefer "con") the most people.