Should women be ordained

And my argument would still be the increase from 0 would demonstrate progress, so yes, a circle is what it would form ;).

Anyways, good discussion as always Eon and Mustard! You're a good pair of guys, even though you're wrong ;).
 
I came into this debate a little late, but I noticed that no one talked about 1 Tim 3:1-13.

It says overseers and deacons must be "Husband of one wife". He uses "He", not "She".

Nowhere does it suggest in this passage that the author thought that women should be leaders in the church.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (macarollo @ Jan. 10 2003,12:11)]...no one talked about 1 Tim 3:1-13.

It says overseers and deacons must be "Husband of one wife".  He uses "He", not "She".

Nowhere does it suggest in this passage that the author thought that women should be leaders in the church.
Click to expand...
Nice point, macarollo. This is true-"husband of one wife" would lend itself to men only.
 
But isn't that a clear case of the message being corrupted by the messenger? The Jews are, to this day, a deeply patriarchial society, it kinda makes sense that they would prevent their womanfolk from gaining any control over spirituality as well as secularity.

Eon
 
Except for teh fact that the message is not corrupted by the messenger. The Bible is God's Word...and no one else's. Yes, it was written by man, but under God himself's direction. And think, couldn't the God over all keep his own words from being corrupted?

I agree with macarollo on this one:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I came into this debate a little late, but I noticed that no one talked about 1 Tim 3:1-13.

It says overseers and deacons must be "Husband of one wife". He uses "He", not "She".

Nowhere does it suggest in this passage that the author thought that women should be leaders in the church.
Click to expand...

The Bible is very clear here that the leaders are to be men and not women. Now, I don't believe this to be insulting to women because frankly, they're better than we are. All I'm saying is that it was directed that men, and not women, should lead the church.
 
wow and here i thought this one had ended with the scripture i had stated it with hehe
biggrin.gif
 
Eon, those "different" bible versions have nothing to do with what you are talking about. Yes, they are different wordings of what the original texts said but they all still convey the same message. Unless your are dealing with liek the satanic bible or the bible with the apocropha or anything liek that, than it's still God's word.
 
Really, and here's me thinking that the word "interpretation" had little to do with spelling and whether it uses thee's and thou's...

Eon
 
The translation you use can make a difference. You'd have to be able to read Greek and Hebrew if you wanted to be able to get the most accurate interpretation.

I use the NASB version because it is supposed to be the most literal translation.

Some translations can make you think different things. Like the CEV version does not say "husband of one wife". It says "That's why officials must have a good reputation and be faithful in marriage. "

One might think from reading the CEV version that church officials can be women as long as they are faithful in marriage.

Thats why when I am studying something deep I will read the text in a few translations.
 
I haven't read all the posts but here's what I know. Women are supposed to submit to the authority. Paul saw it as vile to have a woman preaching in the church. She may participate, but she may not preach. We had this topic in school not long ago. The two who did it both think that women should not be allowed to preach the Word. That's for the men to do.
 
<shakes his head>

Man, that is SO backward. Sorry, but it's true. I hate false Political Correctness as much as the next sensible guy - but I see no compelling evidence to bar women from the church.

Pauls demand that Women subject to male authority is rooted in HIS cultural origins, and not in any divine commandment.
 
yeah, I meant to explain what marcollo was saying...there are versions out there that are not very true to what the original text said but many of them are prety close (ie King James Version, NASB, NIV is ok, and a few others).
 
Eon, it's said as plain as the light of day right there in the Bible.
 
Which is a tribal and cultural history of the ancient tribes of Israel, yes... Hence it's adoption of their Sabbath day, their rules about clean and unclean food, their strange and screwed up fears of their own women...

Need I go on?
 
Well, I do not see how it is that you will ever be convinced of what I am saying so I shall cease at it. My point has been made as had the same point by others here. I have stated the Bible is the infallible Word of God. Honestly, what you do with that information is completely up to you. I cannot force you to accept them. So while I shall pray that you will change, there is little else I can do. So I shall just agree to disagree with you on the matter. I shall believe that women cannot hold leadership positions in the church and you shall believe otherwise. That's all there is to it. Truce?
 
Look. Feminists want their way. The worst feminist is a Church Feminist. Gad that's the scariest sight ever.
Regardless, God did not make women first. Woman came second. Eve was to be helper to Adam. That was her purpose. Women today are freaky: they want control, and some even dominate the man (that's just wrong).
Paul may have been a Jew of Jews, as he termed himself, but I don't believe that his being a Pharisee made him speak about Jesus Christ. In fact, to my recollection, most of them wanted him dead. So on that basis that Paul was rooted in his heritage and cultural beliefs, Jesus Christ was not the prophesied Messiah? Paul just preached with his faith and died for him? Being a Jew and all? His culture had nothing to do with it, the same as I believe with his letters. Some parts of them dealt with Jewish rituals and traditions, such as about a chapter long discussion on the spiritual circumcision.
From several surveys taken at my school, many partakers said they would be uncomfortable underneath a female pastor. It's the male's role to take charge, to lead. As Paul stated the women are to be subject to man's authority, but most importantly, to God's authority. Why then did not God allow women to be in the Levite tribe? To my recollection, women had an impact on Israelite life: Rahab the prostitute, Esther the girl who became Queen, Deborah the Judge, Eve the Mother of All, Sarah the wife of Abraham, who bore Isaac. Women are not barred from God's Will, but in the Church, they cannot preach. I would not go to a church assembly where a woman pastored. I don't believe it's right in God's eyes. Women can teach Sunday school all they want, they can sing in the choir should they choose, they may sit in the pews and fan themselves or gossip (as many in my own church are apt to): they may not preach.
 
ultima, as much as i want to agree with you, i believe women have the right to be pastors. in my church we have some deacons and pastors who are women and they've made tremendous contributions to our community as well our congregation. none of them gossip or breeze themselves all day long. whenever i think of pastors, 2 people come to mind, pastor ted tham and pastor christine lee. why? because they serve our congregation very well with integrity regardless of their gender.

being back here on the board, it's good to see some old and new faces. thanks for the participation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top