4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

No, I am saying that understanding of God has changed. As Paul describes the role of sexuality in church, he clearly states Galatians 3: for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. 27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Paul is addressing the church and clearly states - In Christ there is neither male or female for we are one Christ. In my view when God calls a person to ministry God does not look at one's sexuality and when God sees churches pulpits God does not sexuality but only that they preach the good news.

---

No, you are putting your eisegesis into the passage.

Paul is stating that ALL have access to God and his kingdom thru Jesus. Their status in life is of no concern to God. We are all children of God if we are male/female, slave/free, blue/brown eyed, redhead/brunette, etc.

You are reading into the passage.

---

Prove me wrong -- why is your interpretation or eisegesis right and my is wrong?

---

because it doesn't fit the global context of the words in the book. Much like when people take six to 10 words out of one passage in the whole book to claim they are right on a topic, this fits that scenario.

1 Corinthians 11:3

But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

Ephesians 5:22-25 speaks of the relationship between husband and wife and includes the teaching of Jesus as head of the church:

"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her."

1 Timothy 2:12 ESV

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

1 Corinthians 14:34-38ESV

34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

---

You "Paul wants me to understand everyman is the head of the household."
1 Corinthians 11:3

But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

Look the SBC and non-dom want can believe what nonsense that Paul said but it does fly for me for two reasons
1. I Corinthians 1 seen culturally as a 1st century male dominated is absolutely normal to Paul but his culture
is not our culture.
2. Women today are not going go for that culturally shaped model. Women's paradigm for how to live in this world as an equal to man is vastly and rightfully different.
Again, look if you to believe Paul's views are somehow universal for all times and places in the world then by all means believe it.
As I said, in the topic title "it's time to move into the 21st century" but the world is moving on the SBC and non-dem will a shrinking sect.
I am a United Methodist and a part of a shrinking denomination but at least we know our problems and stand by our convictions for truth, equality of the sexes and openness to all who marginalized. Who knows the UMC will survive but we will go down fighting for the righteousness of values. BUT Sbc-non-denoms find a new paradigm in Paul. He does stand for women's leadership in the churches but I Corinthians 11:3 ain't it.

Paul's nonsense...

4th and Inches said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

1 Corinthians 14:34-38ESV

34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

---

---

... most of the time when quoted, it is common to stop at 1 Corinthians 14:35 when 36 to 38 are very important too, especially in this instance.

---

Thanks for sharing, I had not seen it in that light before. Good stuff. The biting sarcasm in v36, and v37-38 to emphatically drive the point home that this is the Lord's command.

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

No, I am saying that understanding of God has changed. As Paul describes the role of sexuality in church, he clearly states Galatians 3: for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. 27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Paul is addressing the church and clearly states - In Christ there is neither male or female for we are one Christ. In my view when God calls a person to ministry God does not look at one's sexuality and when God sees churches pulpits God does not sexuality but only that they preach the good news.

---

No, you are putting your eisegesis into the passage.

Paul is stating that ALL have access to God and his kingdom thru Jesus. Their status in life is of no concern to God. We are all children of God if we are male/female, slave/free, blue/brown eyed, redhead/brunette, etc.

You are reading into the passage.

---

Prove me wrong -- why is your interpretation or eisegesis right and my is wrong?

---

because it doesn't fit the global context of the words in the book. Much like when people take six to 10 words out of one passage in the whole book to claim they are right on a topic, this fits that scenario.

1 Corinthians 11:3

But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

Ephesians 5:22-25 speaks of the relationship between husband and wife and includes the teaching of Jesus as head of the church:

"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her."

1 Timothy 2:12 ESV

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

1 Corinthians 14:34-38ESV

34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

---

You "Paul wants me to understand everyman is the head of the household."
1 Corinthians 11:3

But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

Look the SBC and non-dom want can believe what nonsense that Paul said but it does fly for me for two reasons
1. I Corinthians 1 seen culturally as a 1st century male dominated is absolutely normal to Paul but his culture
is not our culture.
2. Women today are not going go for that culturally shaped model. Women's paradigm for how to live in this world as an equal to man is vastly and rightfully different.
Again, look if you to believe Paul's views are somehow universal for all times and places in the world then by all means believe it.
As I said, in the topic title "it's time to move into the 21st century" but the world is moving on the SBC and non-dem will a shrinking sect.
I am a United Methodist and a part of a shrinking denomination but at least we know our problems and stand by our convictions for truth, equality of the sexes and openness to all who marginalized. Who knows the UMC will survive but we will go down fighting for the righteousness of values. BUT Sbc-non-denoms find a new paradigm in Paul. He does stand for women's leadership in the churches but I Corinthians 11:3 ain't it.

---

The Methodist Church was at one time a shining light to the world.

But over the past 50 years or so, your church, little "c" has turned in to a *****, one of the Daughters of the ***** of Babylon in Revelation. And you unfortunately are headed straight for eternal damnation, and neither the Lord nor I take any pleasure in that knowledge.

Waco1947 said:

---

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) Southern Baptists narrowly rejected a proposal Wednesday to enshrine a ban on churches with women pastors in their constitution after opponents argued it was unnecessary because the denomination already has a way of ousting such churches.
The measure received support from 61% of the delegates, but it failed to get the required two-thirds supermajority. The action reversed a preliminary vote last year in favor of the official ban.
But it still leaves the Southern Baptist Convention with its official doctrinal statement saying the office of pastor is limited to men. Even the opponents of the ban said they favored that doctrinal statement but didn't think it was necessary to reinforce it in the constitution.
Opponents noted that the SBC already can oust churches that assert women can serve as pastors as it did last year and again Tuesday night. AP

God calls whom God wants to call -- gender does not matter

---

I think it's more like the 15th, but I take your point.

The SBC is puzzled why it's declining while continually saying to people, "Go away. You're not welcome."

They couldn't manage to do anything about their sexual assault problems, but, by God, they kicked out a church with a woman with the title of "pastor."

Also, of note, they failed to mention the passing of Paul Pressler, who more than anyone else, is responsible for the shape and tone of the SBC today. Maybe it had something to do with the fact of credible reports that he molested teenage boys?

From a rotten tree comes rotten fruit.

C. Jordan said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) Southern Baptists narrowly rejected a proposal Wednesday to enshrine a ban on churches with women pastors in their constitution after opponents argued it was unnecessary because the denomination already has a way of ousting such churches.
The measure received support from 61% of the delegates, but it failed to get the required two-thirds supermajority. The action reversed a preliminary vote last year in favor of the official ban.
But it still leaves the Southern Baptist Convention with its official doctrinal statement saying the office of pastor is limited to men. Even the opponents of the ban said they favored that doctrinal statement but didn't think it was necessary to reinforce it in the constitution.
Opponents noted that the SBC already can oust churches that assert women can serve as pastors as it did last year and again Tuesday night. AP

God calls whom God wants to call -- gender does not matter

---

I think it's more like the 15th, but I take your point.

The SBC is puzzled why it's declining while continually saying to people, "Go away. You're not welcome."

They couldn't manage to do anything about their sexual assault problems, but, by God, they kicked out a church with a woman with the title of "pastor."

Also, of note, they failed to mention the passing of Paul Pressler, who more than anyone else, is responsible for the shape and tone of the SBC today. Maybe it had something to do with the fact of credible reports that he molested teenage boys?

From a rotten tree comes rotten fruit.

---

Excellent summation of the Democratic Party.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

The purported demise of the SBC by a few here is just nonsense. As the world gets more progressive, it becomes more godless and insane, and drives people with a conscience to seek sound teaching and Christian truth.

SBC church growth stalled during covid and hasn't returned to pre covid levels. Not surprising. But lots of good indicators are there, one of the most significant is a quarter million baptisms last year. The SBC will grow, as true Christians flee progressive Christianiy to find one of the last few faithful denominations that hasn't swallowed the progressive death pill.
I'll add that growth is not the goal of a healthy church, but long term it'll be the byproduct.

---

As a recovering Baptist (Presbyterian ), SBC is just nuts. I don't want to hate on anyone's religion or denomination as I don't think any of us have all the answers, but the SBC has been insane since the 80s.

Just a point of order here.

Paul uses the pronoun I when referring to who "orders/said" women are not allowed to preach.

The very first people sent/told to "preach/tell" of the risen Jesus were women.

Does the great commission only apply to the 11 apostles who directly heard it or is it a directive to all people with knowledge of the risen lord and the gospel story?

El Oso said:

---

Does the great commission only apply to the 11 apostles who directly heard it or is it a directive to all people with knowledge of the risen lord and the gospel story?

---

Everyone.

TinFoil:
UMC and progressive religions are failing because they aren't from God. You aren't God so you cannot decide. Your designation is self-righteous, prideful, and idolatry for you set yourself up as God in the judgement seat for who is of God and not of God.

Progressives have created a religion that is only about feeling good. Progressives are about the sacrificing love of Christ and His resurrection which brings us new life and inaugurates the Reign of God.

Progressives believe as James 2 believes 14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Surely that faith cannot save, can it? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill," and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
Futhurmore, I John 3: reminds us 17 How does God's love abide in anyone who has the world's goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help?

18 Little children, let us love not in word or speech but in deed and truth. 19 And by this we will know that we are from the truth and will reassure our hearts before him 20 whenever our hearts condemn us, for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 21 Beloved, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have boldness before God, 22 and we receive from him whatever we ask, because we obey his commandments and do what pleases him.
23 And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.

Progressives don't really believe in a God outside of themselves. We believe that God is both transcendent and immanent and Jesus Christ is the best example of it.

They worship secular love in whatever form that takes today.

They do not worship the one true holy God of the Bible (your pride and idolatry is showing again.) and church history. Church history though informative is not scripture.

While some progressive lay people may be an exception, those teaching and encouraging others to lead sinful lifestyles will not make it through the narrow gates. God will make that decision at the pearly gates not you.

I do not doubt your faith TinFoil but we can disagree on interpretations of our beliefs but we cannot disagree on the common ground of our unity which is love.

Waco1947 said:

---

TinFoil:
UMC and progressive religions are failing because they aren't from God. You aren't God so you cannot decide. Your designation is self-righteous, prideful, and idolatry for you set yourself up as God in the judgement seat for who is of God and not of God.

Progressives have created a religion that is only about feeling good. Progressives are about the sacrificing love of Christ and His resurrection which brings us new life and inaugurates the Reign of God.

Progressives believe as James 2 believes 14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Surely that faith cannot save, can it? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill," and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
Futhurmore, I John 3: reminds us 17 How does God's love abide in anyone who has the world's goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help?

18 Little children, let us love not in word or speech but in deed and truth. 19 And by this we will know that we are from the truth and will reassure our hearts before him 20 whenever our hearts condemn us, for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 21 Beloved, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have boldness before God, 22 and we receive from him whatever we ask, because we obey his commandments and do what pleases him.
23 And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.

Progressives don't really believe in a God outside of themselves. We believe that God is both transcendent and immanent and Jesus Christ is the best example of it.

They worship secular love in whatever form that takes today.

They do not worship the one true holy God of the Bible (your pride and idolatry is showing again.) and church history. Church history though informative is not scripture.

While some progressive lay people may be an exception, those teaching and encouraging others to lead sinful lifestyles will not make it through the narrow gates. God will make that decision at the pearly gates not you.

I do not doubt your faith TinFoil but we can disagree on interpretations of our beliefs but we cannot disagree on the common ground of our unity which is love.

---

Like the love you show your fellow man still in the womb.

Or the salvation you find in the anal canal.

Or the joy you take in enslaving generations of blacks into your concrete plantations.

Love?

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

The purported demise of the SBC by a few here is just nonsense. As the world gets more progressive, it becomes more godless and insane, and drives people with a conscience to seek sound teaching and Christian truth.

SBC church growth stalled during covid and hasn't returned to pre covid levels. Not surprising. But lots of good indicators are there, one of the most significant is a quarter million baptisms last year. The SBC will grow, as true Christians flee progressive Christianiy to find one of the last few faithful denominations that hasn't swallowed the progressive death pill.
I'll add that growth is not the goal of a healthy church, but long term it'll be the byproduct.

---

What's the SBC's methodology for determining membership of the denomination. UMC rolls are audited annually by each congregation. Do SBC churches audit their memberships. Do the grow or bloat?

El Oso said:

---

Just a point of order here.

Paul uses the pronoun I when referring to who "orders/said" women are not allowed to preach.

The very first people sent/told to "preach/tell" of the risen Jesus were women.

---

Women contributed financially to Jesus' ministry. In addition, women stuck it out the cross and did not defect as the magnificent 11

Coke Bear said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Does the great commission only apply to the 11 apostles who directly heard it or is it a directive to all people with knowledge of the risen lord and the gospel story?

---

Everyone.

---

This is what I was taught, but earlier posts by some on this thread made me wonder.

C. Jordan said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) Southern Baptists narrowly rejected a proposal Wednesday to enshrine a ban on churches with women pastors in their constitution after opponents argued it was unnecessary because the denomination already has a way of ousting such churches.
The measure received support from 61% of the delegates, but it failed to get the required two-thirds supermajority. The action reversed a preliminary vote last year in favor of the official ban.
But it still leaves the Southern Baptist Convention with its official doctrinal statement saying the office of pastor is limited to men. Even the opponents of the ban said they favored that doctrinal statement but didn't think it was necessary to reinforce it in the constitution.
Opponents noted that the SBC already can oust churches that assert women can serve as pastors as it did last year and again Tuesday night. AP

God calls whom God wants to call -- gender does not matter

---

I think it's more like the 15th, but I take your point.

The SBC is puzzled why it's declining while continually saying to people, "Go away. You're not welcome."

They couldn't manage to do anything about their sexual assault problems, but, by God, they kicked out a church with a woman with the title of "pastor."

Also, of note, they failed to mention the passing of Paul Pressler, who more than anyone else, is responsible for the shape and tone of the SBC today. Maybe it had something to do with the fact of credible reports that he molested teenage boys?

From a rotten tree comes rotten fruit.

---

Is Islam growing? What's its position on women and queers?

Waco1947 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

1 Timothy 2:11-12


New International Version



11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet.

seems pretty cut and dry

---

/cut and dried? No
Matthew 28 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

These women are the first to witness the Jesus death and the resurrection, they were by the spirit of God to share the good news.
God entrusted these who not defect Jesus like the male disciples. The women are first at the tomb in all the gospels and given the power to share the good news. God gave them the power.

---

Actually, those women were NOT the first at the tomb and the first to share the good news:

Mark 16:5-7 : "And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. And he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you."

El Oso said:

---

Just a point of order here.

Paul uses the pronoun I when referring to who "orders/said" women are not allowed to preach.

The very first people sent/told to "preach/tell" of the risen Jesus were women.

---

See 1 Corinthians 14:34-38, quoted by another poster.

J.R. said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

The purported demise of the SBC by a few here is just nonsense. As the world gets more progressive, it becomes more godless and insane, and drives people with a conscience to seek sound teaching and Christian truth.

SBC church growth stalled during covid and hasn't returned to pre covid levels. Not surprising. But lots of good indicators are there, one of the most significant is a quarter million baptisms last year. The SBC will grow, as true Christians flee progressive Christianiy to find one of the last few faithful denominations that hasn't swallowed the progressive death pill.
I'll add that growth is not the goal of a healthy church, but long term it'll be the byproduct.

---

As a recovering Baptist (Presbyterian ), SBC is just nuts. I don't want to hate on anyone's religion or denomination as I don't think any of us have all the answers, but the SBC has been insane since the 80s.

---

That's pretty funny. Sbc hasn't jumped on the progressive political religion, presbys have. You have. They're doing good works and teaching the historical Jesus and Christianity.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

1 Timothy 2:11-12


New International Version



11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet.

seems pretty cut and dry

---

/cut and dried? No
Matthew 28 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

These women are the first to witness the Jesus death and the resurrection, they were by the spirit of God to share the good news.
God entrusted these who not defect Jesus like the male disciples. The women are first at the tomb in all the gospels and given the power to share the good news. God gave them the power.

---

Actually, those women were NOT the first at the tomb and the first to share the good news:

Mark 16:5-7 : "And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. And he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you."

---

But apparently they did tell the disciples and went on to Galileo because that's where Jesus said he would meet them. The witness of the other three gospels of also in the cage that the women was the first to tell the resurrection.

Sam Lowry said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Just a point of order here.

Paul uses the pronoun I when referring to who "orders/said" women are not allowed to preach.

The very first people sent/told to "preach/tell" of the risen Jesus were women.

---

See 1 Corinthians 14:34-38, quoted by another poster.

---

Also written by Paul, and among some of his other teachings, seem to me directly contradict the stories told about Jesus and his thoughts about women in the four gospels. Remember, Paul was Saul (a Pharisee, who as a group, actively legislated against women holding positions of equity and power) long before he was Paul and I don't think some of the things he learned/believed before his conversion ever changed.

El Oso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Just a point of order here.

Paul uses the pronoun I when referring to who "orders/said" women are not allowed to preach.

The very first people sent/told to "preach/tell" of the risen Jesus were women.

---

See 1 Corinthians 14:34-38, quoted by another poster.

---

Also written by Paul, and among some of his other teachings, seem to me directly contradict the stories told about Jesus and his thoughts about women in the four gospels. Remember, Paul was Saul (a Pharisee, who as a group, actively legislated against women holding positions of equity and power) long before he was Paul and I don't think some of the things he learned/believed before his conversion ever changed.

---

So do you believe Paul's epistles are not the inspired word of God?

muddybrazos said:

---

1 Timothy 2:11-12


New International Version



11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet.

seems pretty cut and dry

---

And pretty f''n stupid.

Remind me again who wrote 2 Timothy 3:16. That would be the man in question on the women issue too. A born and highly trained Pharisee pre conversion. Someone who believed to his core he was better than us commoners and would refer to his elite knowledge of the Torah and Jewish history to prove he was right when he was indeed wrong. Remember all those disputes they got in with Jesus? As I noted earlier, I don't think all of his pre conversion thoughts disappeared at conversion. Believing women inferior to men is not a sin. It's a belief based on child rearing, education, and his career.

In modern times, many preachers have delivered a message on a Sunday they claimed came from God, and, in my opinion, missed the bigger point. The larger portions of Paul's letters deal with sin and improper behavior. These minor parts deal with leadership and deviate from Jesus leadership style that was inclusive of all genders.

I believe the same thing is happening here when it comes to church doctrine involving women.

Basically, you're saying Paul's right because he says he's right. That's a logical fallacy.

El Oso said:

---

Remind me again who wrote 2 Timothy 3:16. That would be the man in question on the women issue too. A born and highly trained Pharisee pre conversion. Someone who believed to his core he was better than us commoners and would refer to his elite knowledge of the Torah and Jewish history to prove he was right when he was indeed wrong. Remember all those disputes they got in with Jesus? As I noted earlier, I don't think all of his pre conversion thoughts disappeared at conversion. Believing women inferior to men is not a sin. It's a belief based on child rearing, education, and his career.

In modern times, many preachers have delivered a message on a Sunday they claimed came from God, and, in my opinion, missed the bigger point. The larger portions of Paul's letters deal with sin and improper behavior. These minor parts deal with leadership and deviate from Jesus leadership style that was inclusive of all genders.

I believe the same thing is happening here when it comes to church doctrine involving women.

Basically, you're saying Paul's right because he says he's right. That's a logical fallacy.

---

I think too many people are misunderstanding what is being said. The oldest Christian religion a.k.a. the Roman catholic church allows and expects women to play a significant role, but there are no women in the upper hierarchy of the church.

Influential Catholic women have included theologians, abbesses, monarchs, missionaries, martyrs, scientists, nurses, hospital administrators, educationalists, religious sisters, Doctors of the Church, and canonised saints.

Paul appears to be admonishing Timothy that (1) women should not hold authoritative office in the local church that involves apostolic and doctrinal teaching; and (2) it has absolutely nothing to do with social norms whether it might be considered appropriate or inappropriate for female to hold such an authoritative position over a congregation nor does it have to do with ability - Rather, the matter is settled because of the creation ordinance. Adam came first and therefore no woman should have authority over man.

To this day, his words are in place as part of the Catholic church. Women are a vital part of each congregation yet no woman holds the principal position of authoritative doctrinal teaching.

El Oso said:

---

Remind me again who wrote 2 Timothy 3:16. That would be the man in question on the women issue too. A born and highly trained Pharisee pre conversion. Someone who believed to his core he was better than us commoners and would refer to his elite knowledge of the Torah and Jewish history to prove he was right when he was indeed wrong. Remember all those disputes they got in with Jesus? As I noted earlier, I don't think all of his pre conversion thoughts disappeared at conversion. Believing women inferior to men is not a sin. It's a belief based on child rearing, education, and his career.

In modern times, many preachers have delivered a message on a Sunday they claimed came from God, and, in my opinion, missed the bigger point. The larger portions of Paul's letters deal with sin and improper behavior. These minor parts deal with leadership and deviate from Jesus leadership style that was inclusive of all genders.

I believe the same thing is happening here when it comes to church doctrine involving women.

Basically, you're saying Paul's right because he says he's right. That's a logical fallacy.

---

Christians don't say that Paul is right because "he says he's right". They believe he is right, because they believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God.

Which is why I asked you the question (which you danced around): do you believe Paul's words in the New Testament are the inspired word of God, or do you not?

If you wanna talk logic, then if what you're saying is true, that Paul contradicts Jesus, then there is only one logical conclusion from that: Paul is lying when he says these things are a command from the Lord (I Corinthians 14:36) and so Paul is a false apostle, and the New Testament is NOT the inspired word of God. Is this what you believe?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Remind me again who wrote 2 Timothy 3:16. That would be the man in question on the women issue too. A born and highly trained Pharisee pre conversion. Someone who believed to his core he was better than us commoners and would refer to his elite knowledge of the Torah and Jewish history to prove he was right when he was indeed wrong. Remember all those disputes they got in with Jesus? As I noted earlier, I don't think all of his pre conversion thoughts disappeared at conversion. Believing women inferior to men is not a sin. It's a belief based on child rearing, education, and his career.

In modern times, many preachers have delivered a message on a Sunday they claimed came from God, and, in my opinion, missed the bigger point. The larger portions of Paul's letters deal with sin and improper behavior. These minor parts deal with leadership and deviate from Jesus leadership style that was inclusive of all genders.

I believe the same thing is happening here when it comes to church doctrine involving women.

Basically, you're saying Paul's right because he says he's right. That's a logical fallacy.

---

Christians don't say that Paul is right because "he says he's right". They believe he is right, because they believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God.

Which is why I asked you the question (which you danced around): do you believe Paul's words in the New Testament are the inspired word of God, or do you not?

If you wanna talk logic, then if what you're saying is true, that Paul contradicts Jesus, then there is only one logical conclusion from that: Paul is lying when he says these things are a command from the Lord (I Corinthians 14:36) and so Paul is a false apostle, and the New Testament is NOT the inspired word of God. Is this what you believe?

---

I did not dance around the question. I answered it. 2 Timothy 3:16 says it's all inspired by God. But the man that wrote that was a life long Pharisee and the gospels do a pretty good job of painting the Pharisees who really do not understand the scriptures at all. I made it pretty clear I think Paul fell into this trap: I'm right because damnit, I'm smarter than you are and I know the words of God better than you do. The OT views (the first five books) of women seem pretty clear with some outlier stories in later books. Saul (before Paul) would have known these five books, plus the prophets, better than almost anybody, and as noted, women came second in these books. But Jesus regularly demonstrated to all, especially the Pharisees, how knowing what these books said and knowing what they actually meant were two very different things. Again, this is exactly what I believe happened to Paul.

And you make another logical fallacy in this post (either or). There are actually multiple conclusions one could draw from what I wrote. I draw the one that says Paul is not lying in the way you and I want lying defined. Paul deeply believes women are inferior to men and should not assume leadership roles. He's not lying. He's just wrong.

He could still be wrong even being God inspired. Some preachers do it every Sunday. Their sermon was "God inspired," but it just misses the bigger picture or is wrong. I grew up a preacher's kid. I've met a ton of preachers in my life and was privy to conversations in my parent's living room between a group of pastors (the walls in the house weren't that thick, or as long as they weren't talking about an actual church member, I could sit in the room with them if I wanted to). They all said that as they looked back on their careers, there were messages they delivered fully believing they were right they no longer feel that way about. It's just what happens sometimes in all of our lives.

I believe that's exactly what is going on with Paul and his teachings on women. His Pharisee training was still too much of who he was and he just missed the mark when we compare what he wrote to these churches to what we see about Jesus and his ministry in the four gospels when it comes to the role of women.

4th and Inches said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Remind me again who wrote 2 Timothy 3:16. That would be the man in question on the women issue too. A born and highly trained Pharisee pre conversion. Someone who believed to his core he was better than us commoners and would refer to his elite knowledge of the Torah and Jewish history to prove he was right when he was indeed wrong. Remember all those disputes they got in with Jesus? As I noted earlier, I don't think all of his pre conversion thoughts disappeared at conversion. Believing women inferior to men is not a sin. It's a belief based on child rearing, education, and his career.

In modern times, many preachers have delivered a message on a Sunday they claimed came from God, and, in my opinion, missed the bigger point. The larger portions of Paul's letters deal with sin and improper behavior. These minor parts deal with leadership and deviate from Jesus leadership style that was inclusive of all genders.

I believe the same thing is happening here when it comes to church doctrine involving women.

Basically, you're saying Paul's right because he says he's right. That's a logical fallacy.

---

I think too many people are misunderstanding what is being said. The oldest Christian religion a.k.a. the Roman catholic church allows and expects women to play a significant role, but there are no women in the upper hierarchy of the church.

Influential Catholic women have included theologians, abbesses, monarchs, missionaries, martyrs, scientists, nurses, hospital administrators, educationalists, religious sisters, Doctors of the Church, and canonised saints.

Paul appears to be admonishing Timothy that (1) women should not hold authoritative office in the local church that involves apostolic and doctrinal teaching; and (2) it has absolutely nothing to do with social norms whether it might be considered appropriate or inappropriate for female to hold such an authoritative position over a congregation nor does it have to do with ability - Rather, the matter is settled because of the creation ordinance. Adam came first and therefore no woman should have authority over man.

To this day, his words are in place as part of the Catholic church. Women are a vital part of each congregation yet no woman holds the principal position of authoritative doctrinal teaching.

---

I think the Pope, especially the current one, is one of the most incredible people in the world. In that mythical five people dinner list we all have--he's #1 on my list of five. I'd almost rather it just be him and I and I'm not catholic. I don't always like his answers, but I enjoy listening to them and thinking about them.

I'm not catholic, so I would probably grossly misrepresent things, but I do understand the Popes view that their are roles for men (priests, bishops, etc.) and roles for women (nuns). Again, not catholic but I attend catholic church far more often than a protestant one at this point in my life, but it would not bother me to see a nun give a homily. I might be one of a few present who would not have an immediate heart attack.

I've also noticed that at some catholic churches, I see women read from the Bible from the stage during the mass and others, I still haven't seen a woman on the stage. Same for communion too (like on Easter Sunday) when attendance is overflowing and multiple rows are used for communion instead of the main aisle. But again, these are acts of service so to speak and not instruction.

I'm not sure the creation story established hierarchy of the genders either. I put very little scientific value in the creation story. It's comparable to a Greek myth--here's a story that probably isn't "true" about how the world came to be, but truth isn't the point--the point is trying to help us understand what we really cannot begin to fathom. I do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I definitely don't believe in a literal seven days (especially if they were 24 hours long each). I could be wrong, but I digress. I definitely believe the order has been used by society to establish a hierarchy of gender.