1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Female Pastors? is it Biblical

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by 101G, Nov 13, 2019.

  1. 101G

    101G Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2019
    Messages:
    215
    Ratings:
    +15
    Religion:
    Holy
    first thanks for the reply, second, are you reading what was posted?. who said anything about a woman having a wife.... my, my, my. "REASONABLE THINKING" suggest if it was a woman seeking the work of a bishop, she would have a "HUSBAND".how simple is that?

    but look, we see you're not following your own line of thinking, so you cannot understand ours. so we must leave your line of thinking alone. but have a great day.

    PICJAG.
     
  2. ajay0

    ajay0 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,954
    Ratings:
    +1,248
    The Prajapita Brahmakumaris is a Dharmic monotheistic sect based in India which has female leaders, administrators and teachers.

    They worship the monotheistic God as an incorporeal point of light.

    They have teaching centers in every country in the world and
    have won seven UN awards for their efforts in promoting global peace and harmony.

    If the Brahmakumaris can have females as pastors and teachers, so can the Christian religion, imho. And so too can all other religions as well.

    I think this insistence on male pastors and religious leaders alone is totally gross and medieval.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. 101G

    101G Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2019
    Messages:
    215
    Ratings:
    +15
    Religion:
    Holy
    I agree, women in the OT, as well as the NT had leadership roles, and taught men.. woman is simply a man from a man, hence "ANOTHER" man, this is what the term ADAM means "ANOTHER".
    PICJAG.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. JesusKnowsYou

    JesusKnowsYou Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2019
    Messages:
    907
    Ratings:
    +69
    Religion:
    Latter-day Saint
    Any and all verses I share will be the subject of interpretation and I will offer my interpretation to the verses I share.

    Paul in in first epistle to the saints in Corinth after speaking on spiritual gifts, such as the gift of tongues and prophecy, wrote,

    "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

    Let 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.

    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." (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

    This sounds much more strict than I believe it actually is. I do not believe this is saying that women are forbidden to speak at all, but they were not called to officiate or preside or even be speakers or teachers in the early Christian Church.

    Paul also claimed that they should not disrupt the officiators or teachers from their speaking, but rather wait until they are at home to ask their questions of their husbands.

    I believe that this is less about subjugating women as it is about following the patriarchal order and ensuring that faithful husbands remain stalwart in their studies and understanding of the Law and the Gospel.

    Paul's first epistle to Timothy also discusses this issue at the very end of the second chapter,

    "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.

    For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

    And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

    Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." (1 Timothy 2:11-15)

    I also believe that he continues to speak on this topic into the beginning of the next chapter when he talks about how a "bishop" (who is a man who presides over a congregation) is to be chosen.

    It speaks only of a "man" or "husband". No "woman" or "wife" being chosen for the position.

    I believe these verses are pretty "cut and dry" and talk about some things mentioned in 1 Corinthians as well as adding that a woman should not "teach, nor usurp authority over the man" in the Church.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  5. 101G

    101G Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2019
    Messages:
    215
    Ratings:
    +15
    Religion:
    Holy
    GINOLJC, to all.
    I took my time and read all of your post, hope you do the same with my responses. so I will take your post, one point at a time for examination.
    Thanks for the reply, but as said before, there is no need for anyone's own interpretation, the bible do it for you. just as God/the Holy Spirit for gudiance, that's all. for the apostle Peter said this, 2 Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." so you don't have to interpret.
    One question why NOT? if they can speak, but can't teach preach, Oh only sing and cook in the kitchen? listen to the apostle Paul, Philippians 4:1 "Therefore, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved."
    Philippians 4:2 "I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord."
    Philippians 4:3 "And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life."

    there was women in the GOSPEL, just as Paul was., and I'm sure Paul was not speak about "LABOURING WITH HIM IN THE KITCHEN".
    who told you that? ... men or God, be honest. you heard that didn't you. you will accept what men say and not what God say? what if they was not asking any questions at all, but speaking out of turn, we suggest you re-read this chapter againg and find out who supposed to to keep silence in the churches.
    well you must have missed some of my previous post. I been saying that this is a hubsand and wife setting. for the term "WOMAN" here in 1 Timothy 2 is the same word used in 1 Corinthians 14.

    now a few question #1. "Who told you that in 1 Timothy 3:1 that the term "Man" there is a "MALE ONLY?" Man there is G1536 εἰ τίς ei tis (ei tiys') cond.
    if any.
    [from G1487 and G5100]
    KJV: he that, if a(-ny) man('s thing, from any, ought), whether any, whosoever
    Root(s): G1487, G5100

    #2. as you said, "these verses are pretty "cut and dry" . ok, if so, then a bishop must be married... right, and have children... correct. as siad that was shot down because Paul was a bishop also, and he was not Married, nor any record of any biological children. so that cut and dry want work. and as referring back to 1 Corinthians 14, Paul was not speaking to any woman at all in verse 34, he was speaking to women who had HUSBANDS that was married. so that want fly either.

    I suggest, if one don't want to be lead by the Spirit, then one should follow correct and GOOD hermeneutics in "DISCOVERING" what the scripture say, and not self interpretation of what the scriptures might say.

    but thanks for the discussion.

    PICJAG.
     
  6. JesusKnowsYou

    JesusKnowsYou Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2019
    Messages:
    907
    Ratings:
    +69
    Religion:
    Latter-day Saint
    PART 1 of 2

    I still wholly disagree with you.
    This verse might be relevant to this discussion if any of the scriptures I shared were ones involving "prophecy", but they weren't.

    They were verses of guidance and instruction to early Church leaders.

    However, I also believe that you have misinterpreted this verse. Let's look at the verses that precede this one,

    "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

    For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

    And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

    We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:" (2 Peter 1:16-19)

    Peter claimed that the personal witness and testimony of the Apostles was a "more sure word of prophecy" because they had been eyewitnesses of the majesty of the Lord Jesus Christ and had even heard the voice of God the Father confirm these things.

    This testimony, had by these eyewitnesses, was the "light that shineth in a dark place" that should be relied upon by all members of the Church up until the time when they receive the witness for themselves or "until the day dawn, and the day star arise in [their] hearts."

    This then leads to the verse you mentioned and beyond,

    "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

    For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 20-21)

    Therein lies the rub. Peter was claiming that no one in the Church should interpret the prophecies in the scriptures for themselves (will of man) because they currently had the Apostles who were "holy men" (not women) who were also "moved by the Holy Ghost" to offer the correct interpretation.

    So, unfortunately most Christians, unless they believe that there are Apostles or "holy men" today who are being "moved by the Holy Ghost" offering the correct interpretation, must rely on their own interpretation.

    I believe that there are men today, Apostles and Prophets, authorized servants of the Lord Jesus Christ who do offer the correct interpretation of prophecy.

    Anyways, long story short, Peter is not claiming that everyone and anyone who reads the Bible can correctly interpret prophecy, but that they need Apostles or other "holy men" to interpret and teach the truth.

    This is a common misinterpretation.
    I would claim that the "why not?" is because the scriptures said so. I just quoted from 1 Corinthians that clearly stated that women should "keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak" and that if they wish to learn they should "ask their husbands at home".

    I mean, you don't have to believe in the scriptures if you don't want to.

    I do, however, have a more robust answer if you care to hear. It's about the Patriarchal Order of Heaven. It's a sort of divine "chain of command" as well as a divine "grapevine".

    A perfect example of this Patriarchal Order is found in the Genesis account of Adam and Eve.

    God had made Adam and then gave him commandments. Then God made Eve and gave her to Adam to be his wife.

    The account never claims that God relayed any commandments to Eve at that point, because it was up to Adam, as her husband, to relay the commandments.

    Interesting side note, the record shows how stalwart Adam was in keeping God's commandments because all God had told Adam was to not eat the fruit, but when the serpent asked Eve about the fruit she said that she was not supposed to even touch it. Then it became clear that, up until that point, she had not even looked upon the fruit.

    So, Adam, in his "overzealousness" not only told her not to eat the fruit, but he even said that God had commanded not to touch or even look at it. Interesting stuff. Anyways...

    Then, after they partook of the fruit, God asked Adam what had happened, not Eve, and He did not address Eve until after Adam told God what she had done.

    You notice an order to these things. God speaks to the Man/Husband who then relays what God said to Woman/Wife. This is the divine order of things if the Man is faithful and righteous of course.

    This Patriarchal Order is displayed all throughout the scriptures, but Paul talks about it a bit more in his epistle to members of the Church in Ephesus,

    "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

    For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

    Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

    Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

    That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

    That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

    So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

    For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:" (Ephesians 5:22-29)

    So, my belief concerning what was said in 1 Corinthians 14, women should rely on their husbands for spiritual instruction because that is his duty, divine assignment, and they together teach and nurture their children.

    This is why Paul claims that women should remain silent at Church and wait until she is at home with her husband to learn, because that is how God wants us to be edified. He wants our homes to be places of spiritual learning. He wants all men to be worthy husbands and fathers who instruct their wives and children.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  7. JesusKnowsYou

    JesusKnowsYou Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2019
    Messages:
    907
    Ratings:
    +69
    Religion:
    Latter-day Saint
    PART 2 of 2

    If Paul had said that these women had labored with him in "the ministry" or in "the Priesthood", you may have had a good point here.

    However, all followers of Christ (men/women/children) labor in "the Gospel" - that's the whole point. That's simply living by faith, overcoming sin, and relying on the Lord's grace.

    So, there were faithful women who traveled with Paul during his ministry. That does not mean they were called to be Elders or Bishops or Pastors or anything like that.

    I am not saying that women never said anything or taught, but that they were not officially called to serve as ministers, teachers, or officiators.
    Paul, a man of God and an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ taught it in his first epistle to the members of the Church in Corinth,

    "Let 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.

    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." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

    You don't have to believe that if you want to. Or you can try your best to "wrest" with it and try to explain it some other way, but I am content.

    I already explained to you how I view these verses.
    I would claim that this is you applying your own interpretation that does not take into account the scriptures in their totality. It's sort of piecemeal.

    It also does not make any sense. There is no way these verses can apply only to a husband and wife setting.

    How could Paul instruct women to "ask their husbands at home" in 1 Corinthians 14, but then instruct them to "learn in silence" at home in 1 Timothy 2? That's a complete contradiction.

    When you consider both what was said in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy 2-3, it is clear that Paul was claiming that women were to "learn in silence" at church but then "ask their husbands at home" about what was taught at church.

    Then when you consider what was said in 1 Timothy 3, it is clear that women were not being called to preside over congregations.
    Sorry, but it just feels like you're really trying to make this verse say something that it just isn't saying.

    It clearly says "man" and the verses that immediately follow claim that this "man" should be a "husband" to only one wife and that he should rule over "his" children.

    Your attempts to muddle all this up is very cringe-y to me.
    That is one interpretation. It could be true, but I don't believe that it is exactly what the verses say.

    It says that a man who desires to be a bishop must be "blameless", then Paul lists many things to describe what he means by that.

    He claims that a bishop should be "the husband to one wife" in order to be accounted "blameless". I don't believe that Paul is claiming that a man must be married in order to become a bishop, but rather that a bishop cannot have more than one wife.

    To Paul, a bishop was not a man who had multiple wives.

    Also, I don't believe he was saying that the bishop needed to have children, but rather that he needed to be a man who "ruleth well his own house". And if he had children, their behavior would be a principle example of how well he ruled his own house.

    If his children are unruly, then he was not a man who "ruleth well his own house".

    Also, consider that it was men/husbands/fathers who "ruled" their homes, not the women/wives/mothers.

    Just another fact that leads us to the correct conclusion that men and only men were called to be bishops.
    Why do you assume that Paul was a bishop?

    Also, I believe that he was married at some point and there is no reason to believe he did not have children.

    I know the verses people use to make the claim that Paul was not married, but I disagree with their interpretation. I don't believe that Paul claimed that he was never married.
    No, the verse clearly says all the women of the Church in Corinth because the epistle is addressed to "the church of God which is at Corinth" (1 Corinthians 1:2).

    Verse 34 reads,

    "Let 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." (1 Corinthians 14:34)

    The "your" in this verse is not "husbands", but "the church of God which is at Corinth" (1 Corinthians 1:2)

    Of course, Paul could not speak to every single case and circumstance. There were bound to be single women in attendance who had no husbands to ask at home later.

    Those women would need to ask their bishop or an elder assigned to that task, but they would not do so during the worship service, but at another time.
    Ditto.

    Thanks for the discussion so far.
     
    #127 JesusKnowsYou, Dec 3, 2019
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. 101G

    101G Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2019
    Messages:
    215
    Ratings:
    +15
    Religion:
    Holy
    GINOLJC, to all.
    I Love it when men ignorantly mishandle the word of God. so please in the following scripture point out where it said, "A VOICE" from heaven was God the Father's voice? NOW LISTEN CAREFULLY.
    2 Peter 1:16 "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."
    2 Peter 1:17 "For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
    2 Peter 1:18 "And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount."
    2 Peter 1:19 "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:"
    2 Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
    2 Peter 1:21 "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

    NOW, WHERE DO IT SAY IN ANY OF THESE ABOVE VERSES THAT THE VOICE FROM HEAVEN IS THE FATHER'S VOICE? IT'S NOT THERE.

    since you falsely assumed the voice is the Father's let make sure. the apostle said, 2 Peter 1:21 "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." in John's revelation chapter 22:6 the angel who was sent said, "the Lord God of the holy prophets" sent him. now is the "Lord God" the Father or the Son? we say the Lord God of the holy prophet/men is JESUS the Christ. if true then the "voice" is not the Father's voice.
    now the scriptures said, "a voice" so why do you say it's the Father's voice?

    your PART 2 of 2
    ERROR, that's called living by faith, or holy living.. the MINISTRY is the work/LABOR of the GOSPEL. my God how hard is this.

    so all of my points still stand. .

    PICJAG.

    PS, UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE CONSTRUCTIVE, NO NEED TO CONTUINE THIS DIALOGUE.
     
  9. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    35,709
    Ratings:
    +4,996
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    So, historically, the church has always used scripture as one component in the milieu of authoritative sources for argumentative support. Why are you limiting the debate to “only scripture?”

    Yes. There is historic (and biblical) evidence for female ecclesiastical leadership.

    The terms you’re setting, though, are incongruent with the biblical understanding of those terms, meaning that you’re interjecting your own opinions here, in violation of your first stipulation of the post.

    IOW, until you get your argumentative act together, any debate is a complete waste of time.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    35,709
    Ratings:
    +4,996
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Biblically, “elder” and “bishop” were synonymous.
     
  11. 101G

    101G Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2019
    Messages:
    215
    Ratings:
    +15
    Religion:
    Holy
    yes, as well the "Overseers"/Pasror. Acts 20:17 "And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church." and if we keep on reading, Acts 20:28 "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

    the feeding of God church is what pastors do, supportive scripture, Jeremiah 3:15 "And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding."

    PICJAG.
     
  12. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    35,709
    Ratings:
    +4,996
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Incorrect. Jesus told Peter to “feed the sheep.” Peter was not a presbyter (pastor) but an apostle (bishop). Presbyters work on behalf of the bishops under whose jurisdiction they are settled. Therefore, the bishops feed the flock, and direct presbyters to do so — but only in their absence. That’s why, when the bishop makes his annual visitation to a particular parish, s/he celebrates the Eucharist, with the priest (presbyter) acting in the role of her/his diaconal ordination.

    Jeremiah isn’t cogent here, since the Judaic ecclesial system was fundamentally different from the Xtian system.
     
  13. 101G

    101G Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2019
    Messages:
    215
    Ratings:
    +15
    Religion:
    Holy
    First thanks for the reply, second, I must disagree with your assessment. NT pastor is a Gift. which was foretold by the prophet Joel. Joel 2:28 "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:"
    Joel 2:29 "And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit."
    this was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, and as for Pastors this is confirmed in 1 Corinthians 12:7 & 8 "But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal." :8 "For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;" bingo there is the Pastoral Gift.

    so your assessment, "since the Judaic ecclesial system was fundamentally different from the Xtian system." this is true, that's why in Jeremiah 3:15 God said that he will, will give us pastors according to his heart. understand, and you should know this that there is only "ONE" Pastor in the the body of Christ, he himself. hence the Gift. so that's why we must disagree with your assessment..

    see Peter and Paul was both apostles, but yet also pastors/bishops/overseers/elders. first the elder/ pastor PETER. 1 Peter 5:1 "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:"
    1 Peter 5:2 "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;"
    as an Elder/Overseer he is a pastor because he FEED the flock of God. just what the Lord told him to do. Elders areoverseers who are Pastors, that "FEED" the Flock of God.

    Now the apostle Paul as Pastor. 1 Corinthians 13:2 "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.".
    there it is Paul was not only an apostle, but a Prophet as well as a Pastor, for a pastor feed with "KNOWLEDGE", and "UNDERSTANDING". for he had, according to the scriptures here "all knowledge", and he "understood all mysteries". there it is, he's a pastor.

    so Paul as well as Peter wore more than just one hat, to say.

    PICJAG.
     
  14. IndigoChild5559

    IndigoChild5559 Loving God and my neighbor as myself.

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    5,046
    Ratings:
    +2,125
    Religion:
    Judaism
    I have to admit, I am very confused about this issue.

    1. I tend to stick with what I'm used to, and in this case that's male clergy. That's my comfort zone. But that's not necessarily a good argument.

    2. When I read the Tanakh, you have many strong women leaders. Miriam, for example. Or Deborah -- an actual judge, which were the precursors of the Rabbis I think. Sure men are radically favored, but that was because the culture was so outrageously patriarchal -- and in many ways things have really changed for the better. I'm thankful that I have choices and opportunities my mother never had.

    3. On a practical level there is a problem with female clergy -- men stop participating. I forget when I read the article, but it was at least 10 years ago, and it was done with all the scientific scrutiny that I like. My synagogue has a woman Rabbi and a woman cantor. Women's participation is way up -- Sisterhood is prospering, we have a Women's Torah study, etc. But maybe 20% of the attendance on a Shabbat morning is men.

    So heck, I don't know how to solve the problem. Probably I shouldn't even have said anything.
     
  15. IndigoChild5559

    IndigoChild5559 Loving God and my neighbor as myself.

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    5,046
    Ratings:
    +2,125
    Religion:
    Judaism
    overseer and bishop are the same word. elder and presbyter are the same word. and helper and deacon are the same word.
     
  16. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    35,709
    Ratings:
    +4,996
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    “Pastor” isn’t historically an office (such as presbyter, bishop, or deacon). It’s a title that’s based in a specific act. The bishop is the pastor of churches under her/his jurisdiction. That’s why s/he carries the crozier. It’s the sign that s/he’s a pastor.

    Your understanding appears to be historically inaccurate and ecclesiologically untenable.
     
  17. 101G

    101G Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2019
    Messages:
    215
    Ratings:
    +15
    Religion:
    Holy
    GINOLJC, to all.
    first thaks for the reply. second, yes, many have been confused, but God is a God of ORDER. many really don't understand what a Biblical Pastor is. LETS JUST BE HONEST. what we see today in these pulpit, (not saying all) are what MAN calls pastors. understand there is only ONE pastor in the church of God it is he himself, God almighty. and it is him whom he choses to speak through. that's the bottom line, it's his choice whom he speak trhough, for in Christ Jesus there is neither Male nior Female.

    #1 your comfort zone, that's your choice. but let me ask you this, if God sends a giraffe to you and speak through the giraffe and tells you what to do to be "SAVE" would you listen to the giraffe? before you answer, he allowed an "***" or a donkey to speak to a man to save his life, and it was a female "***" that spoke. read the story of Balaam and his "***" in the book of Numbers chapter 22

    #2 yes, you're on point, this is true. in the OT women held the highest office in the OT... "Prophet". God don't discriminate. and I agree with your assessment here.

    #3. I like your honesty. if you don't mind may I give you some advice. let God increase the men attendant. I was in a situation in reverse from yours. in our Sunday School classes the women out numbered the men approx 10 to 1. and every sunday the women would won the banner offering and the banner attendant, just by sheer numbers they won. well as an asst. teach in the men class I decided that we was not going to be wipped, yes, they had the numbers so I zeroed-in on the finances. my estimation was they out numbered us but at least we could put a fight to win at least the banner offering. well we saved up some money over a few weeks (on the side) and one Sunday we won the Banner offering, and it schocked the women so they up their game in finances. well God was with us, (all of us), and when some of the other men of the church, (who never come to Sunday school) heard what was going on they started to attend just to help us few men out. well it was on. not only did God increased the whole overall attedance in Sunday School, also the finances just went through the roof, so to speak. a little frendly competition made the difference.

    bottom line, go to God and ask him to help, and let him put it on your hearts as what to do to make a difference. ask and it shall be given unto you. we Pray that the male, or just the attendance overall increase. be bless, and thanks for the reply.

    PICJAG.
     
  18. 101G

    101G Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2019
    Messages:
    215
    Ratings:
    +15
    Religion:
    Holy
    first thanks for the reply, second, the ecclesiological use of the term "OFFICE", in reference to Pastor is because many understand this term. but in reality Pastor is a "WORK" not an Office.

    so historically the position we take on a Pastor is well-grounded.

    PICJAG
     
  19. JesusKnowsYou

    JesusKnowsYou Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2019
    Messages:
    907
    Ratings:
    +69
    Religion:
    Latter-day Saint
    Should I wait for you to offer something constructive first?

    All you did was tell me that I was wrong and ignored the bulk of the scriptures.
    I noticed since you do it a lot.
    Who else in Heaven could refer to the Lord Jesus Christ as His Son if not God the Father?

    The Father spoke from Heaven at key times throughout the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ such as at His baptism and at the Mount of Transfiguration.

    It is clear that this is God the Father speaking about His Son. However, John 12:28 makes it even more clear,

    "Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again." (John 12:28)

    Even know this exchange of the Son speaking and the Father responding makes it crystal clear who the owner of the "voice from heaven" is, there were those present who were still dumbfounded about it,

    "The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him." (John 12:29)

    If those people could become confused while being first-hand witnesses of the truth - then I'm not surprised that people like you could become confused as well.

    That tends to happen when people pick and choose which truths to learn and live by without considering the totality of the scriptures.
    The title "Lord God" could be applied to both the Father and the Son.

    Your Revelation reference is speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ because He is/was the one who called prophets.

    It's all about context.
    That's good, because it is the truth.
    Where is the logic in that?

    Was the voice calling someone to be a prophet?

    No. It was testifying of the divine Sonship and mission of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    In fact, God the Father tends to only speak to Man when He is testifying of His Son.
    Other than the fact that the voice was not be the Lord Jesus Christ speaking about/to Himself, the fact that God the Father is the only one who could refer to the Lord Jesus Christ as His Son.

    Unless, of course, you are trying to make the claim that the "voice" belongs to His mother Mary (you would be wrong) I don't see what other answer there could be.
    The word "Gospel" means "good news" and the good news was that the Lord Jesus Christ came into the world to save us from sin and death.

    Out laboring in the Gospel is what we do, in our daily lives, to be more like Him and eventually overcome sin and death.

    A person can preach the Gospel, but that would be a call to the ministry, of which the scriptures record only men doing.

    Because, at the time, to minster was only a Priesthood calling.

    This discussion is not going well for you.
     
  20. JesusKnowsYou

    JesusKnowsYou Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2019
    Messages:
    907
    Ratings:
    +69
    Religion:
    Latter-day Saint
    Not necessarily.

    A bishop was always an elder, but an elder was not always a bishop.

    Elders were those who possessed the Priesthood and could be called to many positions, such as a missionary or even an apostleship.

    A bishop was an elder who was called to preside over a church or congregation.
     
Loading...