1 Tim 2:11-12 "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent."
women are expressly forbidden to teach men. then what happen to those women who come to the forums to teach bible and jesus?
will they go to hell?
Galations 3: 28 is what I would throw at them, if I had a mind to try to teach.
Proverbs 10:8 came to mind when I saw your question.
Well, the upside is they'd be able to teach there.
Ah, Greek One. LOL
I expected better from you.
But I dunno why.
If there were enough men today like Paul with the spiritual fortitude to actually defend the Gospel as it should be, and to go into the battleground where it's desperately needed, and to actually STUDY the Word and rightly divide the Truth, bold enough to be unafraid of persecution, then there probably wouldn't be much need for women to teach the Gospel, even to other women. As it is, God often uses the willing vessels, whether they be male or female, and yes it's sometimes a female who's the only one willing to speak the iron that sharpens iron, especially since many Pastors and other preachers put forth the idea that they're infallible and no one should ever question their words. There's so much leaven coming from the pulpits today that it ain't even funny. And it goes unchecked because men (some of them, not all) make themselves out to be kings (or are made out to be kings by some idol-worshipping church member).
A similar analogy is the fact that Jesus originally wasn't even sent to any peoples except the Jews. But a certain Gentile woman appealed to Him to heal her, and her Faith caused Him to take notice. It's all a heart matter. In Christ, we women followers live and breathe and have our entire being in Him, just as male Christians do. The great Commission is extended to us also. His salvation will be offered through willing vessels, and His plan will not go unfulfilled. The Bible even says God's plan would offer salvation to the Gentiles in order to provoke the Jews to jealousy. I hope this subject provokes some men to jealousy in our Nation! Because it is in sore need of Godly men who know what they're talkin' about, to seek out the lost and evangelize the dark corners of America instead of leaving the Commission up to the few others who're willing, and instead of building up "their" church and receiving "their" church salaries.
My husband wouldn't have become a believer if it weren't for me and lots of Sunday School kids I taught still wouldn't believe. Do you think because I am a woman that I gave them a Satanic message when I taught the Bible to them?
There weren't any men in my church willing to teach kids, but just a few and they already had their own classes. So, I guess we should have just let the kids do without that didn't have a male teacher?????
I still feel like the head of the church should be a man though.
barbara kay, that was not my statement. i merely quoted from bible. i have given the exact verse too-1 Timothy 2:11-12
following are the verses from 2 translations, you can check for yourself
King James Bible
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.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissivenessBut I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
I don't think women are not to teach a man at all (in terms of helping a man know god or the bible). Timothy, for instance, was taught by his mom and grandmom because his father wasn't a believer. (there were also female prophets in the ancient Israel)
Teaching is a responsibility of every christian given by Jesus.
Considering the way teaching in the temple was in the time of ancient Israelites, wherein only men were given positions as priests and sacerdotes... 1 Tim 2:11-12 indicates that only men are to be given the authority to teach and make decisions in the christian organization. (it has more to do with headship)
First Timothy 2:11–15 does not teach that women cannot exercise their spiritual gifts when the body meets. We know that women can, and are to do so (Acts 2:17; 1 Cor. 12:7; 14:26). Instead, the passage has a more narrow focus on the role of a ruling elder. To "teach" (1 Tim. 2:12), as defined "with authority" is an elder's function. This particular function in the body of Christ and only this function! is reserved for men.
To reinforce Greek's answer, it's also frozen over:
Every church is hell, priests r+pe rationality and innocence in such places.
I actually can't believe that in the 21st century that this question has even been asked!
I actually can't believe that in the 21st century that this question has even been asked!
i actually can't believe that in the 21st century that people still take bible literally!
Well, from most of the posts it appears you are one of the few that takes it literally. Perhaps, you should come on up into the 21st century with the rest of us.
So then you're saying that in the 21st century you can do the smorgasborg version of the Bible in that you get to choose what you like and dislike about it, and therefore, nothing is really "literal?" There are scriptures about people who pick and choose and alter God's word, and it says they will be damned.
Revelation 22:18-19 (King James Version)
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Only if they're lucky.
Sorry that was one of my favorite movies. I always have to quote when the opportunity arises.
wow. I had seen your post, but I'll be honest, I thought you were joking.
It's definitely a point we disagree on.
I believe the Bible is a lot of stories. Some even have morals. But for Christians who supposedly believe in it, I find it incredibly noncommital of them to pick and choose what they want to believe from it.
My point is not what I think, but what the Bible says. And according to the Bible, taking it literally is what Christians are supposed to do, not interpret for themselves. Therefore, if you're going to interpret to stretch things to your own liking, you're going to go to hell—according to the Bible.
I don't even believe in hell, so it makes no difference what I think, it's just that if you're a believer, you're painting yourself in a pretty tight corner by interpreting and not taking the Bible literally, because it says right in the book!
Well, if you don't believe in hell I suppose I'm safe. LOL. I am a believerd and I believe those statements are silly. If you are not a believer and simply attempting to play the part of one, you need to go back to school on that; unless you're Westboro Baptist then I have to say ' Well done'
What I believe is actually irrelevant to the aspects of obeying the Word as Law as was posted in this thread. That's all I'm pointing out here. All I'm doing is pointing what it actually says in the Bible, not pushing any beliefs I have.
I studied and taught scripture and religion for nearly 5 decades. It's just that if you're going to say you're a believer in the Word, you can't custom mix your own version, according to the Bible. I'm just making you question what you believe and if it's in accordance with the gospel. That's all. What you decide is what you decide for yourself. But if you base it on the Bible, beware of the consequences of custom mixing what you believe. That's all.
I've been called an atheist by Brenda and many others, and it's their right to believe what they want, but my beliefs are my own, and I don't justify them to anyone. However, if you're going to spout that you're a Bible-believing Christian, you should take into consideration the Word and whether or not you are following it.
And I can tell you just about no one is with this one exception: The law that fulfilled all others is love. If you are living a love based life, the rest is irrelevant. But I want to add that most Christians forget love and attack their brothers and sisters, atheists and anyone else they see fit over the stupidest things. How is this living a love-based life? So what if others attack you? Remember the Beatitudes?
We forget easily. We let our insecurities rule our hearts and let our egos run rampant and we put other down and spew vitriol and pretend we have the authority to condemn others to hell. That is only sick and twisted thinking and has nothing to do with the gospel or living the first law of love.
And no, I'm not making this a joke at all.
I have written all that I intend to on this thread.
Well, I disagree with your take on the scriptures, but that is a long conversation not suited to a forum such as this. Teaching does not always equate to understanding. Of course, I too could be wrong. Anyway, you made my day.. inasmuch as I am apparently not now condemned to hell by you. I can definitely enjoy my Friday night.
I condemn no one. In truth, we can only condemn ourselves. God just verifies what we do to ourselves.
Wow so all the different versions of the bible and the people involved in creating these different versions are damned? There are just too many that have taken away, and added I wonder what their demise was?
There is a scarily large number of people who still take the bible literally, as you will soon find out if you hang around the religious forums often enough!
This is not something taught by Jesus, it is rather something expressed by one of the apostles in the very early days of Christianity, and in those days it was forbidden by jewish law for a woman to express herself in Temple, let alone teach, so it was a caution given for the women of that time. It is not necessarily meant to be applied today.
But who are you to say that? You are interpreting God's word without his authority by doing so. What incontrovertible evidence do you have to back up that claim?
It is not I who says it, it is a fact, a fact that still exists in the Orthodox Jewish faith today. You will not find in any Orothodox Jewish Synagoue one "Female" Rabbi. Furthermore under Hebrew Law back in the time of Jesus women were barely permitted to speak their minds on religious matters let alone teach the Torah to others.
I don't think Daniel (or any nonbeliever) can grasp the concept of the awesome liberty that's found in total Faith in Christ.
And many so-called Christians think they can, but they use the knowledge to twist concepts. It's a heart matter, one of conscience leading us, that allows the Truth to set us free. All else is just ritual and the letter of the Law, which kills our spiritual ability. People will fight and argue over a woman's worthiness to speak Truth, while they try to rationalize blatant blasphemy in other corners. Such is the appeal of the Devil's subtlety.
Hi Brenda! good to read from you. Christianity has delivered to all who are willing to believe and accept, such liberties that no other religion delivers. The Jews don't have it. The Muslims don't have it. Yet Christians do. Christians are blest by God and by Jesus as God, for we have chosen to follow and be true to Jesus and His teachings.
That is proof that those who wrote the bible were sexists. It also show that the Christian elders who chose these books for the bible had a poor view of woman
Read my post from manofgod123 and this might give you some clarification on what the scriptures are talking about. Feel free to comment if you'd like.
Women should teach the Bible. Women pick up on things men can't even fathom.
Your Bible quote represents one man's opinion, and that man was from a different culture, in an ancient time.
Things have changed.
I was going to reply to this, but when my reply got over 300 words and I was still going strong i decided to write a hub instead. will let you know when i am done.
The Bible also says, "Matthew 18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
So all the self-righteous brothers, that takes a sneak peek at a sisters bosom when they aren't looking, need to pluck out their eyes!
I certainly hope they'll go to hell.
If I have to be stuck in Heaven with some of the people I've seen in the religious groups, I'd die. Oh wait we can't do that in Heaven. Yep definitely going to hell.
I definitely do not want to be stuck in any ones Heaven with people that will not shut the &%$# up and let me listen to my jazz music.
I'm coming right back WryLilt, but next time I am going to be tall, dark and handsome like Antonio Banderas or Hugh Jackman. Wanna come?! We can be the next Starsky and Hutch! LOL
Paul wrote that, and he never met Jesus ~ who, apparently, preached with Mary Magdalene and, if I remember correctly, sent his disciples preaching with their wives. I read that Paul was happy about a lady called Junia preaching, so that's confusing.
You make a good point. Women were minimalized by the 'church', but reading the scriptures shows Jesus treated women as equals on many points. Mary Magdalene, the woman he sat down and spoke with at the well. Mary Magdalene was The Apostle to the Apostles. But that culture wasn't ready for something so revolutionary as the equality of women. I do feel sorry for women who feel a calling that still have to fight this myth.
The fact of the matter is that I do not believe Mary Magdelene was ever even a prostitute but that was what they taught us growing up. What kind of BS is that to teach to an 8 year old that is being prepped for Communion? I'm sure someone will reply to my post with scripture and THE BIBLE says so attitude! Thats ok, I still won't believe it.
I agree completely. I notice a few in the church openly admit the lie now, but many people aren't aware of the fact that she was slandered on purpose. Just another agenda pushed with a lie.
just_curious, do you remember when the movies, "The Passion of The Christ", "The DaVinci Code" and "Angels and Demons" were slated to be released how the Vatican was enraged and had negative things to say about the movies. They took out ads voicing their disdain. I found that to be rather odd.
Why worry if it is all supposed to be a lie? Why feel threatened? Doesn't make sense!
I didn't know the Vatican opposed "The Passion of The Christ".....is that true?
I can understand them (and any other Christians including this one) opposing The DaVinci Code, but The Passion?
Lots of ideas that come from the Vatican are, at best, questionable. But I don't think even they can claim to reasonably oppose The Passion.
Agreed. I would have thought they would hailed the release of The Passion.
My mistake it wasn't The Passion that they boycotted although they were a bit concerned about a few things when they heard what Mel was going to do, it was the other two movies that they were highly upset about. It was another group that boycotted the movie.
Oops. I can admit when I'm wrong.
Thanks. Phew! I didn't wanna have to chalk up anything else to the errors of Catholicism; they have enough already! As do many religions and denominations.
No, No, LOL! This time it wasn't all the Vatican. They were upset at Mel Gibson for saying that Vatican II was responsible for the corruption in the institution of the church. the fact that alot of Christians were leaving the church, changing their faith or beliefs and also to the rise in pedophilia. This was in an article I read in Time Magazine. Crazy....
There was alot of controversy with this particular movie as being dubbed anti-semitic. Jewish people were upset because the movie depicted them as villains, cackling, whipping and spitting on Jesus. I remember Mel Gibson did alot of interviews trying to ease theological leaders minds who were both Jewish and Christian as well as the ADL. He promised that he was only trying to be fair to both groups in telling this story the way that he did on the big screen.
Yes, I remember now.
...Mel actually was right, according to Scripture. Paul, I believe it was, told them (the Jews) that they killed Jesus, told them so that they would recognize who Jesus really was and so that they could come to know him as their Savior if they would choose to. But then, Paul was speaking to a crowd of people who were mostly Jews I'm sure, because it's evident that it wasn't JUST the Jews who killed him.
In effect, we ALL (all of mankind)"killed" Jesus, though. Unbelief makes us guilty. It's only by believing that that guilt gets erased.
I was actually disappointed that Mel acquiesced and apologized, at least that he allowed himself to be condemned by others for what he said; I think he just didn't know how to explain it correctly. It wasn't his fault that others got so defensive without considering the Truth contained in his words.
Brenda, the one thing that has always upset and really bothered me is how Judas was vilified. If this was supposed to happen to Jesus and had already been written by his father, don't you think that maybe Jesus may have asked Judas to do this because it had to be done?
I believe that is why he hung himself. Because his friend, a man he loved with his life asked him to do something for him that he didn't want to do and he just couldn't live with it afterwards.
Thats just my opinion. I know how it was written in the Bible but I just can not accept that he was a greedy man who did that for money when it was Gods plan all along.
If you could understand that God knows everything, and I mean EVERYTHING before it happens, then you'd see.
Comparing Judas to Peter might help you....
Peter, having denied Christ 3 times, was guilty, just as guilty as Judas was! But which one waited to receive forgiveness? Which one was able to see (or desired to see) the plan of God come to fruition? Which one truly Loved the Lord? There's your answer. God knew the hearts of each one even before they lifted a finger or moved their lips, even, actually, before they were born. It isn't God's intentions that should be questioned; it's the choices our hearts make.
She was not a prostitute at all, but a woman of some material wealth who traveled with other women, who all administered to daily physical needs.
A description of her given at the time of the crucifixion, contains this addendum: that she had been with Jesus from the very beginning.
One more note (one that I find intriguing): The part where Jesus raises Lazarus, a dear friend to whose home he had often resorted - it can be seen that that part had been altered, but not well. It remained in the text that Jesus secretly called for the sister of Martha and Lazarus, whose name just happened to Mary. Was this the in-laws from Magdala?
I never believed that she was a prostitute. I chose the name Mary Magdelene as my Confirmation name back when I was 13 years old. The nuns were offended. They could not believe I wanted to be "Re-Baptized" with that name.
I remember when the Priest was supposed to say my full name and then say,"and I baptize you in the name of" he only said Mary. I told him," Father you forgot the other name." I did not move until he said both to me over that microphone.
The adamant spirit is triumphant.
I never forced anyone's hand in such a manner, but once, I scuffed my new shoes all the way up the aisle, and when the preacher shook my hand, I electrocuted him. I was just a kid who loved pranks, and he was just a man after all was done and said.
He jerked his hand away and yelled, "Damn!"
In turning to make my getaway, I recall the little old woman behind me. Her Coca-Cola bottom eye glasses made her wide eyes seem even wider, as her mouth fell open in dismay.
LOL! That must have been a sight for sore eyes... I remember the little old women that always sat in the front pews.
When i was growing up there was a pastor who was preaching on Jezebel, and at one point in the sermon he meant to thunder "Jezebel, that witch!" and instead he shouted, "Jezebel, that bitch!"
Well, Jesus condemned Jezebel in Revelation 2. Not for being a woman prophetess, but for being a false prophetess, seducing people to idolatry and fornication just like the Jezebel of the Old Testament did. He said He gave her time to repent but she refused.
Many scholars now say that the "prostitute" label that attached to Mary Magdelene was that phenomenon where a powerful & influential woman attracts jealousy. What do people call a woman they wish to slander, but can't come up with anything meaningful to say? They call her a whore. Somewhere along the line, the label stuck. Too bad.
I know quite a few women who teach bible lessons to men. The church my family goes to up north have a prisoner outreach program, and the women in the church often go to the prison to teach bible lesson to the prisoners. But, I think it's mostly younger men and teenagers. It's sort of a punk prison.
You also have to remember that the bible was translated at a time when women were no more than property, unless of course they were a queen or someone of importance. So, you can bet that whomever translated it threw the banning of women and the bible in to protect their own interest on control over the masses. Which is why there are so many different translations.
But who knows what went on there. Tired and old is all it is.
And I will add that IF a truly Godly man would march to the White House (or just pick up a PHONE, for God's sake!) and tell that unGodly President we have, that he's just plain ol' flat-out WRONG about so many levels of his "leadership", it might even have an impact.
Like John the Baptist told the king.
But no, seems they're afraid of their heads being cut off, even if only figuratively and politically.
Cowards are allowing our Nation to slide to the brink of hell.
We had a truly godly man in the whitehouse last time Brenda. Remember Dubya prayed for guidence before each decision he made. Look where that got us.
I wonder why so many christian believe they have the right to ignore the passages they dont like while attempting to force the rest of the world to obey the ones they actually dont mind obeying.
That picture is hilarious. I agree. Bush wore his faith on his sleeve and I could have easily done without his presidency.
He was just a jacka$$! LOL. You know we always have one in the group. He seems like he can actually be a cool person to hang out with and have a drink, goof and BS. I can't trust him with my money though!
Joe 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:
Joe 2:29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Act 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
SirDent, Joel 2:28 is a good verse to make the point. Thanks for pointing it out.
That all sounds so stupid. This was actually written in the bible? As if young men weren't having visions, and old men weren't dreaming dreams before?
I swear almost every quote I hear from the bible tells about something so simple, yet the way it is read in the bible it is made to sound like some miracle. Almost sounds like a crooked salesman to me.
The car shall run great, you will get great gas mileage, and go on many trips. But, when it gets old you will see visions of expensive car repairs. And, many encounters with tow truck drivers who might be virgins.
the word prophesy here is naba' (nawbaw) primitive root meaning to prophesy or speak or sing by inspiration.
Since prophesy as the OT prophets used to speak is done and over with (read the prophesies and realize that no such quality of disclosure is happening today) then you will also like to know that exhortation is what is frequent today. So since prophesy is over with, being the foundation that the church is built upon (eph 2:20) what people mistake for prophesy is really the gift of exhortation (1 cor 14:3) or even the word of knowledge or wisdom: this is speech inspired of God which everyone of which God approves is able to do.
So joel is not an overwhelming scripture saying that women will prophesy which was a job strictly for men in the OT. God does not change and the sooner we see this for what it is the better. Only the dispensation has changed, from law to grace, God has not changed.
if we look at miriam we see: "Exodus 15:20 And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances": that she was the head of the praise team and not prophesy team because never was a prophesy sung nor did it have instrument accompaniment. As much as women do not like to believe that men were used predominantly and tack that aspect onto the culture of the time we need to also note that God did not change it nor try to change the order.
didn't know there was a book in the bible called Joe
If the women are willing, they should teach the bible. God uses willing vessels.
Oh im sorry, i thought you meant preachy women (i hate nags who tell you to take out the trash, help with the dishes, etc)... Not women preachers.
Tell me, if Jesus' mother were to somehow be in attendence at a church service and wanted to say something about her son, would you tell her to shut up and sit down because you wanted to hear some dude talk?
That's not likely to happen but i will just mention this. Acts 1:14 is the last time mary is mentioned and the disciples were praying with her NOT too her. As she was jewish she may well not be inclined to say anything. Did she hollar at jesus crucifixion? Are there examples of her exorting doctrines other than when she visited elizabeth. Mary is not exampled as being a great public speaker.
making up scenarios is kinda lame but thanks for the opportunity to say what i said.
as for preachy women who ask you to help with dishes... you ought already to be helping with dishes... tsk tsk,,,, husband love your wife. Love washes dishes lol. (couldn't resist)
Who said that Mary she be prayed to?
The point is that the a preacher should be one who understands the meaning and message of God, regardless of their sex. Having testicles doesn't increase that understanding.
Many things were 'acceptable' in the biblical times, including animal sacrifice and polygamy. Our rejection of these practices, as the rejection of the old viewpoints as per the submissiveness of women, are not a rejection of God or his message. On the contrary in Luke 10:38 a woman named Mary "sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word." Now would you not want to hear about Jesus' teaching from this woman if you were of that time, simple because of the fact she was a woman?
Take the misogyny out of Christianity. That is man's narrowness, not God's. Show me one time Jesus himself put woman an inferior position.
WOMEN - THE LAST AT THE CROSS; THE FIRST AT THE TOMB
I think women are allowed to fill the role of teacher, and there is a fine distinction between teaching and preaching. Christ treated all women with respect and did allow them to teach. Every fellowship I have been part of has allowed women to teach and be part of worship, they have been allowed at the pulpit to teach but never to preach. I have seen them speak in tongues yet understand perfectly what they are saying and every time its been a teaching tool. Sometimes I wonder though about the translation of subservient I wonder what the original word really meant. I did not have a subservient wife but she was a servant to Christ's teaching.
Further thought on this matter still has me questioning subservient. In the American Indian culture women were not allowed to hunt, they could and did gather and plant crops, I imagine they set snares to capture animals. I don't think for them to take an animals life was wrong what was considered wrong was for her to take a chance with her own life. I am sure they taught their children to set snares also, I know my grandmother taught me. When tribes fought they killed the men but took the women prisoner. In not being allowed to hunt and being taken prisoner they were being protected. I am talking about the time before the white man as many things changed quickly after he arrived. Personally my Indian grandmother, great grandmother, and great aunt were my teachers both in Indian ways and in christian ways.
If you believe the Bible, it expressly says for women to be silent and learn in church, as the OP posted.
So why are there ANY disagreements from believers about this? That's a form of heresy.
don't say that...you will be in eternal damnation for that, you know...
I'm just saying what the Bible says. It's not me that's going to be in hell, it's those women who don't heed what Paul said that God wants women to do.
I don't know that you can selectively choose what you want to believe or disbelieve in the Bible. It's all supposed to be God's word.
Sir, it is my opinion that you disgrace the name of your religion with statements such as that.
i was not angry at you nor was i suggesting you will be in eternal(if there is some such thing). i was just mimicking the believers, to make fun of them, while admiring how clearly you stated that..
oh why can't I start making some money in Adsense so that I wont be drawn into the forums!
When you find the answer let me know... PLEASE.....
Me too! lol
I think Greek One really does have the answer, but just won't tell us 'cause he likes bein' here with us. He's a cagey one sometimes. teehee.
Because we might just need your sense of humor.
women are as human as men and so are free to teach, preach or school the Bible.
It is true women are not subhuman. Although they should be submissive to their husbands, that give the husband no right to abuse his power. Women should be treated with respect.
You are joking. Right? Submissive in what way?
Well even scripture talks about the wife being submissive to her husband just as we should be submissive to the will of God, and godly men should be in tune with the Lord so that they can guide their wife and family in the right direction. All in love that is.
So, since men are now so ungodly, we can move past that scripture. Right?
And what happens if Men are not good guides?
I always say to my Man, if you want me to submit to your every demand, you go earn all the money, you work out the finances, you cook and clean and I'll do anything you want me to! However, he like me, sees us as complimentary to each other. I am better at some things he is better at other things. Together we learn, together we grow.
yes, that's the way it should be. But I do feel sorry for men on some levels. I don't know how it is where you live, probably the same, but here our world has changed so much just in a short few years. My mother was a product of the old male dominated, one income family model. The Leave It To Beaver generation is history. Some guys don't seem to get the fact that equal work, equal pay also means equality at home.
I think I read somewhere that the first group to stand up for women's rights here was the SPCA in 1929. Men haven't had enough time to evolve I guess. They're a little slow on the uptake.
Sure they should. They should teach us manly things. They are smart!
I think that all of you are taking this post too harshly. Paul says that he, quote "he" does not allow a woman to teach. God never did say that He didn't allow for women to teach. We have to look at the context of the scripture and the cultural norms of that time.
On that same token, women weren't allowed to speak in I believe it was the Corinthian church. Women and men were on separate sides, so if a women spoke it would only interrupt service. But, today shovenist men love to use those verses to abuse their power in the household. Husbands especially should treat their wives as Christ loves His church, and not abuse her.
Therefore, I personally agree with women teaching in the church as long as it doesn't go to her head and she starts getting all "feminist preacher" up in the church. Same goes for men, minus the "feminist preacher." If they get all prideful, then it is a matter of time before they fall. Since, God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.
Paul was human. Humans have personalities and perceptions which often taint the purity of the message. In our culture women still cannot speak on Maraes (meeting house/funeral house) however it did not stop the ancient women from being a tohunga (healer, shaman, witch doctor/master of the dark arts) which may or may not be similar to the priests of today. I don't know because we did not have religion as such. Although this is how it was perceived. Pagan I think they call it.
If women are not to teach the Bible, then I'm in BIG trouble. I have been a Bible teacher for over 42 years. I have a Master's degree in Christian Education. I started a Bible College to teach the Bible after graduating from seminary.
First Timothy 2:11-12 is so misunderstood. Paul was teaching Timothy how to be a pastor of a church. It was a good reason to tell the women to be silent in the church. At that time women were not seated with their husbands. Women were in the balony and when the pastor was preaching, they were calling their husbands asking them to explain what the preacher was saying. Then Paul told them to ask their husbands when they got home.
I don't believe God would have given me a special gift and calling to teach if I wasn't supposed to teach just because I am a woman.
Women held Bible studies in their houses often in the Book of Acts.
Those who say women aren't supposed to teach should be in some of my classes. They might stop taking God's word out of context.
still don't explain "I suffer not a woman to teach"
or is it that as times changes meaning of bible changes that anybody can interpret it as he chooses?
But who is the "I" in this sentence? I don't believe it is God, because He sent His Son to all people, not just males. In the OT, they had the sign of curcumcision, and it was (obviously) for males only. In the NT, Jesus came and said there was no difference between male or female, and He gave us baptism for all believers. The references in the NT that tell women to keep quiet were given to charismatic women who were behaving unruly during services. If all women were to keep quiet all the time, there wouldn't be examples of women who were in leadership positions, such as Priscilla.
Jomine, I don't believe we should change meanings and interpretations, but that we should go as close to the original as we can and study the meanings of the words that were originally used, and then take it in the context of both the passage and the entire Scriptures.
In order to understand what the Bible MEANS, one must understand what the Bible MEANT with its original teaching. The background, culture, and customs must be understood before someone can automatically say what something means. It is dangerous and impossible to try to live in 2011 the way it was in Bible times. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey. Where is your donkey parked today?
Additionally, the New Testament was originally written in Greek. Do you know Greek? And besides, as someone initially stated, where would the world be if we waited for men to step up to the plate to do all the teacher?
In order to understand what the Bible MEANS, one must understand what the Bible MEANT with its original teaching.
so the teaching changes with changing times eh!!
here is some greek-courtesy to fatfist
τις εστιν ο ψευστης
Who is the liar
ει μη ο αρνουμενος οτι
if not the one who denies that
ιησους ουκ εστιν ο χριστος
Jesus is not the Christ
that flatly denies jesus as christ
Oh my. You really have taken things out of context. I suggest that you leave this question alone for awhile. Read the entire NT. Then read the OT and the NT again. It might put things in better perspective for you.
i haven't read greek for i know no greek consequently i have read only the english translation. but here are some problems,
there are so many translations that differ-which one is authentic?
then there are so many books that are now not part of bible but was once part of and many books, which was once not part, is now standard bible. how am i to trust those people who selected the authentic bible?
then there is, in addition to bible, book like gita and quran(which i got and read) and other books from various religions(i haven't read) all claiming to be absolute truth and written or given by god. which one is from the real god, how am i too know?
if your asking me too blindly follow some religious teacher why should i do that?
if you are suggesting me to follow my reason it clearly says that there can be and never be any god?
now what to do?
You have gotten so FAR away from the original question that it seems useless to try to respond further.
but you haven't answered the original question though you harangued.
the question was quiet simple - shall we take bible literally-yes or no?
yes- then you as a women should not try to teach but submit to a man's authority.
no-then you can teach but that invalidates the bible, for bible is open for interpretations and re-interpretations as times changes, or other words morality does not come from bible but bible is subject to changing times and consequently is not an authority in any thing and open to any sort of interpretation by anybody-just like you ignore or reinterpret that particular statement in bible when it suited you(that is to teach), and similarly anybody can do that with no authorities to check them and it is just like quran the terrorists quote to justify their atrocities, so is EXPENDABLE
I could be wrong ?
But it is my impression that the term "Teacher" had an entirely different meaning 2000 years ago than it has today.
Being considered A Teacher back then carried with it a great deal of authority and responsibility that is missing today.
Today everyone teaches someone something.
I would guess that this was the same back then also.
It is our meaning of the word "Teacher" that has changed the most.
so you agree that women should not have authority?
I didn'tsay that!
Women can have authority over that which she is responseability for; the same is true for a man.
Sorry for the delay in answering. Today has been one of those days.
My contention is, any and all things that I am accountable for I am going to exercise my authority over.
As everyone should.
To give someone else authority over those things that I gotta pay for, I get some say over.
If I have authority over you or anyone else I then have responsibility for.
10,000 servants may only have one king, while the king has 10,000 servants to protect and provide for.
I don't want authority over anybody except for my self.
If everyone felt the same, the world would be a different place.
That’s my story and I’m sticking widdit.
jerami though you didn't run away like Mr. god's pet revmjm youhave side stepped the question. so i repeat
can we take bible literally?
if yes then you agree that women should not come out here to teach among so many other things.
if no then tell me which all parts to be taken literally and which all allegorically?
also tell me who is going to decide upon that?
The Lord commanded that we ALL are ministers of the Gospel. Just because a women is spreading the gospel does not mean that she is attempting to be superior over man. It is our duty as believers to reach the unbelievers so that we may plant the seed for the Lord to fertilize. If the Lord leads you to teach and spread the gospel then that is what he has called you to do. You should not let the enemy twist the scriptures to show you something contrary to what you feel you are led to do. The enemy doesn't take a day off and he will always use God's word against you if you let him.
But, throughout history, those "duties" have cause conflict, wars and genocides. Doesn't that mean anything to you?
We cannot concern ourselves with the outcome of our ministry. Everything happens for a reason and not by mistake as long as God is in control. The Holy Spirit will lead and guide you but also protect you as long as you are doing the Lord's will. Proverbs 2:8 tells us : "He keepeth the paths of judgment, and preserveth the way of his saints".
The Lord suffered all things and yet was blameless and sinless; all the while preaching and teaching holiness. Paul was another example of a faithful servant of the Lord who suffered many things throughout his walk. As long as we are focused on what it is we are doing and most importantly WHO we are working for, we are better able to ignore the voices and temptations that would lure us off task. We need to demonstrate that faithfulness that Jesus had. This is the kind of faithfulness that the Lord expects from His believers and followers.
Philipians 2:5 tells us : "Let this mind be in you, which was also is Christ Jesus." During His time He could not concern himself with wars and conflict or persecution for that matter. He remained faithful and obedient unto death. You can rest assured that there are great rewards for those who serve the Lord and willingly give their life to Him. 1Corinthians 15:58 tells us:" Therefore, my bretheren be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord"
Yes, I have noticed that the Christian organization does not seem to care about the wars, genocides and other horrific atrocities it has committed over the centuries. In fact, the organization continues to press forward, however it has had it's "hands bound" in that regard and no longer has the power or authority to commit similar atrocities.
Unfortunately, your "Lord's will" does not align with mine in that I have no wish to cause wars, commit atrocities or lead others to genocides. Sorry, but that's just part of my own personal moral system not acquired from scriptures.
kimbrewaa. Exactly! I love your response.
To God be the Glory!
to answer you question more precisely:
First Timothy 2:11–15 does not teach that women cannot exercise their spiritual gifts when the body meets. We know that women can, and are to do so (Acts 2:17; 1 Cor. 12:7; 14:26). Instead, the passage has a more narrow focus on the role of a ruling elder. To "teach" (1 Tim. 2:12), as defined "with authority" is an elder's function. This particular function in the body of Chirst and only this function! is reserved for men.
At the time of that passage regarding women teaching the bible I feel it was a man dominated world and though I can't be sure if my reasoning lines up with God's my prospective would be
Since men at that time would not have taken women seriously if women felt they could step into the shoes of a man.
Should women teach bible?
There is no harm if women read the Bible and understand it correctly as should the men;verses of Bible should be read from the context of some verses preceding and some verses following to understand it correctly.
Shall we take bible literally or shall we interpret to our own liking?
by ngureco 8 years ago
Should Women Be Pastors? Should Women Preach?
by ngureco 10 years ago
Should Women Wear Trousers in church?
by Tony 6 years ago
Should women be blamed if they are sexually abused due to their promiscuous dressing?
by Neha J 7 years ago
What does the Bible say about women in ministry?
by David Stillwell 8 years ago
Should women have the right to vote?Am working on my first political hub and gathering information. I would like to hear both sides of the opinionated coin about whether or not women should have the right to vote or if only men should vote and speak for their house. This ties a bit into religion...
by puddingicecream 9 years ago
All US male citizens are required to register for the military draft when they turn 18. Your thoughts?
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|