So my point is this.


The apostle Paul made it crystal clear that

IN NO CONGREGATION OF TRUE WORSHIPERS OF GOD CAN A WOMAN EXERCISE AUTHORITY OVER OR TEACH A MAN

Only compliance to this standard would bring God's approval.

Regardless of how Me or TV01 or anybody else sees this passages of the bible, nobody can reconstruct it to mean something else or try to use to bible to support a contradictory view

So Biblically the bottom line to this debate is this

True Christians comply to biblical standards
Others do what they like and try to use the bible to justify a stand that contradicts the bible

Now the above was all a biblical discussion.Most women in here might think im sexist and narrow minded.

On the contrary im one of the most open minded guys you can ever come accross. (ie why for my first 1 1/2 years on nairaland i advoided the religious section. Too much blind arguments and pointless debates.)

TV01's concise manner persuaded me to start posting here. (Even though he would disappear after drawing me into some merry go round )


@Thief

You probably dislike me a lot more now. That Chauvunistic, sexist goat you will probably be wondering . To even imagine i thought he was cool at any point


well the truth is even if I think some things in the bible are a bit odd or even outrageous, non of us is in a position to re-edit it to suit our inclinations and thoughts.


If we were in a secular agument, then it would be different, way different

@sage,

There really is no need to keep repeating the same thing without looking at what the texts of Scripture say. Your appeal to the Bible while at the same time ignoring its clear teaching is not making sense at all - and that is why this discussion will continue to remain where it is.

sage:

Bible passages are complimentary, not contradictory. The apostle Paul could not have been inspired by God to contradict himself

My arguments should not be read as if I made Paul sound contradictory. Rather, I've been asking you guys to simply look at the whole of Scripture instead of holding onto so fastidiously to just a few verses and force ideas that Scripture doesn't teach concerning a men-only leadership.

sage:

If there was any room for Female Overseers, the bible would automatically contradict itself.

That is because you wish it so to be.

sage:

(Ive already listed this things b/4)

1 Overseers are mandated to teach, instruct, preside and have authority over Men, Women and Children

And the Bible clearly demonstrates that the word "elders" is used for both men and women.

sage:

2 Women, under divine standards cannot exercise authority over or teach Men (The primary commision of overseers) within the congregation (This is an unchangable divine standard that cannot be watered down)

My one challenge to that has not been answered as yet: "is teaching the only thing that defines leadership in Church?" You keep narrowing it to just that, when in fact the Bible does not limit leadership to the narrow idea you've been applying (see 1 Timothy 5:17).

sage:

3 A person not teaching, shepharding or exercising authority over the whole Congregation ie Men, Women and Childeren is NOT an overseer (They could be given other responsibilities) and since women are not approved by God to do that, then they cannot be Overseers Simple

You're making up your own idea and fronting it as the teaching of God's Word. Please refer to the same question I've been asking as well as the one verse that demonstrates lucidly that not all elders are called to teach or do the very same things in Church.

sage:

The bogus use of a word that can both be used to represent a person advanced in age, as well a person holding an office and other foms of usage would not change an already set divine standard neither would it contradict the rest of the bible, neither would Paul contradict himself.

Scripture does not use words in a bogus way; and I've demonstrated clearly that the one word that is giving your guys all the trouble cannot be denied as applying to both men and women in the single chapter of 1 Timothy 5 as referring to those who "rule" in the Church. The problem with your arguments is that you are forcefully narrowing that one word as applicable to only men when it is so clear that God's Word applies them to both men and women.

@sage,

sage:

The example i made with marriage is this

Gen 2:24

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh

Ephisians 5:28

In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body.

1st Corintians 7:3

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

Ephesians 6:1,2

1Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2"[b]Honor your father and mother"—[/b]which is the first commandment with a promise

Should somebody make claims that this means that the two are one and can play the sam roles.

Please go through again and see that I've said several times that men and women have various roles of leadership, and that not everyone is called to do exactly the same thing.

Secondly, I've been asking you guys to not confuse issues concerning the home for those concerned with Church. If this mix-up is going to continue, I'd advise that it would be inviting a very protracted debate that would spiral off course from the present topic.

sage:

Even with the above scriptures, other passages compliment this by showing that

The Man exercises headship over a woman and the woman is not allowed to exercise headship over a man in the family.

Headship in the family with the male mate present is only Preserved for the Male

That in no way should be used to argue therefore that headship in Church is reserved for men only whereas the Bible does not teach that.

In the Body, there is ONLY one Head - Christ.

In a relationship involving gender, man is seen as head of the woman.

In leadership in Church, men and women are both called to fulfill various leadership roles according to God's calling and gifting.

sage:

(I am bewildered by arguments raised by some people here claiming that a male only Overseer appointment would mean a male only world and would be discrimintory and sexist.

That's the way you've been trying to make it sound by forcing a narrow idea and fronting it as the alone thing taught in the Bible.

sage:

1 How come a male only headship arraingment (ie with the male mate beign present) in the family is not accused of the same thing by these same people.

For the simple reason that you're confusing the home for the Church.

sage:

2 How come a woman can exercise authority over, instruct, teach, and preside over their husbands in the congregation when they cannot at home?

Don't play games with words. The Bible does not say that a woman cannot "exercise" authority. Rather, it teaches that women should not USURP authority over the men - and I've demonstrated that the context is about "domineering" the men.

Unless you want to make it sound like exercising authority is the same thing as domineering authority, then you should also understand that even the men are asked to not domineering authority over God's heritage (1 Peter 5:3)!

@sage,

sage:

The reasons why the holy spirit would not appoint women is crystal clear (A similar reason as to why Jesus chose only Male apostles even with committed and faithful Women all around him) was

Divine arraingment.

The reason why you continue to fail in this regard is that you're not listening to the Holy Spirit who has clearly taught in the Word that men and women are together called "elders" (presbuteros - πρεσβύτερος) with various leadership roles instead of the narrow concept you've been pushing.

sage:

A woman overseer would have to have taught and exercised authority over men (In the same vein that both the apostles and first century overseers exercised authority over Men, Women and Children). This is incompactible with the will of God for His congregated people as expressed in His inspired writing.

Please read 1 Tim. 5:17 again and tell me simply if God's Word teaches that ALL elders/overseers are said to be doing exactly the same ONE thing.

sage:

Godly women like those faithful disciples of Jesus and the fist century female disciples

Never agitated to become apostles, never claimed to have the same authority as the apostles, never highlighted the short comings of Jesus male apostles and disciples to make a case for their own inclusion (what a man can do, a woman can also do mentality), never sought to claim a position of oversight which the holy spirit did not leave open to them, did not misquote the account of Joel and Deborah to justify what God's holy spirit does not approve of etc

One thing I know is that godly men and women do not settle accounts by appealing to "agitations"; nor do they limit God's Word to the ideas of men who refuse to see what He has said in other verses; nor do they play mental gymnastics by referring to Deborah's exemplary leadership as merely "advice"; nor they do assume that their narrow idea is necessarily what the Holy Spirit limits for a men-only exclusive world.

sage:

They recognized their place in divine arraingment and complied to it.
They had God's blessing in full measure

They also recognized that God is sovereign to call women as He did and does call men to be "elders" (presbuteros - πρεσβύτερος) because He has various leadership roles for each one to fulfill.

@sage,

sage:

The problem with debates like this is that the people all agreed to use the bible as their standard but now want to water down some parts of it that they don't like to suit their own agenda.

That is very true - and until those who have been watering down God's Word wake up and face the reality of the fact that both men and women are presented as "elders" (presbuteros - πρεσβύτερος), this debate will continue forever.

sage:

If this was a secular debate, then that would be completely different.

It doesn't have to sound like a secular debate. I've remained within what Scripture teaches and not gone outside its pages to buttress my persuasions.

sage:

We can then measure merits and demerits whys and hows etc.

Bring them on if you may.

sage:

But when you claim the bible as your standard you do not question its stand on anything.
Compliance to it is what is required for those who want to.

Why then have you been questioning the fact that both men and women are called the exact same thing as regards "elders" (presbuteros - πρεσβύτερος)? What is so difficult to comply with if you are not standing on the same grounds that you complain against others?

sage:

The only reason im saying the above is that from a human and secular standpoint certain Divine standards have no answer and might even seem unreasonable. For eg

1 What made the family of Moses (Aaron and his sons) the only ones that are fit to enter into the presence of the ark?

2 What made Moses the only one fit to see the presence of God

3 Why is it that well qualified Men like Korah, Dathan and Abiram who were not trying to insult God but felt that Moses was presumpteously hoarding everything for only his family and not allowing them to do more in the service of God were executed by Him?

Which all point to the fact that the NT teaches that both men and women are together priests in the new covenant in contrast to the types and shadows depicted in the old covenant. The reason? Simply as we find in Heb. 9:8 -- "The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing."

However, in the new covenant, we rejoice on account of Heb. 9:24 -- "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us" (appearing for "us" - new covenant believers including all men and women).

sage:

From a secular standpoint was Korah's gain saying wrong and did Moses stand not look presumpteous?

Korah's gainsaying was wrong - he was numbered among the "princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown" (Num. 16:2), he should have known better. Even from a secular standpoint (which does not apply at all in this discussion), men know that ignorance does not serve as an excuse to justify presumption against authority.

sage:

4 Why would God appoint only males to Serve as Priests, Levites and Kings?
Can women not also lead a nation, lead in worship? Do women not posses the same capabilities to do the same things?

Same tired, old confused mix-up between leadership and worship. Just do me a favour sage: carefully consider if your OT argument of male-only priests bears any substance against the fact of NT priesthood that includes women as well.

When you argue for leadership as though no woman was called to leadership over God's people at anytime, your attention was called to the undeniable case of Deborah who accomplished much in her leadership under God's sovereignty. You've argued this case hard and long and yet not made any sense from what you're rather denying.

It is just as well to argue by the same stretch that only a certain tribe in the Body of Christ should be made priests - since your troubles rest with the Levitical priesthood.

sage:

5 Why would God strike down Uzaah for trying to save the ark from falling off to the bewilderment of a whole nation ?

And how does that apply to leadership?

sage:

6 Why is Family headship giving only to men? Do women not possses the ability to head a house?

Again, confusing the home for the Church. That is why I have offered a bold challenge that you and TV01 come back and post in bold capitals that NO VERSE ever taught that women were to have any form of authority or rule in any sphere whatsoever. Please dare me and oblige my challenge - I have a shocker for you guys!

sage:

7 Why would God judge Saul (Who was not trying to deliberately insult God) so harshly for acting to save his people who were almost beign overrun?

God did not judge Saul for his being elected as a leader over God's people. Saul was judged for his foolishness in failing to keep God's commandment (1 Sam. 13:13) - and these are two different things altogether, never mix them up.

sage:

What Saul did was it not reasonable from a human standpoint? (Whic man would just stand and watch and see his whole house go up in flames without acting?)

Are we now appealing to "a human standpoint" instead of remaining on course with the WORD? Is that how badly things have turned out in your arguments, sage?

Enjoy.

@sage,

sage:

The answer to the above can be seen as

Divine Principle and arraingment.

Regardless of good intentions, good abilities, neccesity etc Divine principle remains the same.

For eg In Uzaahs case, God had decreed that anybody apart from a certain group of people who touched the ark would die.
Regardless of Uzahh having good intentions or not in trying to save the ark he was going to die for overstepping his place in God's arraingment.

Good to note as well that Uzzah was a man, and not a woman. Why did I note that? For the simple reason that it is not only women who can 'usurp' authority in what you have been favouring as "divine principle and arrangement".

sage:

Saul having a good motive ie to save God's people was not the point either. He overstepped his place also in God's divine arraingment and had to pay for it.

Saul did not try to "agitate" for leadership - and I've offered a reminder of exactly why he was dealt with by God (1 Sam. 13:13). We must be careful when making analogy so we don't run the risk of misleading people into thinking something else.

sage:

So my point is this.

The apostle Paul made it crystal clear that

IN NO CONGREGATION OF TRUE WORSHIPERS OF GOD CAN A WOMAN EXERCISE AUTHORITY OVER OR TEACH A MAN

Please sage, don't put words in the apostle Paul's mouth. He never said that a woman was not to "EXERCISE" authority over a man. Rather, he said that a woman should not "USURP" authority over the man - big difference here.

"Exercising authority" and "usurping authority" are not the same things; and please don't make them sound like the same so that you can make apostle Paul say what he did not say!

sage:

Only compliance to this standard would bring God's approval.

Don't set your own rules and make them "standard", especially when you've clearly tried to make Paul sound and say what he did not at all.

sage:

Regardless of how Me or TV01 or anybody else sees this passages of the bible, nobody can reconstruct it to mean something else or try to use to bible to support a contradictory view

As gently as I can say it, dear brother sage, you have tried to reconstruct it in support of your views.

sage:

So Biblically the bottom line to this debate is this

True Christians comply to biblical standards
Others do what they like and try to use the bible to justify a stand that contradicts the bible

I hope you can see that those doing "what they like" applies more to your case than anyone else's? Don't make God's Word say what it does not, in order to make your own ideas the "standard".

@sage,

sage:

Now the above was all a biblical discussion.Most women in here might think im sexist and narrow minded.

I don't think you were trying to be sexist (unless you were actually hooting for that and I might be wrong), lol.

sage:

On the contrary im one of the most open minded guys you can ever come accross. (ie why for my first 1 1/2 years on nairaland i advoided the religious section. Too much blind arguments and pointless debates.)

Okay, you avoided it for as along as you were "open minded"; but decided to come over because you didn't want to remain so? 

Hehe, kidding ya bro.

sage:

TV01's concise manner persuaded me to start posting here. (Even though he would disappear after drawing me into some merry go round )

    I could just as well say same of TayoD, stimulus and Analytical - but I can hold my tuff, no shakings!

sage:

well the truth is even if I think some things in the bible are a bit odd or even outrageous, non of us is in a position to re-edit it to suit our inclinations and thoughts.

Oh dear. . . and you already have! 

sage:

If we were in a secular agument, then it would be different, way different

Could we start one? Lol, can't wait to discover more of you in that arena! 

Okay, just be the same sage I've known this far.
Cheers.

pilgrim.1:

Again, confusing the home for the Church. That is why I have offered a bold challenge that you and TV01 come back and post in bold capitals that NO VERSE ever taught that women were to have any form of authority or rule in any sphere whatsoever. Please dare me and oblige my challenge - I have a shocker for you guys!

Oya shock us now !

@TV01,

TV01:

Oya shock us now !

No worries - after you've made the denial in bold capitals, the shocker will come!

That is why I have offered a bold challenge that you and TV01 come back and post in bold capitals that NO VERSE ever taught that women were to have any form of authority or rule in any sphere whatsoever.

NOT OVER MATURE CHRISTIAN MALES.

@TV01,

Do the one thing that my challenge offers: come back in bold capitals denying that ANY VERSE in the Bible ever taught that women were to "HAVE" any form of authority or rule in any sphere whatsoever.

That is the one thing that sage has been littering this thread with - that a woman is not to "HAVE" authority, whereas the Bible never said so! Rather, the Bible simply says that a woman was not to "USURP" authority over the man!

I've repeatedly reminded him to read as stated in the WORD, but he has often come back circumventing what is stated and rather pushing the idea that a woman was not to "HAVE" authority; which is a different thing from "[b]USURP[/b]ing" authority! That's why the challenge - come back in bold capitals and deny the point I've been making, then the shocker will come!

@Sis Pilgrim

I appreciate your taking time to make this debate continue. I like the way you handle a debate for the most part

But to show you the futility of your arguments in ths particular case and why i feel this debate is becoming pointless

1 You have repeatedly based your argument on this
Quote from Pilgrim
Please sage, don't put words in the apostle Paul's mouth. He never said that a woman was not to "EXERCISE" authority over a man. Rather, he said that a woman should not "USURP" authority over the man - big difference here.

"Exercising authority" and "usurping authority" are not the same things; and please don't make them sound like the same so that you can make apostle Paul say what he did not say!



1 Cor 14: 33-35

33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the saints[/b], 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.


1 Tim 2:11,12
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 [b]I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.


Yes the apostle does TEACH that a woman CANNOT have authority over a man

So sister pls stop accusing me of setting a standard

I am not apostle Paul

2 @ Pilgrim i dont think you understand what overseers are and what they are required to do in the congregation.

3 Old convenant regulations are not binding on the new. I cite examples from the old testament because of
A. Some people on this forum claiming that women excllusion from position of overseer = sexism. I cited examples of were God excluded women from certain positions in the past.

B Some lessons could be found in those passages that is stll valuable.


4 And your claim on Ist Tim 5:1 il come back tommorow and look into that

yes as long as I am convinced she is God's servant

Hello sage,

sage:

I appreciate your taking time to make this debate continue. I like the way you handle a debate for the most part

As a matter of fact, I can't thank you enough for being so patient and level-headed all through your engaging in this discussion with me - especially the deep thoughts you offer to make me go back again and again to check my thoughts out from Scripture. Thank you and God bless.

sage:

But to show you the futility of your arguments in ths particular case and why i feel this debate is becoming pointless

1 You have repeatedly based your argument on this
Quote from Pilgrim
Please sage, don't put words in the apostle Paul's mouth. He never said that a woman was not to "EXERCISE" authority over a man. Rather, he said that a woman should not "USURP" authority over the man - big difference here.

"Exercising authority" and "usurping authority" are not the same things; and please don't make them sound like the same so that you can make apostle Paul say what he did not say!

True. Note the difference:

To exercise authority is NOT the same as to usurp authority.

One may have authority; but that does not mean that such should thereby go beyond and supervene upon others what that authority does not represent. Where the latter occurs, then such a person is usurping authority over others - and both men and women in various circumstances call fall into that trap.

sage:

1 Cor 14: 33-35

33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the saints[/b], 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.


1 Tim 2:11,12
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 [b]I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.


Yes the apostle does TEACH that a woman CANNOT have authority over a man

So sister please stop accusing me of setting a standard

I am not apostle Paul

I know you're not apostle Paul  .  Even so, I don't think the NIV, GNB or EMTV (from which you probably quoted 1 Tim. 2:12) are conveying the sense of the apostle's point in that verse.

I've noted earlier that the phrase "usurp authority over" is just one Greek word (αὐθεντέω - authenteō); and it simply means the following:

Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries

     G831

        αὐθεντέω
        authenteō
           ow-then-the'-o

     From a compound of G846 and  ἕντης hentēs (obsolete; a worker); to act of oneself, that is, (figuratively) dominate: - usurp authority over.

Although some other translations and English versions render the phrase as "exercise authority over" the man, I suppose the KJV and ALT quite capture the sense:

(ALT) - 'But I do not permit a woman to be teaching, nor to be exerting dominance over a man, _but_ to be in quietness.'

Those other translations that suppose the verse should read as "have authority over" or "exercise authority over" would just have to contend with cases where women are actually called by the same term that the men are called in the question of elders (πρεσβύτερος - presbuteros). A second reason would be that the Greek word authenteō does not suggest the verb "to have"; rather, it is itself a verb that means more of someone "domineering" someone else.

A third reason why those other translations using the "have/exercise authority over" would not be close enough is that in 1 Pet.5:3 the same idea is portrayed as regarding those who are elders -- "Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock."

Now the phrase "being lords over" is again a single word in the Greek, and means the following:

Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries

        G2634

            κατακυριεύω
            katakurieuō
            kat-ak-oo-ree-yoo'-o

            From G2596 and G2961; to lord against, that is, control, subjugate: - exercise dominion over (lordship), be lord over, overcome.


Now, the question here is this: do elders (πρεσβύτερος - presbuteros) not HAVE authority? I'm sure you'd argue that they do - and yes indeed, elders have authority to "rule" (1 Tim. 5:17). But why would the same translators (NIV, EMTV, GNB, etc) shy away from applying the same idea they did in 1 Tim. 2:12 and do so in 1 Pet. 5:3??

NIV - "not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock"

EMTV - "nor as being masters over the flock under you, but rather being examples to the flock"

GNB - "Do not try to rule over those who have been put in your care, but be examples to the flock."

Particularly the GNB gives the idea that the elders in 1 Pet. 5:3 should NOT "rule" over those in their care! Would you be willing to simply take that, especially when you argue that men-only elders are to "rule" while the women should not "rule"?

Again, let me leave you what the ALT translation says on that verse:

(ALT)  -- "nor as domineering over the [ones] allotted to your* care, _but_ being examples to the flock."

People called to leaderhip surely "have authority"; but Scripture cautions that while shepherding the saints under their care, they should not be "domineering" (or, "usurping" authority) over them. It does not say they should not "HAVE" authority - for they already have it by in reference to their being called "elders". The one simple thing Scripture holds out is that they do NOT go beyond and supervene upon others what that authority does not represent.

Dear sage, I don't mean to bother you with all this, nor should anyone be reading this as mere semantics. However, if what we're arguing or discussing would bear any weight at all, then we ought to truly go back to the root of our subjects and find out for ourselves what we're all about on them.

@sage,

sage:

2 @ Pilgrim i don't think you understand what overseers are and what they are required to do in the congregation.

Well, I still haven't read anyone discussing the points I've raised so far on the various roles elders (men and women) fulfill in Church, and how I got them mixed up.

sage:

3 Old convenant regulations are not binding on the new. I cite examples from the old testament because of
A. Some people on this forum claiming that women excllusion from position of overseer = sexism. I cited examples of were God excluded women from certain positions in the past.

Even so, those examples clearly flawed your premise in arguing for a men-only leadership and eldership in the NT.

sage:

B Some lessons could be found in those passages that is stll valuable.

Glad you can see that.

sage:

4 And your claim on Ist Tim 5:1 il come back tommorow and look into that

Can't wait to see what you have in store for me.

Cheers.

1Corinthians 11: 3 - 9

[color=#000099][/color][size=8pt][/size][b][/b]

11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.


The scriptures says: God created Adam in his own image ( directly signifies the authority / leadership / head ) and created Eve from Adam's rib. Another fact is, Israel (Jacob) children were actually 13. 12 sons and 1 daughter(Dinah). each of the 12 is the tribe of Israel and not Dinah because God choose men not the woman to head the house of his people. Our Lord and Saviour Jesus handpicked 12 men (again each to represent the 12 house of Israel)and not a single woman even though there are some faithful women closer to him at this time. The son does not contradict his father.

However before God, men and women are equal, we are brothers ans sisters in Christ. women do have their place as well in the church but not in anyway that contradict the living God.

Can I attend a church led by a woman? answer, I will do as the Bible says, but who am I do defer from Holy spirit ?

be careful, be careful when you interprete the bible - a lot of scripture is in parables see. And there's NO scripture that says Abraham had only one daughters, the bible, like most jewish literature of those times was written to serve a male dominated society, and as such has little inference to women. The only reason why Dinah is mentioned is because of certain circumstances that befell her.

Banderas:

be careful, be careful when you interprete the bible - a lot of scripture is in parables see. And there's NO scripture that says Abraham had only one daughters, the bible, like most jewish literature of those times was written to serve a male dominated society, and as such has little inference to women. The only reason why Dinah is mentioned is because of certain circumstances that befell her.

@Banderas, nice name yours! And thanks for making that point, so that our dear friends would just have to look carefully at the examples of women whom He chose to lead His people.

@Qc-1,

Nice name yours, too. But let me share a few things with you:

Qc-1:

The scriptures says: God created Adam in his own image ( directly signifies the authority / leadership / head ) and created Eve from Adam's rib. Another fact is, Israel (Jacob) children were actually 13. 12 sons and 1 daughter(Dinah). each of the 12 is the tribe of Israel and not Dinah because God choose men not the woman to head the house of his people. Our Lord and Saviour Jesus handpicked 12 men (again each to represent the 12 house of Israel)and not a single woman even though there are some faithful women closer to him at this time. The son does not contradict his father.

It's true the Son does not contradict the Father; but that in no way pre-determines that leadership in the Church is an exclusive male-only function. Nor could you argue that the Twelve tribes are all "heads" over Dinah at the same time. Have you asked yourself which was the "HEAD" tribe among the Twelve tribes of Israel?

Qc-1:

However before God, men and women are equal, we are brothers ans sisters in Christ. women do have their place as well in the church but not in anyway that contradict the living God.

I'm still yet to read anyone on the opposing side enunciate for us what the woman's role is in Church other than to shut-up! People who are persuaded of a male-only leadership in Church have not as yet told us what specific roles women are called to fulfill in leadership other than simply stating and leaving it blank.

Qc-1:

Can I attend a church led by a woman? answer, I will do as the Bible says, but who am I do defer from Holy spirit ?

So, what does the Bible say you should do? And what did you mean by the deferment from the Holy Spirit?

Cheers.

1 Timothy 5
Advice About Widows, Elders and Slaves
1Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, 2older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.
3Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. 4But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. 5The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. 6But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives. 7Give the people these instructions, too, so that no one may be open to blame. 8If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

9No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband,[a] 10and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.

11As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. 13Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. 14So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. 15Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.

16If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need.

17The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 18For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,"[b] and "The worker deserves his wages."[c] 19Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. 20Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.

21I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.

22Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.

23Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.

24The sins of some men are obvious, reaching the place of judgment ahead of them; the sins of others trail behind them. 25In the same way, good deeds are obvious, and even those that are not cannot be hidden.

@Sister Pilgrim, you have been quoting this chapter again and again

can you please tell me how any of the above support your point of women overseers? (bearing in mind examples of duties that Paul listed women perform within the congregation. No role of Overseer or even anything remotely near that)?

Because obviously Paul had advised Timothy on how to deal with everybody in the congregation, older men, older women, younger men and younger women in verse 1 and 2

Later, in verse 17 he refered to the Overseers in the congregation which would include spiritually mature Men both Young and Old. (That would obviously include Men like Timothy who were of a young age but spiritually mature)

Apart from the fact that this passage you have been quoting as if it had an atom of support for your claims lists some duties women do within the congregation (Non of which suggests serving as an Overseer)


Your claim that some bible translations mistranslated the point that Paul was trying to make and suggesting that those verses ment not dominating but could suggest that Both Men and Women can all be Overseers is completely Flawed and Spurious at best

Because, in those same verses

1) Women are asked to learn in Submission
Overseers take the lead in the congregation

2)Women cannot deliberate publicly on Congregational issues
Overseers deliberate on and take decisions for the congregation, and the congregation follows their lead.

3) Women are not allowed to teach men
Overseers are mandated to teach the whole congregation, including Men

4) Women discuss congregational issues with their husbands.
.
Overseers issue directives to the whole congregation.

5) Overseers [color=#990000]excercise authority and shephard the whole flock. (its not a question of usurping. Women CANNOT exercise that same authority)[[/color]color=#990000][/color]


So any claim that those verses somehow was suggesting that women could serve as Overseers with Men but should not usurp it but that the point was misrepresented is wrong.

So far, claims of Ist Timoty, nor Ist Peter have lended no hand to arguments that a woman can become an Overseer.

There is nothing in the scriptures that allows room for Women Overseers.[color=#990000][/color]

All these arguments would be meaningless if we dont first accept this points from the bible

1 Overseers are to exercise (note this has nothing to do with usurping ) authority over all within the congregation.

Women cannot exercise that same authority. (This is not a question of usurping, but cannot exercise the same authority that Overseers do)

2 the work of Overseers leaves no room at all for a person who are not allowed to, or are restricted when it comes to issues of Shepharding, exercising authority, teaching, issuing directives etc, THINGS WOMEN IN THE CONGREGATION ARE RESTRICTED ON.

@sage,

@Sister Pilgrim, you have been quoting this chapter again and again

can you please tell me how any of the above support your point of women overseers? (bearing in mind examples of duties that Paul listed women perform within the congregation. No role of Overseer or even anything remotely near that)?

I've clearly enunciated the issue about 1 Timothy 5 earlier; and I beg you guys to not make me repeat myself endlessly over this matter. If there's anything of substance you think you could offer to flaw the points I made on that chapter, please do - so we could then have something tangible to discuss.

Because obviously Paul had advised Timothy on how to deal with everybody in the congregation, older men, older women, younger men and younger women in verse 1 and 2

How then you switch over and call the same people in verse 17 "Overseers" is simply hilarious. The terms used in verses 1 & 2 ("elders" -- presbuteros, πρεσβύτερος) is exactly the same term used in vs. 17 ("elders" -- presbuteros, πρεσβύτερος) to speak of those who are called to leadership in the Church! Could you give me a very good reason why you failed to use "old men" and "old women" in verse 17 instead of the switch that was never intended there?

Later, in verse 17 he refered to the Overseers in the congregation which would include spiritually mature Men both Young and Old. (That would obviously include Men like Timothy who were of a young age but spiritually mature)

I'm sorry for you, sage! You're simply forcing your own reasoning into Scripture to sound 'nice'; but go through again and see that that the word "elders" (presbuteros, πρεσβύτερος) is never used for "young men"! Please show me where I might be mistaken about that!

I've pointed out to you earlier that the words for "young men" and "young women" are the same Greek words (νέος -- neos; νεώτερος -- neōteros) and were never used in Scripture (as far as I know) to speak of those who are called ELDERS (presbuteros, πρεσβύτερος)!!

@sage,

sage:

Apart from the fact that this passage you have been quoting as if it had an atom of support for your claims lists some duties women do within the congregation (Non of which suggests serving as an Overseer)

That is because you're deliberately refusing to study the word contexts in verses 1 & 2 and see that it cannot be gainsaid that both the men and women are called exactly the same term that is used in Scripture for elders! It is not simply their being called that jointly, but I've also demonstrated clearly the various and distinct leadership roles each one is called to fulfill in the Church.

The questions I left you thereto up until now are yet to be answered. Plus, you haven't showed me where in Scripture women are forbidden from either praying or prophesying! So, where do you read, for example, that James 5:14 applies to ONLY MEN where infact Scripture does not teach it so at all? You guys have been cleverly trying to read "MEN ONLY" into just about every verse that speaks of Church elders in the NT where those verses do not say so!

sage:

Your claim that some bible translations mistranslated the point that Paul was trying to make and suggesting that those verses ment not dominating but could suggest that Both Men and Women can all be Overseers is completely Flawed and Spurious at best

Because, in those same verses

1) Women are asked to learn in Submission
Overseers take the lead in the congregation

That women are asked to learn in all submission does not negate that some women are called to leadership in Church as elders as well. This is why I have asked, and now repeat my question for the umpteenth time: "Is LEADERSHIP in the Church defined only by those who teach? Are all elders called to do exactly the same thing - TEACH?"

You see leadership in Church only in a narrow sense; and for you, if anyone is not to teach, he/she automatically is disqualified from being called by God to be a leader in Church! That idea is deeply flawed, and you'd have to go back and look into Scripture rather than force the narrow idea you've been holding onto fastidiously to prove what you can't defend.

sage:

2)Women cannot deliberate publicly on Congregational issues
Overseers deliberate on and take decisions for the congregation, and the congregation follows their lead.

Oh sage, please don't make me laugh! What does I Cor. 12:28 teach you about "HELPS" and "GOVERNMENTS"? Are those matters meant only for men - and where does Scripture expressly say what you have been advancing? Is that verse speaking only about men?

You're making the Body of Christ narrower than Scripture shows us, sage!

Just for teasers: please come back in bold capitals and let me know if you think that in the history of God's people, women were never consulting in critical decisions that affected the collective people, or determined issues that affected men! No, I've got no shockers - just a gentle jolt to awaken you to reality!

sage:

3) Women are not allowed to teach men
Overseers are mandated to teach the whole congregation, including Men

Sorry bros, if women are not allowed to teach men (even young men), then you're saying that the same women are not allowed to pray nor prophesy (I Cor. 14:4 & 5); neither than they pray over the sick if those sick are "young men" (James 5:14)! If one was dying, we'd have to first check her gender before determining whether or not God could answer her prayers, because "the prayer of faith" is something exclusively reserved only for the MALES, not so?

Please go review again what you understand by LEADERSHIP and ELDERSHIP; because what you've been steering so far is off-course!

sage:

4) Women discuss congregational issues with their husbands.
.
Overseers issue directives to the whole congregation.

Sorry bros, I did not read anywhere in Scripture that the Church sounded like a military bootcamp. Elders are supposed to teach and care for those entrusted to their leadership - but that does not include "issuing directives"; or you'd be crossing the line into 1 Peter 5:3 where elders are asked to not "lord over" God's heritage. Now you come back telling me that women are not called to care for the Church simply because you define eldership only in terms of teaching and issuing directives!

sage:

5) Overseers [color=#990000]excercise authority and shephard the whole flock. (its not a question of usurping. Women CANNOT exercise that same authority)[[/color]color=#990000][/color]

If women cannot exercise authority over those entrusted to their care, then Scripture should not have mentioned them as "elders" in 1 Tim. 5:2 in the same term that it mentions the men in vs. 1 of that chapter.

However, I've shown why 1 Timothy 5 is concerned with elders as leaders; and anyone trying to pretend the issue in order to make the switch in vs. 17 from "old men" to "elders" is being prejudiced.

sage:

So any claim that those verses somehow was suggesting that women could serve as Overseers with Men but should not usurp it but that the point was misrepresented is wrong.

That is because you have yet to understand what authority is; and the difference between "having authority" and "usurping authority".  You constantly forget that if men only are called elders, even such men are also asked to not domineer authority over God's heritage (1 pet. 5:3) - which I've helped point out from study materials that "usurping over" and "lording it over" are simply the same thing: to domineer others!

@sage,

sage:

So far, claims of Ist Timoty, nor Ist Peter have lended no hand to arguments that a woman can become an Overseer.

In which case don't even try twisting verse 17 to mean that those called called "elders" there are "overseers". You still have yet to clearly show why the same people being addressed in verses 1 & 2 and called by the same term (presbuteros) would suddenly be twisted to mean something else when it gets to verse 17.

sage:

There is nothing in the scriptures that allows room for Women Overseers.[color=#990000][/color]

On the contrary, I've demonstrated it clearly that women are called "elders" in exactly the same way that men are called - and together they "rule" and "care" in the Church in the various roles that God has called for each one to fulfill.

It is preposterious for anyone to suppose that a male could assume the all-in-all and take over the roles that women are called to fulfill; and as yet, I haven't read you discussing such to counter the issues I already offered in that regard.

sage:

All these arguments would be meaningless if we don't first accept this points from the bible

Isn't it interesting that almost every point you made right from the OT to argue your case have been largely debunked?  Deborah again? And where's your answer to the question I offered about Huldah?

sage:

1 Overseers are to exercise (note this has nothing to do with usurping ) authority over all within the congregation.

Your problem is your trying to arrogate that authority for only males whereas Scripture does not limit leadership in the Body of Christ the way you've been pushing all along.

sage:

Women cannot exercise that same authority. (This is not a question of usurping, but cannot exercise the same authority that Overseers do)

Hehe. . . What again have you said about 'presbuteros' in 1 Tim.5:1, 2, 17, 19-20; Heb. 13:7, 17, 24; and 1 Pet. 5;1-3[b]?[/b]  

sage:

2 the work of Overseers leaves no room at all for a person who are not allowed to, or are restricted when it comes to issues of Shepharding, exercising authority, teaching, issuing directives etc, THINGS WOMEN IN THE CONGREGATION ARE RESTRICTED ON.

No, you didn't complete the list - HELPS, GOVERNMENT, PRAYING, PROPHESYING. . . all these women are to be mute and warm the back seats of "all the congregation of the saints", not so?

Lol, sage. . . wetin do you? Why is it soooo much of a trouble to consult your study tools to help you solve your problems on this issue?  

I don't plan on setting foot into a church unless it's a Christian friend or family member or something's wedding or funeral but in the different churches I did attend there were female pastors and some had male pastors. If you have a problem with a female pastor and you're a woman then you've been brainwashed and if you're a man who has a problem with it I say get over it because whose to say having a penis makes you more competent or a better person? If you think women should be led please get a clue because we're not dogs and not all men are smart or capable.

MsEbz:

I[b] don't plan on setting foot into a church unless it's a Christian friend or family member or something's wedding or funeral[/b] but in the different churches I did attend there were female pastors and some had male pastors. If you have a problem with a female pastor and you're a woman then you've been brainwashed and if you're a man who has a problem with it I say get over it because whose to say having a penis makes you more competent or a better person? If you think women should be led please get a clue because we're not dogs and not all men are smart or capable.

Hmm.

Is it Gender or God we go to worship in church?

I have attended several local assemblies and had to take my leave when I realised a woman was to minister.
This spritual matter should not be compared to an academic teaching.

Read these scriptures: 1 corinthians 14:33-37 and 1 Timothy 2:10-16. To mention a few

1 Timothy 2:10-16--------- I DO NOT ALLOW A WOMAN TO TEACH NOR TO USURP AUTHORITY OVER THE MAN BUT TO BE IN SUBJECTION.

NOTE 1 corinthians 14:37: IT IS GOD'S COMMANDMENT AND NOT PAUL'S

It is an abomination for a woman to lead in the Church.

Esther was not a leader neither Deborah. the later was just a prophetess which is quite different from a priest.

A priest (Aaron and his sons and not daughters) in the old testament was in charge of all religious activities which is a type of ministers in the new testament.

NOTE 1 corinthians 14:37: [b]IT IS GOD'S COMMANDMENT AND NOT PAUL'S. Jesus Christ said if you love Me keep My commandments.

THIS IS THE PERFECT WILL OF GOD. OBEY IT AND LIVE.