Do Women Have The Right To Preach



LAW DAWG said:
That want do! The Apostle Paul is simply stating to his young protege, Timothy, he does not permit it with the intent that he does like-wise.
Click to expand...
Won't do?

Then, you admit the Apostle Paul didn't allow it and instructed Timothy not to allow it.

Well, let's see what else Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:1 - 3

1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 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.

Do with that what you will. Paul said to follow him as he follows Christ. Keep the ordinances as he delivered them. You've admitted what Paul said not to do.

So, follow Paul ... or ... do what you want. Both types of people can be read about in the Bible.

Even women who say "God called" them to do what they were told not to do. And the men dumb enough to believe and follow that.
 
SUJagFan said:
Won't do?

Then, you admit the Apostle Paul didn't allow it and instructed Timothy not to allow it.

Well, let's see what else Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:1 - 3

1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 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.

Do with that what you will. Paul said to follow him as he follows Christ. Keep the ordinances as he delivered them. You've admitted what Paul said not to do.

So, follow Paul ... or ... do what you want. Both types of people can be read about in the Bible.

Even women who say "God called" them to do what they were told not to do. And the men dumb enough to believe and follow that.
Click to expand...
I have not forgotten you like to argue.

With that said, I didn't admit anything, there was nothing to refute. What Paul is saying in 1 Timothy 2:12 is quite clear. He doesn't permit it, it's not an edict nor a commandment, but instead a testament of his doctrinal belief. He attempts to justify it in the succeeding few verses, inclusive of verse 2:14, which actually undermines his justification since God held Adam and Eve accountable.

If we accept that biblical women like Huldah, Anna and Deborah are prophetess then it makes little sense to question if women have a right to preach.

Questioning whether they should pastor makes far more sense in my opinion.

The aforementioned are my final words on that matter. The last word is yours.
 
I'm still trying to figure out how Paul, a secondary source, became such an expert when there were so Many primary sources ( those who were actually taught by and broke bread with Jesus) still around?
 
LAW DAWG said:
I have not forgotten you like to argue.

With that said, I didn't admit anything, there was nothing to refute. What Paul is saying in 1 Timothy 2:12 is quite clear. He doesn't permit it, it's not an edict nor a commandment, but instead a testament of his doctrinal belief. He attempts to justify it in the succeeding few verses, inclusive of verse 2:14, which actually undermines his justification since God held Adam and Eve accountable.

If we accept that biblical women like Huldah, Anna and Deborah are prophetess then it makes little sense to question if women have a right to preach.

Questioning whether they should pastor makes far more sense in my opinion.

The aforementioned are my final words on that matter. The last word is yours.
Click to expand...
You should have stopped at "there was nothing to refute". The rest is an attempt to convolute what is written with what people have decided to do. To suggest that Paul's words are not doctrine, but mere suggestion that we can choose to interpret as we will is ... interesting. An interesting form of a lie, but interesting nevertheless.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” - 2 Timothy 3:16

Secondly, holding both Adam and Eve accountable does not mean Adam and Eve were equal. To wit, Genesis 3:16.

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

He shall rule over thee. I guess God didn't really mean that either. It's left up to interpretation because today's men don't have the testicular fortitude to say no to women.

Lastly, there is a distinct difference between prophesying and teaching from the Bible (preaching).
 
Attack Dog said:
I'm still trying to figure out how Paul, a secondary source, became such an expert when there were so Many primary sources ( those who were actually taught by and broke bread with Jesus) still around?
Click to expand...
Brother, to suggest that Paul was a "secondary source" shows a profound lack of understanding of Jesus Christ, Apostle Paul, and the apostleship.

Galatians 1, particularly:

1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead; )
.
.
.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul is a direct source. He had to be a direct source or he would not be an apostle.
 
Last edited:
Attack Dog said:
I'm still trying to figure out how Paul, a secondary source, became such an expert when there were so Many primary sources ( those who were actually taught by and broke bread with Jesus) still around?
Click to expand...
Considering it for a few minutes, I attribute in part to three factors.

1. When religious authorities convened at the Council of Nicea, 325 AD, they chose thirteen of Paul's epistles/letters to compose nearly half of the New Testament.

2. Paul's missionary zeal, and his willingness to teach the gospel to gentile/pagan nations. He was willing to put in the work, and go into all nations whether they were receptive or very hostile of his teachings. The other apostles only wanted to teach the gospel to Jews.

3. Third, and the most important, I believe it was divinely inspired. Paul/Saul's christophany experience on the Damascus road, the protection and numerous times the Lord rescued/delivered him from harrowing circumstances, his zeal to teach the gospel at risk of great harm, even death. Also, his eventual murder which led to his martyrdom in christianity.
 

LAW DAWG said:
Considering it for a few minutes, I attribute in part to three factors.

1. When religious authorities convened at the Council of Nicea, 325 AD, they chose thirteen of Paul's epistles/letters to compose nearly half of the New Testament.

2. Paul's missionary zeal, and his willingness to teach the gospel to gentile/pagan nations. He was willing to put in the work, and go into all nations whether they were receptive or very hostile of his teachings. The other apostles only wanted to teach the gospel to Jews.

3. Third, and the most important, I believe it was divinely inspired. Paul/Saul's christophany experience on the Damascus road, the protection and numerous times the Lord rescued/delivered him from harrowing circumstances, his zeal to teach the gospel at risk of great harm, even death. Also, his eventual murder which led to his martyrdom in christianity.
Click to expand...

Y'all keep trying to figure it out.

I'll just believe what the scripture says.

I'll believe the Damascus road conversion and I'll believe Paul when he said he wasn't taught by man but got what he preached by revelation from Jesus Christ. Chosen and taught by Jesus.

Miss me with man's thoughts, opinions, ideas, reasonings, and rationalizations. It's very interesting that the naysayers have plenty of opinions, but no scripture.

Very telling indeed.
 
What did you say, Paul?

37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. ~ 1 Corinthians 14:37

The things you write are the commandments of the Lord? The commandments of the Lord.

Should the commandments of the Lord be doctrine? Hmmm. 🤔
 
12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. ~ Isaiah 3:12
 
SUJagFan said:
Brother, to suggest that Paul was a "secondary source" shows a profound lack of understanding of Jesus Christ, Apostle Paul, and the apostleship.

Galatians 1, particularly:

1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead; )
.
.
.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul is a direct source. He had to be a direct source or he would not be an
Click to expand...
I'm just going to say this. Anytime man says " I would do this" or " I would do that", that is his opinion and/or interpretation. That is a huge difference from "Thus sayeth the lord". Those who walked with Jesus didn't have to interpret and what they didn't understand he explained to them face to face. They knew Jesus, they were there for his ups and his downs.
 
Attack Dog said:
I'm just going to say this. Anytime man says " I would do this" or " I would do that", that is his opinion and/or interpretation. That is a huge difference from "Thus sayeth the lord". Those who walked with Jesus didn't have to interpret and what they didn't understand he explained to them face to face. They knew Jesus, they were there for his ups and his downs.
Click to expand...

And I'll say this:

Brother, you need to stop talking about this subject. Matter of fact, you need to stop discussing the Bible at all.

You understand so little about what you speak that it is frightening. To think that Paul didn't "know Jesus". That Paul didn't understand suffering - "ups and downs". Like I said before, you don't understand Jesus, Apostle Paul, or the apostleship.

Brother, you keep trying to demote Paul because he wasn't around when Jesus on Earth teaching the Apostles in person. You might as well be saying you don't believe the Bible at all.

I assume you are aware of his Damascus road conversion. Acts 9:1-19. If you don't believe Jesus was speaking directly to Saul/Paul in those scriptures then there is no help for you. I've already given scripture saying that Paul wasn't taught by man but by Jesus. If you don't believe Jesus taught Paul, then there is no help for you.

Paul was not less than the other apostles. I'm not just saying that. I have chapter and verse that I can read.

5 For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles ~ 2 Corinthians 11:5

I've also given scripture showing that Paul's writings were a little more powerful than just a man's "opinion and/or interpretation". Not my opinion, but chapter and verse that you can read.

Let me go a little deeper. I hesitate to do this, but ....

There is a parallel between Jesus and Paul ... and God and Moses. Do you believe Moses was taught by God? If so, how? In person? Spiritually?

11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle. ~ Exodus 33:11

You seem to value "face to face" teaching. Do you believe the Bible? Do you believe what you just read? That the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend. As Joel Olsteen would say, do you receive it?

If you don't believe Jesus taught Paul, how can you believe God taught Moses? Either you believe both or you believe neither.

At this point, just say you don't believe the Bible - old testament or new testament - and be done with it.

Stop trying to justify women's disobedience - with no scriptural proof, only conjecture - and just say you don't believe or understand the Bible at all.
 
SUJagFan said:
And I'll say this:

Brother, you need to stop talking about this subject. Matter of fact, you need to stop discussing the Bible at all.
Click to expand...
That was not very Christian, meaning "one who follows Christ". However, the argument could be made for some form of zealot.
SUJagFan said:
You understand so little about what you speak that it is frightening. To think that Paul didn't "know Jesus". That Paul didn't understand suffering - "ups and downs". Like I said before, you don't understand Jesus, Apostle Paul, or the apostleship.
Click to expand...
He did not know Jesus the way his physically hand picked and physically taught by him disciplines did. My question was as stated, nothing more nothing less.
SUJagFan said:
Brother, you keep trying to demote Paul because he wasn't around when Jesus on Earth teaching the Apostles in person. You might as well be saying you don't believe the Bible at all.
Click to expand...
Over 40 percent of the New Testament was written by Paul. That's almost half. There is no demotion, the question was what it was. I find it very interesting that you would respond in this manner because of a question when a large part of what Jesus did was to ask and and answer questions.
SUJagFan said:
I assume you are aware of his Damascus road conversion. Acts 9:1-19. If you don't believe Jesus was speaking directly to Saul/Paul in those scriptures then there is no help for you. I've already given scripture saying that Paul wasn't taught by man but by Jesus. If you don't believe Jesus taught Paul, then there is no help for you.
Click to expand...
Yes I am aware. But why does his conversion trump those who actually put hands on Jesus, laughed and broke bread with him?
SUJagFan said:
There is a parallel between Jesus and Paul ... and God and Moses. Do you believe Moses was taught by God? If so, how? In person? Spiritually?

11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle. ~ Exodus 33:11

You seem to value "face to face" teaching. Do you believe the Bible? Do you believe what you just read? That the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend. As Joel Olsteen would say, do you receive it?

If you don't believe Jesus taught Paul, how can you believe God taught Moses? Either you believe both or you believe neither.

At this point, just say you don't believe the Bible - old testament or new testament - and be done with it.

Stop trying to justify women's disobedience - with no scriptural proof, only conjecture - and just say you don't believe or understand the Bible at all.
Click to expand...
Here in lies the danger of zealots. Part of "studying" is asking questions. Where did I justify women's disobedience? God taught Moses and gave his staff power to glorify him. God gave Moses the law. God gave Moses power that could be seen and felt. Over 40% of the New Testament was written by Paul which means that his word and his teachings are elevated over the other disciples who actually knew Jesus.

Also, God buried Moses. If Aaron had been elevated over Moses, whom God had a relationship with, then I would have questions about that.
 
Attack Dog said:
That was not very Christian, meaning "one who follows Christ". However, the argument could be made for some form of zealot.

He did not know Jesus the way his physically hand picked and physically taught by him disciplines did. My question was as stated, nothing more nothing less.

Over 40 percent of the New Testament was written by Paul. That's almost half. There is no demotion, the question was what it was. I find it very interesting that you would respond in this manner because of a question when a large part of what Jesus did was to ask and and answer questions.

Yes I am aware. But why does his conversion trump those who actually put hands on Jesus, laughed and broke bread with him?

Here in lies the danger of zealots. Part of "studying" is asking questions. Where did I justify women's disobedience? God taught Moses and gave his staff power to glorify him. God gave Moses the law. God gave Moses power that could be seen and felt. Over 40% of the New Testament was written by Paul which means that his word and his teachings are elevated over the other disciples who actually knew Jesus.

Also, God buried Moses. If Aaron had been elevated over Moses, whom God had a relationship with, then I would have questions about that.
Click to expand...
For once, I'm nearly speechless.

Nearly.

The amount of ignorance - on so many levels, from so many directions - is astounding. You don't know ... and don't know that you don't know.

Your basic premise that being taught by Jesus in person is somehow better than being taught spiritually is incorrect. It's simply wrong.

There are so many scriptures that prove you're wrong, but I'm just going to give you one, Matthew 16:13-17:

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Here are the disciples "who actually put hands on Jesus, laughed and broke bread with him" as you say, asked about the identity of Jesus. Several incorrect answers were given. Then, one of the disciples gave the correct answer.

Note carefully what Jesus said to Simon Barjona. Flesh and blood hath not REVEALED it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. The correct answer came straight from heaven. Not from being with Jesus - walking, talking, eating, and laughing with him. The true answer was delivered spiritually - from God to man - to a disciple who had in-person conversation with Jesus.

Hmmm. I seem to remember showing the Apostle Paul saying he didn't get what he preached from men, but by the REVELATION of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-12).

Are you sure you still want to continue this tact that being around Jesus physically was somehow better than knowing him spiritually?

Are you sure? If I were you, I'd be cautious about "questioning" the validity and thoroughness of what Jesus revealed to the Apostle Paul from heaven. Unlike you, I don't think I'm big enough to "question" that.

I've again noticed that you have no scriptural proof of anything. Just conjecture. Nothing.

I now realize I should have carried one of the scriptures I quoted earlier one verse further, 1 Corinthians 14:37-38.

37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

With that said ... good day, sir.
 
Last edited:
SUJagFan said:
Brother, to suggest that Paul was a "secondary source" shows a profound lack of understanding of Jesus Christ, Apostle Paul, and the apostleship.

Galatians 1, particularly:

1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead; )
.
.
.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul is a direct source. He had to be a direct source or he would not be an apostle.
Click to expand...

SUJagFan said:
For once, I'm nearly speechless.

Nearly.

The amount of ignorance - on so many levels, from so many directions - is astounding. You don't know ... and don't know that you don't know.

Your basic premise that being taught by Jesus in person is somehow better than being taught spiritually is incorrect. It's simply wrong.
Click to expand...
Apparently I know a lot more than you because I know that the manner in which you are responding to me is not in the image of Jesus. Jesus was always open ti questions even when he knew the negative intent of some questions. Unlike you, there has been no insult to you or your thoughts on the subject. Paul's over 40% of the New Testament in relation to the contributions of those who actually walked with Jesus is the heart of my question. I did not call Paul a liar nor anything negative about him. The question was why was his elevated over the others. Over 40% is not a small contribution.
SUJagFan said:
There are so many scriptures that prove you're wrong, but I'm just going to give you one, Matthew 16:13-17:


13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Here are the disciples "who actually put hands on Jesus, laughed and broke bread with him" as you say, asked about the identity of Jesus. Several incorrect answers were given. Then, one of the disciples gave the correct answer.

Note carefully what Jesus said to Simon Barjona. Flesh and blood hath not REVEALED it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. The correct answer came straight from heaven. Not from being with Jesus - walking, talking, eating, and laughing with him. The true answer was delivered spiritually - from God to man - to a disciple who had in-person conversation with Jesus.

Hmmm. I seem to remember showing the Apostle Paul saying he didn't get what he preached from men, but by the REVELATION of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-12).

Are you sure you still want to continue this tact that being around Jesus physically was somehow better than knowing him spiritually?
Click to expand...
So you still don't see a difference or distinction between Paul and the others? Once again the g question was why 40% from Paul?
SUJagFan said:
Are you sure? If I were you, I'd be cautious about "questioning" the validity and thoroughness of Jesus' teachings to the Apostle Paul after Jesus returned to heaven. Unlike you, I don't think I'm big enough to question that. Particularly when you don't understand biblical basics.
Click to expand...
Just because I ask why Paul, is not questioning his validity. I humbly submit to you that your method of response to me shows that he don't understand Jesus basics.
SUJagFan said:
I've again noticed that you have no scriptural proof of anything. Just conjecture. Nothing.
Click to expand...
SUJagFan said:
I now realize I should have carried one of the scriptures I quoted earlier one verse further, 1 Corinthians 14:37-38.


37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

With that said ... good day, sir.
Click to expand...
 
Attack Dog said:
Apparently I know a lot more than you because I know that the manner in which you are responding to me is not in the image of Jesus. Jesus was always open ti questions even when he knew the negative intent of some questions. Unlike you, there has been no insult to you or your thoughts on the subject. Paul's over 40% of the New Testament in relation to the contributions of those who actually walked with Jesus is the heart of my question. I did not call Paul a liar nor anything negative about him. The question was why was his elevated over the others. Over 40% is not a small contribution.

So you still don't see a difference or distinction between Paul and the others? Once again the g question was why 40% from Paul?

Just because I ask why Paul, is not questioning his validity. I humbly submit to you that your method of response to me shows that he don't understand Jesus basics.
Click to expand...
You just told another lie.

Earlier you said Paul's words were "his opinion and/or interpretation" and tried to say Paul was "secondary source" because " there were so Many primary sources ( those who were actually taught by and broke bread with Jesus) still around?" Suggesting that primary sources were actually around Jesus and Paul is a secondary source because he came along after Jesus returned to heaven.

You were NOT merely asking why Paul's writings are nearly 40% of the New Testament. You were trying to sow doubt into the validity of Paul's words, and thus, the scriptures forbidding women to teach in the church.

Finally, saying the way I respond to you is not "Christian" (which I don't claim to be) - Christ was sinless - I'm am not close to being "like Christ" as I am most certainly a sinner. At best, I'm a believer in God and his Son, Jesus Christ. I can read how to respond to liars that may not be in a way you like - Titus 1:10-13:

10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

Again ... good day, sir.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top