Do you believe in women who...........

[PositivelyAKA]

Originally posted by SableCherub:
there is a difference between rejection...and questioning/further investigation...there is a difference between accepting the words you hear coming directly out of the mouth of jesus christ himself...and blindly accepting the words as reinterpreted today...i have heard the "pick and choose arguement" many times to justify ignorance...2 Timothy 2:15 - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth... it's kind of like the game telephone...by the time it gets to the last person it has been muddied and suited to the minds of the communicators (kind of like that pick and choose arguement you used) and has lost some of its original authenticity...

[This message has been edited by SableCherub (edited June 08, 2001).]

then we agree that God's word is trustworthy unlike man who are not always, although God does work thru man. thank God the bible was written by spiritual men of God whom God lead thru the holy spirit to write his bible in that we can trust as his word speaks on it in 2 Peter 1:20-21. and if you read further in chp 2 you will see that God is not unaware of false prophets/teachers all the more reason for us to go back to God's word (the bible) before we just accept any old thang someone is trying to tell us.
God is greater than his creation, so if anyone is trying to decieve us, God has something for them Rev 22:18

[sphinxpoet]

The Bible is very tough to interpet without reading it all the way through. The question is how reliable is the source. To this day I have yet to hear anyone question the Book of Revelation as truth. Yet in theory it was written in a "dream like" state. Yet when we reflect on those things that we don't like we begin to question the source. Let us look at the role in the woman in the Bible. Their roles in the old
testement and new testement seem so diffrent. The first person to be without sin in the bible was a woman (Mary) mother of Jesus! And when we look at certain lines in the bible let us remeber the context they are presented. Many of the New testement scriptures on Marriage and women were designed to keep the Church together. But let us remeber what Jesus said "render on to Ceaser what is Ceaser and the Lord what is the Lord" The relationships we have are for us to define but ultimatly it is the LORD that is the overseer of the house of marriage.

ps Women preachers are not a problem to me

Sphinxpoet
And you thought I was just good looking

[CodeBlue_R3]

Personally I don't feel that women should be the head of a church-but as far as preaching if they have the gift and have been chosen all power to them. I have been blessed to have been in college under a female preacher and she was awesome. God used her just as a man could have been used. Wasn't Mary M. told use her testimony for the men? I generally try to avoid the battle of the bible topics but I feel that this is something a lot of people have issues with-since when did God give us specific people to roam the world saying they are the only that is right. You can't take one verse and make it just that. You have to read all around before, after, leading up too, and future. But anyway enough of that-I've spoken my peace.

-------------------------------------------
By the way if you are not saved all it takes is a sincere asking of forgiveness and believing that Jesus died for your sins. It's not easy-but it is well worth the rewards.

[PositivelyAKA]

Originally posted by Monique:
well all i have to say on this topic is ..My pastor is a WOMAN and she's a damn good preacher.. i wish Men would stop trying to twist the words of the bible..It doesn't matter.. Who R U 2 Judge..

please read SlvrGold's post on women preachers, those are scriptures from God not man. read also 2 Peter 1:20-21 and my post above.

on the juding thing, anytime anyone tells someone something they don't want to hear they say "you are judging me" please read 1 Cor 2:11-16, as christians we have the spirit of God that we may instruct others as to the truths of God, it is up to them to accept or deny the truth, we are just messengers, of course everyone has an opinion BUT the only opinion that counts is God's word SlvrGold and myself have both provided scripture for you to read up on the matter. AND by the way i'm sure your pastor is good (i will refrain from the profanity you used) but that doesn't change the fact that the bible says the man is over the woman in Christ, not better, but over and he is the head of the house. we can't change God's words to fit our lifestyles. the woman's role in the bible is GREAT, but she is not to teach or have authority over a man, which SlvrGold provided the scripture for that.

[SableCherub]

"There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words (the bible) that very word which i spoke will condemn him at the last day..."

there is a difference between rejection...and questioning/further investigation...there is a difference between accepting the words you hear coming directly out of the mouth of jesus christ himself...and blindly accepting the words as reinterpreted today...i have heard the "pick and choose arguement" many times to justify ignorance...2 Timothy 2:15 - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth... it's kind of like the game telephone...by the time it gets to the last person it has been muddied and suited to the minds of the communicators (kind of like that pick and choose arguement you used) and has lost some of its original authenticity...



[This message has been edited by SableCherub (edited June 08, 2001).]

[1 Woman of Virtue]

Since this topic first posted, I've thought some more on the issue. I think the Bible, as it was given to human kind, is stright from the heart of God. However, it was given in 3 basic languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Now most of us know that the King James version of the Bible, is believed to be (by many, not all, current Bible scholars) the most poorly translated version. That is important, because most of us try to live our lives based on the Bible, and if we are studying a poor translation, than it is easy to see how we can get tripped up. In an ideal world, we would know these 3 languages, so we wouldn't have to depend on someone's interpretation of the language, and meaning. But the fact is, we don't.
An example of how dangerous this can be, is found in a version of the Torah (part of what we call the books of Moses (Gen-Deut)where the Jewish leaders describe the curse of Ham (Gen 10) as resulting in black skin (based on the Hamitic myth that Blacks are the cursed sons of Ham). Now is this in the original Hebrew? No, at least not according to many leading Jewish thinkers and linguistic experts; until recent decades however, it was preached even in Christian churches as gospel. The only way I can be sure, is to go back to the original Hebrew and study for myself.
So while I do not doubt that the Word of God as given to humans is true, I do doubt those that would translate and interpret falsely, so as to ensure their own agenda. For centuries, this country taught that the Black man and woman were divinely cursed to be slaves forever--and they used mal-interpreted scripture to back it up.

And on women preachers, well the Bible also says that there is no longer any Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, bound nor free...
So as far as I'm concerned, I'll let God choose whom He will, to do his work.

[DoggyStyle82]

Originally posted by 1 Woman of Virtue:
Since this topic first posted, I've thought some more on the issue. I think the Bible, as it was given to human kind, is stright from the heart of God. However, it was given in 3 basic languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Now most of us know that the King James version of the Bible, is believed to be (by many, not all, current Bible scholars) the most poorly translated version. That is important, because most of us try to live our lives based on the Bible, and if we are studying a poor translation, than it is easy to see how we can get tripped up. In an ideal world, we would know these 3 languages, so we wouldn't have to depend on someone's interpretation of the language, and meaning. But the fact is, we don't.
An example of how dangerous this can be, is found in a version of the Torah (part of what we call the books of Moses (Gen-Deut)where the Jewish leaders describe the curse of Ham (Gen 10) as resulting in black skin (based on the Hamitic myth that Blacks are the cursed sons of Ham). Now is this in the original Hebrew? No, at least not according to many leading Jewish thinkers and linguistic experts; until recent decades however, it was preached even in Christian churches as gospel. The only way I can be sure, is to go back to the original Hebrew and study for myself.
So while I do not doubt that the Word of God as given to humans is true, I do doubt those that would translate and interpret falsely, so as to ensure their own agenda. For centuries, this country taught that the Black man and woman were divinely cursed to be slaves forever--and they used mal-interpreted scripture to back it up.

That is a poor example. This "country" has never taught that Blacks were destined to be slaves. Some individuals, yes, some churches, yes, but never this country or the Bible. The Bible, nor the books of Moses ever states that Ham or his descendants were cursed with Blackness. There is a companion to the Torah (not the Torah itself), that states that the Hamitic curse led Africans to have dark skin, red eyes, and elongated penises. The actual Hamitic curse was place on Canaan, Ham's grandson, and it was not placed by God, but by Noah, therefore, it is not the Word of God that was incorrect, but how a corrupt mankind chose to misuse the Word for nefarious purposes. Please be advised that what you have described are man's selfish interpretation and not what the word says. Which is what you are seeming to do, trying to change the Word to suit your needs (by saying that it is invalid). While some translations may be grammatically incorrect, the King James version has proven to be thematically and theologically correct when compared to the original Hebrew and Aramaic.

[1 Woman of Virtue]

Originally posted by DoggyStyle82:
That is a poor example. This "country" has never taught that Blacks were destined to be slaves. Some individuals, yes, some churches, yes, but never this country or the Bible. The Bible, nor the books of Moses ever states that Ham or his descendants were cursed with Blackness. There is a companion to the Torah (not the Torah itself), that states that the Hamitic curse led Africans to have dark skin, red eyes, and elongated penises. The actual Hamitic curse was place on Canaan, Ham's grandson, and it was not placed by God, but by Noah, therefore, it is not the Word of God that was incorrect, but how a corrupt mankind chose to misuse the Word for nefarious purposes. Please be advised that what you have described are man's selfish interpretation and not what the word says.

I must stand by the statement that this country taught that Blacks were destined to be slaves. While we may find examples of churches, or individuals, etc. who did not believe this, the fact is that this ethos was espoused from every segment of White society. It was this premise that laid the groundwork for the idea that Blacks were "property" and not human, and later that they were "3/5 human" and not whole. St. Claire Drakes book "Black Folk Here and There V I&II" discusses the horrific impact this ideology (and theology) had on Blacks and Whites in great detail.
I think you actually stated my point, that the scriptures never state that Blacks were destined to be servants by divine curse. But an entire people's culture, lives, and history were negatively effected (a?) by mal-interpretation. That is why it is soo important to make sure of what it is you are reading as God's Word. (hint, hint, grab a concordance)

Which is what you are seeming to do, trying to change the Word to suit your needs (by saying that it is invalid). While some translations may be grammatically incorrect, the King James version has proven to be thematically and theologically correct when compared to the original Hebrew and Aramaic.

I think if you read my original post (and you don't have to read it all that carefully, I think I was fairly obvious for my reverence for the Bible) you will not find one statement that claims that I feel the Word is invalid, or that I tried to change it around.
Simply that it is important to understand what we are reading. The Bible says to "love thy neighbor as thy self" right? But don't you think it is important to understand which love the Word was speaking of? Was it eros love, phileo love, agape love? God forbid we were to go around "eros" loving all of our neighbors! A fairly simple example, yes, but imagine that on a larger scale. All because we failed to receive correct interpretation from one language to the next.
A basic problem (and there were many) in the US issue w/ China over the spy plane was that we were using the wrong type of "sorry". They wanted us to say "sorry" (real basic paraphrase, but you'll see the point, I hope) and we said "sorry". But the "sorry" we used did not convey the "sorry" that they wanted to hear. I remember one reporter claiming that there were over 9 types of "sorry" in their language, and all conveyed a different type of remorse. So the interpretation of a thing from one language to the next is very, VERY important.

And while the King James may be thematically or theologically correct, it is in the practical application that it is considered the most poorly translated. We as humans draw our practical applications of the Word, only partially from theme's or theology. In situations like discussing the role of women in church, I as a woman, think it is very important to make sure we are as clear as possible w/ regards to what the Spirit was saying. As seen in the example about slavery, I for one can not trust "the goodnes of MEN'S" hearts to lead in this area. So I suggest we all make our conconrdance our best friend. Sorry so long, but there were a lot of points to address.

[This message has been edited by 1 Woman of Virtue (edited June 11, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by 1 Woman of Virtue (edited June 11, 2001).]

[Conskeeted19]

Soror Pos., the scriptures that SlvrnGold provided did not state that the man was the head of the woman in christ. It stated that the husband is the head of the wife. I am single - how does the "husband being the head of the wife" apply to me? Moreover, what is your interpretation of Galatains3:26-28.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus

27 For as many of you has been baptized into Christ has put on Christ

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: For ye are all one in Christ Jesus

Also, what does the word PROPHESY means?

[DoggyStyle82]

1WOMANOFVIRTUE:

I take it that we are in agreement on most things, just where we choose to emphasize is different, so I will leave it alone.

[PositivelyAKA]

Originally posted by Conskeeted19:
Soror Pos., the scriptures that SlvrnGold provided did not state that the man was the head of the woman in christ. It stated that the husband is the head of the wife. I am single - how does the "husband being the head of the wife" apply to me? Moreover, what is your interpretation of Galatains3:26-28.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus

27 For as many of you has been baptized into Christ has put on Christ

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: For ye are all one in Christ Jesus

Also, what does the word PROPHESY means?

read 1 Cor7:34 since you are a single woman (like me) that is for you.
also read 1 Cor14:33-39 about women's role in the church which Paul says was commanded by God for him to say in verse 37.
also read Titus 2 which explains the different roles of men and women in the church. and i agree with Galatians because it is God's word and we (christians) are his children thru faith in Jesus, but we still have roles that God established for us for a reason. look at the world today, yeah everybody is independent, blah blah blah, equal rights is all good, but look at the state of the world. we all need to get back to the basics of God and love and respecting the roles God established for us. take care. oh and the word prophesy is found in the dictionary :P soror hit me on the email or invite me in for some tea, great topic!
sisterly positivelyaka


[This message has been edited by PositivelyAKA (edited June 14, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by PositivelyAKA (edited June 14, 2001).]

[Conskeeted19]

ok miss smarty - i know what the word means. lol i wanted you to discuss the meaning - thank you mam. i agree that we have roles; however, when we are ministering God's word we are not us - we are him. "there is neither male nor female, greek nor jew, bond nor free - we are all one in Christ Jesus. gender has no factor. surely if a woman can carry (physically) the word, women should be able to carry (teach, preach....) the word. just my 8 cents and i am out. tea would be great right about now!!!!!!!

peace

[SableCherub]

Originally posted by PositivelyAKA:
then we agree that God's word is trustworthy unlike man who are not always, although God does work thru man. thank God the bible was written by spiritual men of God whom God lead thru the holy spirit to write his bible in that we can trust as his word speaks on it in 2 Peter 1:20-21. and if you read further in chp 2 you will see that God is not unaware of false prophets/teachers all the more reason for us to go back to God's word (the bible) before we just accept any old thang someone is trying to tell us.
God is greater than his creation, so if anyone is trying to decieve us, God has something for them Rev 22:18

yes...we agree that gods word is trustworthy...but not that the bible in its literal translation is...i'll agree to disagree with you on that...

lit·er·al (ltr-l)
adj.

1.Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.

2.Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation.

3.Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual; prosaic: a literal description; a literal mind.

4.Consisting of, using, or expressed by letters: literal notation.

5.Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words.

[This message has been edited by SableCherub (edited June 15, 2001).]

[DoggyStyle82]

FYI: before people get it twisted, women are allowed to preach and minister in every Protestant denomination, they are not allowed the title of Pastor in many denominations, but are allowed to be Ministers, Evangelists, and Prophets.

[LadyAKA]

I did not read all these post yet, but I say anyone preaching the word and doing it with God's intent in mind is alright with me. I love and respect the word and where is came from but it makes sense that women preach ...times are changing and we have to go with the flow.