End Time Army of Women Preachers Psalms 68:11

[pilgram]

Originally Posted by rdp

*No such thing as a "woman preacher" (in the official set-in ministerial office) according to the Bible - It couldn't possibly be clearer .


*Personally, my family & I (as well as innumerable preachers we know) would walk out if a "pastor" allowed a woman to get up & "preach/teach" a service in the face of such crystal-clear Scripture (e.g., I Timothy 2.11-15; I Cor. 14.34-35; etc.)

Under the qualifications for the ministry it clearly states "the husband of one wife"
That settles it right there.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pilgram

Under the qualifications for the ministry it clearly states "the husband of one wife"
That settles it right there.

No it does not say "the Ministry"

Paul was a Minister and there was no indication he was married and faithful over his house (how can he be when he was never at home?)

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No it does not say "the Ministry"

Paul was a Minister and there was no indication he was married and faithful over his house (how can he be when he was never at home?)

A very close, literal view disqualifies not only women but also single men from ministry. All the evangelists need to sit down and be quiet until they're married.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

A very close, literal view disqualifies not only women but also single men from ministry. All the evangelists need to sit down and be quiet until they're married.

Which, being interpreted means - "I cannot adequately explain the passages which clearly forbid women from "teaching-preaching" in the church, so I'll tell everyone what it 'doesn't' mean (according to you) - But I cannot tell anyone what it 'DOES' mean."





.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by rdp

Which, being interpreted means - "I cannot adequately explain the passages which clearly forbid women from "teaching-preaching" in the church, so I'll tell everyone what it 'doesn't' mean (according to you) - But I cannot tell anyone what it 'DOES' mean."





.

It's duly noted that YOU didn't respond with an explanation either.

I'm just asking about consistency. If a literal view is taken, it must be applied consistently. Do you take the same stance on single men in the ministry that you do on women in the ministry? If not, why not?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

It's duly noted that YOU didn't respond with an explanation either.

I'm just asking about consistency. If a literal view is taken, it must be applied consistently. Do you take the same stance on single men in the ministry that you do on women in the ministry? If not, why not?

Silly. Where does Paul forbid single men from preaching-teaching in the church:____________? He doesn't (ummmm, know ye not that Paul {& Jesus} was single ?) - That interpretation is supplied by the pro "women-preachers" crowd.


Will elaborate further later tonight on the grammar of the text y'all rip from its context & intended meaning .

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by rdp

Silly. Where does Paul forbid single men from preaching-teaching in the church:____________? He doesn't (ummmm, know ye not that Paul {& Jesus} was single ?) - That interpretation is supplied by the pro "women-preachers" crowd.


Will elaborate further later tonight on the grammar of the text y'all rip from its context & intended meaning .

rdp, if the phrase "husband of one wife" handily forbids women from ministry, then it also disqualifies single men from ministry, since a single man has no wife.

So I'm taking your response to mean that you don't agree that single men can't be bishops/elders/deacons?

Literal interpretations need to be consistent, or they lose credibility. I think that taking this passage literally is actually a valid interpretation, even though I don't agree with that particular take. However, it's only a respectable view if it's consistent and not interpreted only to the benefit of a certain stance.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rdp

Silly. Where does Paul forbid single men from preaching-teaching in the church:____________? He doesn't (ummmm, know ye not that Paul {& Jesus} was single ?) - That interpretation is supplied by the pro "women-preachers" crowd.


Will elaborate further later tonight on the grammar of the text y'all rip from its context & intended meaning .

That was her point, it doesn't.

[Roxanne Murphy]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

It's duly noted that YOU didn't respond with an explanation either.

I'm just asking about consistency. If a literal view is taken, it must be applied consistently. Do you take the same stance on single men in the ministry that you do on women in the ministry? If not, why not?

Good luck getting an honest answer because the only honest answer exposes the hypocrisy and the almost misogynist mindset that permeates the anti-woman preacher theology.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Roxanne Murphy

Good luck getting an honest answer because the only honest answer exposes the hypocrisy and the almost misogynist mindset that permeates the anti-woman preacher theology.

LOL - Poor ol' "misogynist" Apostle Paul:


Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says.



11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.


Explain it away until doomsday - it'll still mean exactly what it says when you're finished tampering with it !