End Time Army of Women Preachers Psalms 68:11

[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.

[MissBrattified]

Here's an example of correct post formatting. I put spaces in, so you can actually see the script that separates everything nicely--and hopefully learn how to use it.

[Q UOTE=Sister Alvear;1301865]The church and the home are two seperate things. Of course authoritu to some of our friends only means LORDS over God's heritage![/q uote]


Sorry - Try again: "For if a man cannot manage his own household, how can he take care of God's church?"


The home is to be a reflection of the church - next?


And, what happened to your "non-insulting" post only a couple of hours ago? You just infered we were "lord's over God's heritage" - so good to know you're not "insulting" !?



[q uote]Deborah judged both men and women. Phoebe was a Spiritual intity in Paul's life Romans 16:1[/q uote]


LOL - Now you have reduced Phoebe from being a "ruler" over Paul to a mere "entity Paul's life"?? Keep demoting her from where you previously exalted her & eventually she'll find her Biblical place !


[q uote]Aquila AND Priscilla taught a man (Apollos). Half of the ministers Paul recognized in Romans 16 were women![/Q UOTE]


Assumption alert! Just because Paul mentions someone's name does not automatically make them "ministers" - plumb silly.


Next?

[pilgram]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

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.

Actually it's common sense and goes without saying that if a man isn't married the "husband of one wife" wouldn't apply now would it?
The writer (Paul) assumes that the reader has enough common sense to realize that. Apparently you come up short in that department.

[shag]

Originally Posted by pilgram

Actually it's common sense and goes without saying that if a man isn't married the "husband of one wife" wouldn't apply now would it?
The writer (Paul) assumes that the reader has enough common sense to realize that. Apparently you come up short in that department.

Apparently, you have no desire to put on Christ, or you would lose the sarcasm and insulting posts toward your brothers and/or sisters in Christ. For the life of me I cannot figure our why folks on this thread cannot abstain from sarcasm and insults, so that we can all grow spiritually and help eachother learn accurate interpretation of the scriptures. Is respectful posting that much of a chore? That's seems such an elementary thing to accomplish in the Kingdom.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by shag

Apparently, you have no desire to put on Christ, or you would lose the sarcasm and insulting posts toward your brothers and/or sisters in Christ. For the life of me I cannot figure our why folks on this thread cannot abstain from sarcasm and insults, so that we can all grow spiritually and help eachother learn accurate interpretation of the scriptures. Is respectful posting that much of a chore? That's seems such an elementary thing to accomplish in the Kingdom.

It's part of their forte. It's probably one reason why a lot of people left the "Apostolics" or go around calling us all mean and other stuff.

It's well deserved on the part of some but it should be clear not all Apostolics are like that.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by pilgram

Actually it's common sense and goes without saying that if a man isn't married the "husband of one wife" wouldn't apply now would it?
The writer (Paul) assumes that the reader has enough common sense to realize that. Apparently you come up short in that department.

Hellooooo somebody !


What he said !

[rdp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

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.

First, when I was taking Greek, the professor (Dr. William Mounce) stated that this text (i.e., I Tim. 3.1) should be translated as "faithful to his wife" - as most translations do. The Greek text literally reads "one-woman-man."


Second, is a patently absurd argument to suggest that a man must be married to fulfill these requirements - & totally destroys the intended context - which is simply that an overseer should live a life above reproach.


Point is - woman were not even considered as either overseers or deacons in the Bible.


Sorry, try again .