Women Pastors?

[W2L]

What bothers me, timewerx, is that you say you don't believe in teachers or church, yet you will promote more teachers? I believe in a simple path of humility and love. The least is the greatest. The servant is the greatest. Its not than im against woman, I believe we should all be submissive to each other, however I also believe the husband is head of the wife. I don't believe its just some outdated analogy but I believe its Gods will. The wise will seek to serve not rule.

 

[W2L]

I prefer group bible study, with no teacher at all. I can easily learn from anyone who posts, but I follow no one. The Lord is the teacher.

 

[timewerx]

What bothers me, timewerx, is that you say you don't believe in teachers or church, yet you will promote more teachers? .

I'm not promoting more teachers, I'm just saying, why not women?

I believe in a simple path of humility and love....I also believe the husband is head of the wife.

Seems too convenient for a man to say that.

 

[W2L]

I'm not promoting more teachers, I'm just saying, why not women?




Seems too convenient for a man to say that.

Why not? Because teachers are leading people astray, that's why. It may sound convenient but that doesn't make it false. Its covenant for you, a male, to be in a singles forum, and promoting feminist agenda. I'm sure it will make you many female friends.

 

[W2L]

Its actually inconvenient for me to have this view. It wont make me any friends. I fellowship with all sorts of people, and study scripture with them too, this sure wont help my walk in that, but its true and that's why I hold to it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Christ is male, and the Church is the Bride of Christ
having a priestess would be like having two brides

How does that work? Because the priest stands in Christ's stead and thus needs to be literally male but the rest of the Church, made up of both men and women, are figuratively or mystically female? If I, a laymember of the Church, am part of the mystical Bride of Christ though male why would a priest, who stands in the stead of Christ, can't be female? Why can a male be part of the Bride but a female can't mystically stand in Christ's stead?

the other thing is, about "well all priests would have to be Jews"
in Romans 11 St. Paul states that believing Gentiles have been grafted in

Yes, Jews and Gentiles are part of the one Body, the one Church, in Christ; just as the Apostle says that male and female are one in Christ. Yet in spite of the Apostle's comments in Galatians 3:28 or Colossians 3:11 the argument is only men are permitted because Christ and the Apostles were male--they were also all Jewish and so if the unity of men and women in the Church still means clergy must be male then it could be argued also that since Christ and the Apostles were Jews clergy must be Jewish.

and as for circumcising

Romans 2:29
No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person's praise is not from other people, but from God.

so yes, only "Circumcised Jews" are allowed to become priests..... if you use St. Pauls definition of those words

Then if spiritual circumcision and being a "spiritual Jew" as part of the one people of God in Christ--the Church--is the essential matter, then why can't a woman stand in Christ's stead, mystically?

This is what I mean about the weaknesses of the arguments.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[W2L]

How does that work? Because the priest stands in Christ's stead and thus needs to be literally male but the rest of the Church, made up of both men and women, are figuratively or mystically female? If I, a laymember of the Church, am part of the mystical Bride of Christ though male why would a priest, who stands in the stead of Christ, can't be female? Why can a male be part of the Bride but a female can't mystically stand in Christ's stead?



Yes, Jews and Gentiles are part of the one Body, the one Church, in Christ; just as the Apostle says that male and female are one in Christ. Yet in spite of the Apostle's comments in Galatians 3:28 or Colossians 3:11 the argument is only men are permitted because Christ and the Apostles were male--they were also all Jewish and so if the unity of men and women in the Church still means clergy must be male then it could be argued also that since Christ and the Apostles were Jews clergy must be Jewish.



Then if spiritual circumcision and being a "spiritual Jew" as part of the one people of God in Christ--the Church--is the essential matter, then why can't a woman stand in Christ's stead, mystically?

This is what I mean about the weaknesses of the arguments.

-CryptoLutheran

I would suggest that the idea of having priest in the Church is itself wrong. People want to be priests and teachers but the truth is that teachers are for babes and priests are for OC. The idea that we must continually follow teachers is wrong because it perpetuates carnality rather than spiritualism.

 

[timewerx]

Why not? Because teachers are leading people astray, that's why. It may sound convenient but that doesn't make it false. Its covenant for you, a male, to be in a singles forum, and promoting feminist agenda. I'm sure it will make you many female friends.

I have held that view for a long time.

I've been challenging the position of men in the "Discussion and Debate" section and Controversial Theology sections for some years already before I even joined the Singles forums.

I never expected I'll get more women friends this way. I actually came across many female members defending the belief regarding submitting to husbands. Obviously, that would make me look bad to them.

 

[timewerx]

Why not? Because teachers are leading people astray, that's why.

This one thing we agree on.

There is only a disciple and a disciple's job is to "get the ball rolling". And after that, it's between you and the Spirit.

 

[W2L]

I have held that view for a long time.

I've been challenging the position of men in the "Discussion and Debate" section and Controversial Theology sections for some years already before I even joined the Singles forums.

I never expected I'll get more women friends this way. I actually came across many female members defending the belief regarding submitting to husbands. Obviously, that would make me look bad to them.

I believe you are fighting the wrong battle though, or rather using the wrong weapons.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The idea that we must continually follow teachers is wrong because it perpetuates carnality rather than spiritualism.

I recommend you take your gripes up the Lord, He's the One who founded His Church, He's the One who called the Apostles and sent them out into all nations, and it is they who appointed pastors and teachers in the Church. If you don't like it, then your complaint is with Him.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[W2L]

I recommend you take your gripes up the Lord, He's the One who founded His Church, He's the One who called the Apostles and sent them out into all nations, and it is they who appointed pastors and teachers in the Church. If you don't like it, then your complaint is with Him.

-CryptoLutheran

I have no gripes, I do follow the Lords Apostles. Its they who teach me that teachers are for babes. Christ said it first when he said we should call no man teacher because we are all brethren and only Christ is the teacher. Paul affirmed it when he said we should grow up into men of understanding, and that a spiritual man judges all things but is judged by no man, and when he said to glory not in men but in the Lord.

The reason we think we need teachers is because we need them to teach us things we want to hear rather than what the Lord already taught us. Its a simple path actually. Its about humility and love, seeking the kingdom not the world, its about acting just and moral too.

As far as families are concerned, I know whats right for me, I follow the scriptures.

 

[timewerx]

I believe you are fighting the wrong battle though, or rather using the wrong weapons.

I don't regard myself as a feminist in any way. There are many things I don't like in that movement.

 

[W2L]

I don't regard myself as a feminist in any way. There are many things I don't like in that movement.

I don't know brother. I'm having a hard time with this teacher thing though.

 

[timewerx]

I don't know brother. I'm having a hard time with this teacher thing though.

I hope this brings resolution:

Matthew 23:10 NLT
And don't let anyone call you 'Teacher,' for you have only one teacher, the Messiah.

And Christ still is our teacher through the Spirit of Truth (John 16:13)

 

[Cearbhall]

It's not entirely arguing.

It's about investigating or challenging a long-held belief.

When men themselves doesn't want to have their position in Christianity challenged or investigated, isn't it self serving since they are always in a better position all throughout the history of the Christian religion?

Yes. But some would have you think that challengers are just self-centered troublemakers.

I believe what paul says about a woman being subject to her husband, To me it just seems wrong for a woman to preach that the Church is the bride of Christ and is subject to her husband, when she herself is not. If a wife is not subject to her husband then the analogy is useless.

She isn't. At least, not in my country. So yes, it's useless.

 

[W2L]

Yes. But some would have you think that challengers are just self-centered troublemakers.

She isn't. At least, not in my country. So yes, it's useless.

Its not about your country, its about the kingdom of Christ.

 

[DawnStar]

Its not about your country, its about the kingdom of Christ.

The kingdom of Christ will not need or have pastors. So your point is moot.

 

[Cearbhall]

Its not about your country, its about the kingdom of Christ.

My beliefs about it haven't changed since I was Christian. I was certainly never taught to believe that I would be subject to my husband. I'm not an uneducated child bride. That's just a strange cultural thing that persists in some regions of the world. It's no surprise to me that it made it into the Bible. I'd be shocked if it hadn't. But it's not relevant to Christianity where I live, and it's certainly not relevant to me.

 

[W2L]

My beliefs about it haven't changed since I was Christian. I was certainly never taught to believe that I would be subject to my husband. I'm not an uneducated child bride. That's just a strange cultural thing that persists in some regions of the world. It's no surprise to me that it made it into the Bible. I'd be shocked if it hadn't. But it's not relevant to Christianity where I live, and it's certainly not relevant to me.

-Teachers are not relevant to me.