Paula White, Juanita Bynum and the "New Wave' of Female Preachers

[FreeinChrist]

Tas, why do you insist on reading into scripture that which does not exist? You keep referring to "the husband of one woman (wife)", but interpret it incorrectly. It does not say the bishop must be married. It only says that if he is, he can only have one wife as opposed to 2 or 3 or however many he wishes. This was a direct prohibition of the pagan practices (not to mention OT) of the time. Sheesh.

I think you need to reread what he wrote.

 

[Veritas]

Question - Where did that come from, and what does that have to do with anything ? Tell me that, and I will answer you...

When I was your age, I probably would have responded as you have. I'm just asking you an open ended question. You don't need any "angle" to answer. You can do it in a PM if you'd feel more comfortable.

 

[Veritas]

I think you need to reread what he wrote.

I won't tell you what I think.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I don't remember whether I read the thing about girls in the temple, but it's true, the authority is the orthodox church (I read it in an orthodox book), but you can surely document that practice -- that girls lived in the temple and prepared food and helped maintain the temple; they left at the age of 12.
Mary was an extraordinary girl, and that is why the temple priests apointed Joseph to take care of her, because Josehp was an old man, and because Mary had a virginity vow; but they couldn't keep her in the temple after the age of 12.
That's what the Orthodox and Catholic church will tell you, with more facts or just holy tradition.

About girls leaving at the age of 12 that you should ask any specialist in judaic law; anything will do and I'm sure there are a lot of jewish documents atesting that.

Much of Paul's teaching about women had to do with the fact that the pagan temples of that time had women 'priests' - who were temple prostitutes. They wore lots of jewelry, nothing on their head and many pagan temples had female oracles. Paul's words are easier to understand in light of that. he wanted Christian women to be humble, Christlike, and modest - as opposed to those pagan priestesses. As it was, early christians were misunderstood by those who were nonChristian as cannibals, and as having 'love feasts' in the worst sort of connotation.

The Temple in Jerusalem had a women's courtyard, but no women resided in the temple, and I don't think men did either. That whole mythof Mary living in the temple til 12 years old and then being given to Joseph to take care of her is just that - a myth. There is no basis for this in the OT that I know of. It was not part of the OT law!
Nor is there anything about keeping virginity after marriage in the OT law. That Mary did until the birth of Christ was because it was specifically commanded - until the birth of Christ. The Law would have forbid relations for a certain period after that - and that is all.

 

[FreeinChrist]

nevermind

 

[J.A.I]

When I was your age, I probably would have responded as you have. I'm just asking you an open ended question. You don't need any "angle" to answer. You can do it in a PM if you'd feel more comfortable.

Veritas - We are 2 different people; I don't expect you to feel and think what I think. Your question seems like a personal issue that is irrelevant to the matter at hand. I have a great relationship w/all my family by the way. So my family relationship doesn't have anything to do w/my relationship w/Christ My fire for Christ and His Truths are different than other people. Everything I stated, I believe. I don't agree w/the Orthodox and Catholic beliefs. That's my personal belief and standpoint, both of which I am entitled to.

Your comment seems like it's personal.

And I will restate. If things cannot be backed by scripture, then I don't believe them. You can't make such an offbase comment and not back it up

 

[Veritas]

Veritas - We are 2 different people; I don't expect you to feel and think what I think. Your question seems like a personal issue that is irrelevant to the matter at hand. I have a great relationship w/all my family by the way. So my family relationship doesn't have anything to do w/my relationship w/Christ My fire for Christ and His Truths are different than other people. Everything I stated, I believe. I don't agree w/the Orthodox and Catholic beliefs. That's my personal belief and standpoint, both of which I am entitled to.

Your comment seems like it's personal.

And I will restate. If things cannot be backed by scripture, then I don't believe them. You can't make such an offbase comment and not back it up

I'm not sure what to make of this other than my Catholic icon has influenced your feelings toward me. I've noticed that on this forum. Forget it's there, ok? I was asking you a human question unrelated to anything Catholic/Protestant. So I don't know why you brought that into this. I offered you the opportunity to reply in a PM if you didn't wish to disclose anything personal. That was a courtesy I was trying to extend. I don't why you're apparently angry with me, but I'll assume that I'm in the wrong here and humbly ask for your forgiveness.

 

[J.A.I]

Huh ? Wow, you're really reading too much into things and jumping to conclusions. I asked you why you asked me about my family relationship, and you never answered me I could care less about your faith icon. I have friends on this board of all denominations. That doesn't phase me. I just care about a person's heart w/Christ. If you will notice earlier in this thread, I commented on that. Since you don't want to say why you asked about my relationship w/my daddy.

You PMed me and I answered and told you that you could respond to me in this thread. You still haven't replied to my question As I stated in the PM, this is the net. I don't get mad. That's pointless. The only one I am worried about pleasing is Christ.

So please don't assume...

my Catholic icon has influenced your feelings toward me

I don't why you're apparently angry with me

 

[TasManOfGod]

I won't tell you what I think.

I will tell you what I think. I think some churches avoid quoting 1 Tim 3:1-2 in speaking against women as bishops for fear they may also have to include unmarried men in their exclusion. However both are excluded for a reason and it has nothing to do with gender it has to do with responsibility and character.

 

[Daedalus]

? Not sure if you meant this as you wrote it.

God has called many women to spread the word of Christ in the world. I

Um. yes, you're right, I ment shouldn't "there is no reason... why women shouldn't spread....".
That's why I said outside the church and bring them to the church.
It's a mistake I didn't notice.
Thanks for pointinh it out

 

[Daedalus]

I know Mary is the mother of Jesus.

You tell me something that I do not know(that she was in the temple until 12) and I ask you to prove it to me. I tell you that I think if it was that important it would have been included in the words that the Apostles, and prophets wrote down.

So if the NT is not the only Holy book then don't be shy point out the info man. If you are so sure that it is real and true point it out. You are the one claiming authorship of the bible, why then did you guys leave these other works out?

I know Jesus was born of a woman but I also know that He was God. Fully man, Fully God. That seperated Him from the rest. And you said it yourself that John(at the time Jesus said it), was greater than the rest. That meant Mary too. Obviously if he was the greatest then Mary could not have been. Or are you calling Jesus a liar?

If Mary was just below the angels what does that make John then? The miracle is that Jesus chose a virgin and brought this child, God himself into the world using a normal human being. If she had been altered in anyway, she would not have been of the seed of David and therefore the prophecy would have been wrong.

OK, I explained it once, the NT is not set to make an order among the saints.
Jesus didn't mention his mother because :

He couldn't have expalined it to people why Mary was greater than John -- it was a matter of grace, the Holy Spirit was not known yet; it would have been a blasphemy to call a woman greater than a man at that time.
It was no reason to.

AND, my friend, your bible has a flaw.
It seems your felow protestants did a little mistake while translating it; it looks like the Catholic church was right not to rush a translation.
Let's look at it:
Mat 11:11 "Truly I say to you, Among those who have been born of women there has not risen a greater one than John the Baptist. But the least in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than he."

Romanian version : Matei 11:11 "Adevarat zic voua : Nu s-a ridicat intre cei nascuti din femei unul mai mare ......."
It says ALMOST the same thing.
The diffrence is "cei" is masculin in romanian while those in english can be used for both male and female.
The truth is, if I was to translate it, I would have mede the same mistake and use the word those though it is incorrect.
Not to mention "unul" which is also is masculin, meanin "one", in contrast to "una" which would be feminin; the word for neutrual would have been "cineva"
or "anybody".
Jesus spoke about males, just as I said, it would have been considered a blasphemy to say a woman is greater than a man.
Such important documents should be translated with great care.
It takes a lifetime of an orthodox monk to translate some, to make sure there are no flaws in contrast to a few years the protestants used (they were too bussy with mass printing it in order to remove people from the Catholic Chruch).
Orthodox bibles are renewed, by going back to the original documents written in ancient greek and not translations over another translation.

The Virgin Mary remained a virgin.
She was never married to Joseph, she was engaged with him.
She was engaged with him before Jesus was inside her, if you say she was married, and that she was with Joseph (!!!!!!) then you mean Jesus was Joseph's son and I call you a blasphemer.
The reason the devil tricked all the sects into believing Mary was a normal woman, was to open the path to the heresy that Jesus was a man only.
That is the next step anyway.
The truth must be kept strong, not wattered down, because in the end, they'll say Jesus was just another man(!!!!), like so many do today.
It is mainly the fault of those who opened the gate for such heresies and blasphemy against God and Jesus Christ.

More:
Psalm 44:

"All the glory of the daughter of the King is within, with gold-fringed garments is she arrayed, adorned in varied colours.
The virgins that follow after her shall be brought unto the King, those near her shall be brought unto Thee.
They shall be brought with gladness and rejoicing, they shall be brought into the temple of the King.
In the stead of thy fathers, sons are born to thee; thou shalt make them princes over all the earth.
I shall commemorate thy name in every generation and generation.
Therefore shall all peoples give praise unto thee for ever, and unto ages of ages."

My word for you is -- be like the wise vrigins, enter the house of your Lord before the 12 hour, because after the 12th hour there is no going back.
I don't post this to argue with you, but to make you see that just skiming through the bible is wrong, using quotations out of context is wrong, week-end preachers are wrong.
The truth is there for 2000 years, open your eyes and see it; do not be decieved by those who "come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves" .

 

[vanshan]

I think that is an incredible leap from being a charismatic to becoming an orthodox. I would appreciate any advice on how you overcame the mary doctrines of both of your churches? What i mean is how did you come to except mary as so highly regarded if there was no scripture or apostles backing of it? Being a charismatic as you know, are mostly scripture first. So what pointed you in that direction? Man I am a a flood of questions....

The charismatics believe that God can reveal himself in new ways even if those revelations are in opposition to some scriptures, in which case they take a couple "proof" texts to show that their new interpretation is biblical, but disregard any scriptures that disagree. With regards to scripture, my conversion was not that hard. I was accustomed to reading whatever I believed at the moment into the Bible. What struck a cord with me was the question, "Do you really think that our interpretation of scripture today is more accurate than what the Church established and preserved for 2000 years?" As a charismatic, I saw that our trendy gospel which basically tells us everything we want to hear seemed very temporary and unstable; our charismatic beliefs were never believed until the 20th century.

Your preconceived ideas about Orthodoxy may be incorrect. Some see us as similar to the RCs but you will find that our theology is quite different. They have innovated in many ways, which both Protestants and Orthodox object to. It was not that far of a leap from charismatic to Orthodox. There have been many student from ORU who converted (some are even highly esteemed priests now). Charismatics value mystical experience (although they don't call it that) and believe in a God who still works in our lives through miracles, signs, and direct guidance. So do the Orthodox. We only add the traditional belief that God works through physical things like communion to give us grace.

The fact is when you take what the Church historically has taught, as recorded in the canons from the 7 Ecumenical Councils, which defined our faith protecting it against heresies, and in the writings of many great early Church fathers you see that the Bible does not counter those teachings at all. Those early interpretations of scripture have more validity to me than Paula White, or any other modern preacher. These Councils where probably the most dynamic and profound moments in our faith.

 

[SumTinWong]

Your lack of information on what you like to call a 'new sect' is astounding. The protestants did not translate the Bible to draw people away from the Catholic church. People wanted to read the Bible for themselves in their own language and the catholics said no, and tried to kill them in the name of heresy. Look it up.

it looks like the Catholic church was right not to rush a translation.

They never had the intention of doing translating the Bible further UNTIL the protestants did it. It was considered heresy to have a Bible that was not in Latin. So they were right?

Now is it a flaw in my Bible or are you trying to bend the words to shed light on what you believe? We will never agree on this, it is finished between you and me in this discussion. You believe what you want to and I asked for proof. What do you give me? Nothing but conjecture based on here say.

The Virgin Mary remained a virgin.
She was never married to Joseph, she was engaged with him.
She was engaged with him before Jesus was inside her, if you say she was married, and that she was with Joseph (!!!!!!) then you mean Jesus was Joseph's son and I call you a blasphemer.
The reason the devil tricked all the sects into believing Mary was a normal woman, was to open the path to the heresy that Jesus was a man only.
That is the next step anyway.
The truth must be kept strong, not wattered down, because in the end, they'll say Jesus was just another man(!!!!), like so many do today.
It is mainly the fault of those who opened the gate for such heresies and blasphemy against God and Jesus Christ.

Luk 2:5 And he took Mary his betrothed wife, being with child.
(Yes they were engaged. Imagine that i know the difference between betrothed and married)

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was this way (for His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph) before they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.
(Yes they were engaged. Imagine that and from a blasphemer)

Mat 1:20 And as he thought upon these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take to you Mary as your wife. For that in her is fathered of the Holy Spirit.
(I wonder what happens next? Does Joseph disobey the Angel of the Lord and not take Mary as his wife?)

Mat 1:24 And Joseph, being roused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took his wife,
(Nope he did what the Lord told him to do and married Mary)

Go look up what it means to take a wife, to a Jew in those days (mary was Jewish you know, not orthodox or catholic). Also go look up what happend to unmarried pregnant women in Jewish culture. Joseph was going to put her out because she was pregnant (quietly I might add), and the angel said marry her anyway, this is the Lords' doing. So he did.

I might add that I said at the beginning that I did not have a problem with her being a virgin, and it is possible that she stayed that way out of respect for God and the miracle that He did in her. I said that Luther and Calvin believed the same thing, so get off your soap box already. What I said is that she wasn't sinless, and those are two different things. You make up stories to bend things to the way you believe and expect others to just follow into line. It doesn't happen that way.

There is no proof that Mary was sinless.

I said it before, Jesus was both fully man and fully God.

Nobody that calls themself a Christian that I know of anyway thinks that Jesus was just man.

You try to say that she wasn't married to Joseph and the Bible says that they were. After she was pregnant. Satan did not trick 'the new sect' into believing that Mary was just a normal woman we came to that conclusion after the lack of evidence to the contrary. Otherwise prove it to us. I can read the Bible and see that Jesus was sinless and blamless. It is in black and white. And it is also in black and white that all the rest of the world had sinned and had fallen short of the glory of God. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

You my friend have a prejudice against me because I am a protestant(new sect). I forgive you of your hate for me, for what I believe, and I wish you the best. Peace to you and yours, I will no longer engage in this with you (or anything else) as I do not like being called a blasphemer when there is no merit behind it. Our views are different. You see yourself as always being right, which leads us to an impass, and there is no room for dialogue just sermons preached from a shaky soap box.

Here is some really great words of advice from Oswald Chambers:
Don't get impatient, remember how God dealt with you - with patience and with gentleness; but never water down the truth of God. Let it have its way and never apologize for it. Jesus said, "Go and make disciples," not "make converts to your opinions."

 

[vanshan]

Lollard, you may find it interesting that the opposite was true in the Orthodox Church. We have emphasized the importance of having the Bible translated in the vernacular of each people.

St. Innocent of Alaska who took the gospel to the Aluetian indians translated at least one of the gospels and Divine Liturgy of the Church into their language. This is merely one example.

About Mary: it's a longstanding, passed-down belief that Mary was young and Joseph was elderly. He was married to her to preserve her innocence in the eyes of the people, but they never had children, preserving her virginity. Scripture is silent on this subject (it's not really an essential issue anyway). You cannot prove or disprove this from the Bible.

Don't dislike Mary. She was the sacred vessel God chose to become incarnate. She is highly honored by God, obviously, so you should honor her as well. We say she is the greatest of the saints because obviously she was central to God's plan of salvation for mankind. This is significant, right?

 

[tesnusxenos]

Vanshan said:About Mary: it's a longstanding, passed-down belief that Mary was young and Joseph was elderly. He was married to her to preserve her innocence in the eyes of the people, but they never had children, preserving her virginity. Scripture is silent on this subject (it's not really an essential issue anyway). You cannot prove or disprove this from the Bible.

Matthew 12

46While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him.

Luke 8
19Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd.

John 2
12After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days.
John 7
3Jesus' brothers said to him, "You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do.

 

[vanshan]

Tes, I know about these mentions of Jesus having brothers, but the word that was translated in English as brother can also mean cousin. Also, Joseph had children from a previous marriage, which may explain these as well.

Mary was much younger and Joseph was chosen to protect her.

 

[Daedalus]

Lollard --- in none of the quotes you gave me, had I found the word "wife" , but only fiansee .
In fact that word is not used at all in the Orthodox NT from what I know.

I never said it was a bad thing to translate the bible, but to rush a translation.
A lot of people couldn't read at that time.
People didn't like to pay the Church, and some kings didn't like the authority of the Pope.
Those are the major facts.
People were not more willing to read the bible then then they are now.
The germans, the english, dutch, sweedish wanted to have a nice prosperous life and no one to bother them with anything else.
That's why "salvation by faith alone" goes so fine there -- no one telling you that "is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God".

I think it's better not to have a bible at all and the word be spread by the church than to have a flawed bible and promote heresies.
The early christianity didn't have a bible and it didn't make them less christians.

As for the quotes with John, I can scan the bible if you want to and send the quotes and see I didn't play with the words.
The same thing with the quotes on the word "wife" which does not appear in my bible, regarding Mary.

 

[Sign Of The Fish Burger]

I dont have time to post anything of real great lengh right now, but I will post this and be back later to post more:

To anyone who thought that Paul did not believe in women in ministry, I suggest you take at look at the following verses:
Let me introduce Euodia and Syntych:
"And now I want to plead with those two women, Euodia and Syntyche. Please, because you belong to the Lord, settle your disagreement. And I ask you, my true teammate, to help these women, for they worked hard with me in telling others the Good News. And they worked with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are written in the Book of Life."

I think women in ministry is a great thing... specially woman pastors. And thats exactly what I am studying to be

God Bless
Sign <><

 

[Sign Of The Fish Burger]

sorry that was Philippians 4:2-3

And I only read the first couple of posts... I dont even know if you are still discussing this or not lol

 

[vanshan]

Vanshan --- in none of the quotes you gave me, had I found the word "wife" , but only fiansee .
In fact that word is not used at all in the Orthodox NT from what I know.

Are you talking to me? I don't remember giving any quotes.