Does the Bible forbid women from being preachers/pastors?

Childofgodharrison · Mar 15, 2021

Strong in Him said:
I'm so sorry, I'm getting my threads mixed up.
Someone else said that in a thread on the same subject.

Yes, I know.
But that does not mean subservience, nor that a woman is not able to function without a man.

There is no other Jesus.
There is only one person, both God and man, who has died on the cross for the sins of mankind - Jesus of Nazareth.

I know it is. But that's what your posts seem to be implying - a woman needs a man to "cover" her.

It's still the case that a woman can preach without a husband or man in the background.

I know.
They will attack people who preach/talk about/live for Jesus. They don't care about the gender of the person preaching, only the message - that sin and death were defeated on the cross and people can have forgiveness and eternal life through Jesus.

Surely you're not saying that Jesus is not enough??
That a woman cannot rely on Jesus alone to protect her, she has to get married/find a man so that HE can be her covering? Again, what happens with single Christian women? You've sidestepped Mother Teresa by claiming that she didn't believe in Jesus; what about others? And are you saying that I am not protected by the blood of Jesus, but my husband is and that somehow filters down to me? What happens then if he dies; I have to find someone else to protect me?

Please don't put men in the place of God; they're not that great.

Okay I give up I'm fighting a losing battle with you. You don't get what I am trying to get across. you just think that I am trying to put women down. Women are very important. Some men could not function very well without women. Most women have a different kind of way that men do not. So if that's what you believe then God bless you.

KingsK.H.R.R.S · Mar 15, 2021

KingsK.H.R.R.S said:
I was going to post exactly this. Scholars like Lucy Peppiatt and others are coming to the conclusion more and more that Paul is refuting a quote from his opponents. Koine Greek didn't have quotation marks. Also, What we know as 1 Corinthians is actually the 2nd letter Paul wrote to the Corinthian church, so there is A LOT of context that we just don't have for 1 Corinthians. It's kind of a stretch to take a questionable/controversial verse from Paul in a letter that we don't have all the context which just "sounds" so different than Paul as a whole and make an entire theological position out of it.

I wrote this on another thread regarding 1 Corinthians 14. One other thing to mention about this letter is that elsewhere in the letter Paul himself says that women should speak in church. There is something else going on here that we just don’t have the context for.

KingsK.H.R.R.S said:
With 1 Timothy 2, I think the main issue is that the English translations don't express the difficulty in translating "authority". That word, in Greek, is αὐθεντεῖν (authentein), which is not the normal word for authority in the New Testament, ἐξουσίαν (exousia). Authentien is only used in this spot IN THE ENTIRE GREEK BIBLE (Septuagint translation and original Greek NT).

It is used a few times in extra-biblical greek sources, and the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal book Wisdom of Solomon uses it once. Here is the passage: “And also those merciless murderers of children, and devourers of man’s flesh, and the feasts of blood, with their priests out of the midst of their idolatrous crew, and the parents, that killed with their own hands souls destitute of help” (Wisdom of Solomon 12:5-6).

Can you tell which is authentien (in this case “authentas goneis” due to greek conjugation)? It's "killed with their own hands". So, this should change how you see 1 Timothy 2:12. Paul uses an extremely rare Greek word that is NOT the normal word for authority as we know of it in English. In fact he uses a word that expresses extreme violence.

Some context: Paul wrote this letter to Timothy who was in Ephesus. Do you know what else was in Ephesus? One of the ancient wonders of the world, the Temple of Artemis. Remember in Acts, the riot Paul caused where the crowd yelled "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!!!". That's this place. The temple was run predominantly by women priestesses, who would have sex with followers as acts of worship. I'm sure it wasn't soft, loving sex, but ritualistic and possibly violent. Paul does NOT allow women (or maybe one or a few specific women.....ex-Artemis priestesses converted to Christ but bringing their practices with them???) to "AUTHENTIEN" a man. Sounds like Paul is clarifying some false teachings about women and men in relationship to creation, we will never know but sounds like Paul is putting to end specific practices in this specific location.

I wrote this on another thread regarding 1 Timothy 2.

Strong in Him · Mar 16, 2021

Childofgodharrison said:
Okay I give up I'm fighting a losing battle with you. You don't get what I am trying to get across. you just think that I am trying to put women down. Women are very important. Some men could not function very well without women. Most women have a different kind of way that men do not. So if that's what you believe then God bless you.

No, I don't think you're trying to put women down.
I disagree with your interpretation of a few verses of Scripture and your apparent conclusion that women need a man to "cover" them.
I have asked you a number of questions about your position, which you haven't always answered. I was particularly concerned about your statement that demons "attack women who put themselves in the position to have Jesus as their covering, because that is not the order". That sounded to me as though you were saying that the "order" is Christ, man, woman; that a woman cannot expect to be covered, or protected, by Christ directly, it has to be through a man. I asked that as a question and was hoping that you would clarify. I've also said, a few times, that there are single women who preach, serve Christ and live for him perfectly well without the "covering" of a man. Yes, they may have wanted/preferred to have been married and have children - a lot of women do want that. But it's possible, and not at all wrong, to serve God, and even preach, as a single, Christian woman.

Some women may not be able to function without a man; some men might not be able to function without a woman - that's not what I was challenging. You have often quoted 1 Corinthians 11:3 - I have just been challenging your interpretation of it. If you can't defend it; so be it.

Childofgodharrison · Mar 16, 2021

Strong in Him said:
No, I don't think you're trying to put women down.
I disagree with your interpretation of a few verses of Scripture and your apparent conclusion that women need a man to "cover" them.
I have asked you a number of questions about your position, which you haven't always answered. I was particularly concerned about your statement that demons "attack women who put themselves in the position to have Jesus as their covering, because that is not the order". That sounded to me as though you were saying that the "order" is Christ, man, woman; that a woman cannot expect to be covered, or protected, by Christ directly, it has to be through a man. I asked that as a question and was hoping that you would clarify. I've also said, a few times, that there are single women who preach, serve Christ and live for him perfectly well without the "covering" of a man. Yes, they may have wanted/preferred to have been married and have children - a lot of women do want that. But it's possible, and not at all wrong, to serve God, and even preach, as a single, Christian woman.

Some women may not be able to function without a man; some men might not be able to function without a woman - that's not what I was challenging. You have often quoted 1 Corinthians 11:3 - I have just been challenging your interpretation of it. If you can't defend it; so be it.

1 Cor. 11: 8-9, 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man
This is what the bible says. It is what it is. As a Christian you can't ignore that. Christian women have to learn to submit to that truth. A single woman who preaches have to be a very strong person. Counseling men could lead to inappropriat behavior. Or attraction to a certain man can turn into something inappropriat. Just because we love Jesus doesn't make us exempt from human feelings. The devil is very busy to corrupt us to prove that we are unacceptable. With a husband that would not likely to be a problem. That is only one example. I learned that in the convents the priest and the nuns have relations, which was kept secret. You see what's going on with the priest, they are molesting children. They or forbidden to marry, and the devil is busy.
And as for another Jesus: 2 Corinthians 11:4 4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.
When you want me to answer a particular question ask it by itself.

Paidiske · Mar 16, 2021

Childofgodharrison said:
Counseling men could lead to inappropriat behavior. Or attraction to a certain man can turn into something inappropriat. Just because we love Jesus doesn't make us exempt from human feelings. The devil is very busy to corrupt us to prove that we are unacceptable. With a husband that would not likely to be a problem.

Having a husband is no real protection against attraction to someone, or the temptation to inappropriate behaviour.

No, we aren't exempt from human feelings; not as single people and not as married people. Each state has its benefits and its challenges. But neither is particularly better or worse for ministry, in my observation.

Childofgodharrison · Mar 16, 2021

Paidiske said:
Having a husband is no real protection against attraction to someone, or the temptation to inappropriate behaviour.

No, we aren't exempt from human feelings; not as single people and not as married people. Each state has its benefits and its challenges. But neither is particularly better or worse for ministry, in my observation.

If you are married and serious about your commitment to Jesus you will not go outside your marriage. But as a single woman or a bad marriage things could happen.

Norbert L · Mar 16, 2021

Sheila Davis said:
In his studies, he refers to the times of those days; when women sit on one side and men sit on the other. The women had the tendency to interrupt, asking personal questions of their husbands, questioning the teaching or just alright gossiping, disturbing the meetings.

From what I understand of the historical context of men sit on one side and the women on the other, such a thing is not black and white for that generation of Christians. There were numerous competing ancient religions in Corinth. Some of which have female gods as their "head" and likewise women could play an influential political role in their society. You couldn't be head of any influential household without having the head priestess of the cult of Aphrodite on your side. In order to do so men would have to acknowledge the desires and practices of that institution within Roman culture.

Since there was a mixture of Gentiles and Jews in the Corinthian church, some socially accepted norms by the gentiles about the role of women would filter in. It could of involved more than just a tendency to interrupt. It would be likely that some gentile women and men at Corinth were also bringing in their pagan theological baggage from how their temples operated during that time.

The way I see it as a consequence, there are theological questions that have been delayed for thousands of years by Pauls' authoritative teaching. Like why should we identify God as male instead of female? There are more issues involved to that decision from that epistle than just women teaching and having authority.

Strong in Him · Mar 16, 2021

Childofgodharrison said:
1 Cor. 11: 8-9, 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man
This is what the bible says. It is what it is. As a Christian you can't ignore that.

I never said I wanted to ignore it.

Childofgodharrison said:
Christian women have to learn to submit to that truth.

What truth; that woman was created from man?
It's not a question of submitting to it, that's how it was. The question is, "what is the application of that?"
Paul is writing about about worship, and the need for order in worship; that is the context of the verses. Elsewhere, when writing about marriage, Paul does say "wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord" and also places on husbands the responsibility to love their wives as Christ loved the church, Ephesians 5:25, and to not be harsh with them, Colossians 3:19. But here the subject is worship, and specifically, women covering their heads when they prophesy.
I notice you have quoted 1 Corinthians 11:3, and 1 Corinthians 11:8-9, and conveniently left out the verses that tell us what this passage is actually about.

Childofgodharrison said:
A single woman who preaches have to be a very strong person.

This passage does not say that.

Childofgodharrison said:
Counseling men could lead to inappropriat behavior. Or attraction to a certain man can turn into something inappropriat. Just because we love Jesus doesn't make us exempt from human feelings. The devil is very busy to corrupt us to prove that we are unacceptable. With a husband that would not likely to be a problem.

None of that is in this passage.
Paul says that if a woman prophesies without covering her head, she dishonours her head. That is all - nothing at all about women not counselling men because they may be tempted and have feelings towards them.
Women who prophesy; cover your head. End of teaching.
Again, what that means and how to apply it today is another question. But that's what his teaching is - not superiority in marriage, the question of unmarried women counselling men, how the devil tempts women, or anything else.

Childofgodharrison said:
That is only one example. I learned that in the convents the priest and the nuns have relations, which was kept secret. You see what's going on with the priest, they are molesting children. They or forbidden to marry, and the devil is busy.

Yes - but none of that is connected to this passage.

Childofgodharrison said:
When you want me to answer a particular question ask it by itself.

I've been replying to your posts.
If I started a new post every time I wanted to ask a question, not only would this thread would become very long, but you might well complain that I am asking too many things for you to answer.
Also, I don't have the time to do that.

KingsK.H.R.R.S · Mar 16, 2021

Childofgodharrison said:
What I am saying is that man was the one that was created, which was a full unit by himself. The woman was taken out of that unit. So she is the weaker vessel. Not meaning in strength. But in covering. 1 Cor. 11:3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Actually, a close reading of Genesis 1-2 shows that Adam (Hebrew: humanity) was NOT a full unit by himself. YHWH creates humanity, and says in Gen 1:27 - 28:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, s“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Genesis 2 highlights the fact that a man alone CANNOT fulfil God's command, to fill the earth. He needs woman in partnership with him, like the parallel lines in v.27 shows us equally male and female as the image of God TOGETHER. This is the ideal. After Eve and Adam disobey God with the Tree of Good and Bad, God curses the ground so that man has to till it and for woman childbirth will be painful and her desire will be for man but HE WILL RULE OVER YOU. This is NOT the ideal and is part of the curse. If you truly believe that Jesus took the curse on himself and we are now re-united in righteous fellowship with God, and that Jesus' kingdom is here NOW as we wait for it to be fully here, then we are back in the Garden with equal partnership of men and women who TOGETHER can fulfil God's command.

Childofgodharrison · Mar 16, 2021

Strong in Him said:
I never said I wanted to ignore it.

What truth; that woman was created from man?
It's not a question of submitting to it, that's how it was. The question is, "what is the application of that?"
Paul is writing about about worship, and the need for order in worship; that is the context of the verses. Elsewhere, when writing about marriage, Paul does say "wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord" and also places on husbands the responsibility to love their wives as Christ loved the church, Ephesians 5:25, and to not be harsh with them, Colossians 3:19. But here the subject is worship, and specifically, women covering their heads when they prophesy.
I notice you have quoted 1 Corinthians 11:3, and 1 Corinthians 11:8-9, and conveniently left out the verses that tell us what this passage is actually about.

This passage does not say that.

None of that is in this passage.
Paul says that if a woman prophesies without covering her head, she dishonours her head. That is all - nothing at all about women not counselling men because they may be tempted and have feelings towards them.
Women who prophesy; cover your head. End of teaching.
Again, what that means and how to apply it today is another question. But that's what his teaching is - not superiority in marriage, the question of unmarried women counselling men, how the devil tempts women, or anything else.

Yes - but none of that is connected to this passage.

I've been replying to your posts.
If I started a new post every time I wanted to ask a question, not only would this thread would become very long, but you might well complain that I am asking too many things for you to answer.
Also, I don't have the time to do that.

Do you think that the bible is going to tell us everything? The bible is a spiritual book. If you understand the spiritual meaning then you will understand it in a different way. That is what Paul meant when he said you need to mature and get off of milk. You want the bible to tell you every little thing, but it is not. To some when you mention a head covering they think you are talking about a hat. To understand the whole bible in that way is earthy, not spiritual. The things in my post are about in passage, because it talking about a head covering. The head of the woman is man, the head of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is the father.

Strong in Him · Mar 16, 2021

Childofgodharrison said:
Do you think that the bible is going to tell us everything? The bible is a spiritual book. If you understand the spiritual meaning then you will understand it in a different way. That is what Paul meant when he said you need to mature and get off of milk. You want the bible to tell you every little thing, but it is not. To some when you mention a head covering they think you are talking about a hat. To understand the whole bible in that way is earthy, not spiritual. The things in my post are about in passage, because it talking about a head covering. The head of the woman is man, the head of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is the father.

Reading a passage in context, understanding to whom he author was writing, what he meant and what the readers would have understood by his words, is vital. Anyone can take verses out of context and make them say anything they want.

You seemed to be applying this passage to marriage and husband/wife relationships;
I drew your attention to the context of the passage, which is about worship and women covering - and your response was "well the Bible doesn't tell us everything."
What's that got to do with it?
This passage is still about worship, women covering their heads when they prophesy and men not covering their heads. It's you who have applied it to other contexts - talking about the devil tempting women, who won't be as strong if they do not have a husband. None of that is mentioned in these verses that you keep quoting.

Childofgodharrison said:
The things in my post are about in passage, because it talking about a head covering.

In worship.
The passage does not say anything about women being weaker, being tempted or being easy prey for the devil.

Paidiske · Mar 16, 2021

Childofgodharrison said:
If you are married and serious about your commitment to Jesus you will not go outside your marriage. But as a single woman or a bad marriage things could happen.

Well, I've been in ministry long enough - and seen enough from various colleagues - to know that it just ain't that simple.

Childofgodharrison · Mar 16, 2021

Paidiske said:
Well, I've been in ministry long enough - and seen enough from various colleagues - to know that it just ain't that simple.

If you have seen people go outside their marriage, it's because they do not fear God.

Childofgodharrison · Mar 16, 2021

Strong in Him said:
Reading a passage in context, understanding to whom he author was writing, what he meant and what the readers would have understood by his words, is vital. Anyone can take verses out of context and make them say anything they want.

You seemed to be applying this passage to marriage and husband/wife relationships;
I drew your attention to the context of the passage, which is about worship and women covering - and your response was "well the Bible doesn't tell us everything."
What's that got to do with it?
This passage is still about worship, women covering their heads when they prophesy and men not covering their heads. It's you who have applied it to other contexts - talking about the devil tempting women, who won't be as strong if they do not have a husband. None of that is mentioned in these verses that you keep quoting.

In worship.
The passage does not say anything about women being weaker, being tempted or being easy prey for the devil.

No it don't say that they are the weaker vessel in that passage, but it does say this:1 Cor. 11: 3-12, 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
The passage does not tell you the angels that are mentioned are fallen angels, but why who it tell you that the angels of God are around. They won't hurt you, why mention them. It doesn't matter that it is talking about worship or praying. Man need to cover himself with the Spirit of Christ, and women need to get under that umbrella that is covering the man.
When Marion and Aaron were in the wilderness and came against Moses, why did Marion get leprosy and not Aaron. Moses removed Aarons garment and put them on his son Eleazer. And Aaron died. The garment represented his covering. That's way he did not get leprosy.

Strong in Him · Mar 17, 2021

Childofgodharrison said:
When Marion and Aaron were in the wilderness and came against Moses, why did Marion get leprosy and not Aaron.

Numbers 12 says that the Lord's anger burned against both of them, because they criticised Moses. I don't know why only Miriam got leprosy, but the passage says nothing about Aaron having a special covering. Miriam only had this for 7 days, she stayed outside the camp and was then healed.

Childofgodharrison said:
Moses removed Aarons garment and put them on his son Eleazer. And Aaron died. The garment represented his covering. That's way he did not get leprosy.

??
Several years later, the Lord told Moses that neither he nor Aaron would be allowed to enter the Promised Land because they had both rebelled against the Lord's command, Numbers 20:24. Aaron's garments being put onto Eleazar were a sign that Eleazar was succeeding his father - authority was being passed over. The same thing happened with Elijah and Elisha in 2 Kings 2:13.
The passage about Aaron's death in Numbers 20 says nothing about him having leprosy or Eleazar being spared from leprosy.

Another example of taking verses out of context to make a point - plus you seem to have got your stories mixed up.

Again, 1 Corinthians 11 is about covering your head, or not, when prophesying. Women were to do this, says Paul, men weren't. Men did not need coverings.

Childofgodharrison · Mar 17, 2021

Strong in Him said:
Numbers 12 says that the Lord's anger burned against both of them, because they criticised Moses. I don't know why only Miriam got leprosy, but the passage says nothing about Aaron having a special covering. Miriam only had this for 7 days, she stayed outside the camp and was then healed.

??
Several years later, the Lord told Moses that neither he nor Aaron would be allowed to enter the Promised Land because they had both rebelled against the Lord's command, Numbers 20:24. Aaron's garments being put onto Eleazar were a sign that Eleazar was succeeding his father - authority was being passed over. The same thing happened with Elijah and Elisha in 2 Kings 2:13.
The passage about Aaron's death in Numbers 20 says nothing about him having leprosy or Eleazar being spared from leprosy.

Another example of taking verses out of context to make a point - plus you seem to have got your stories mixed up.

Again, 1 Corinthians 11 is about covering your head, or not, when prophesying. Women were to do this, says Paul, men weren't. Men did not need coverings.

You are not seeing the meanings in the scriptures. It's not going to explain everything. God is a Spirit. His ways are spiritual. You said you don't know why only Marion got leprosy. I just told you, but you want the bible to actually say she got leprosy because she didn't have the covering the Aaron did.
And as for the coverings. The passage tells you that the man is the head of the woman and then go on to talk about covering, because it's one and the same. It's not saying that the head of the woman is man and then out of the blue say she need a hat on her head to worship God. It is saying that he is her spiritual covering.

Strong in Him · Mar 17, 2021

Childofgodharrison said:
You are not seeing the meanings in the scriptures. It's not going to explain everything.

Numbers 12:1-11

12 Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite. 2 “Has the Lord spoken only through Moses?” they asked. “Hasn’t he also spoken through us?” And the Lord heard this.

3 (Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.)

4 At once the Lord said to Moses, Aaron and Miriam, “Come out to the tent of meeting, all three of you.” So the three of them went out. 5 Then the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud; he stood at the entrance to the tent and summoned Aaron and Miriam. When the two of them stepped forward, 6 he said, “Listen to my words:

“When there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions,
I speak to them in dreams.
7 But this is not true of my servant Moses;
he is faithful in all my house.
8 With him I speak face to face,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
to speak against my servant Moses?”

9 The anger of the Lord burned against them, and he left them.

10 When the cloud lifted from above the tent, Miriam’s skin was leprous—it became as white as snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had a defiling skin disease, 11 and he said to Moses, “Please, my lord, I ask you not to hold against us the sin we have so foolishly committed.

Please show me where it says, in that passage, that Aaron had a covering which prevented him from getting a skin disease?

Childofgodharrison said:
You said you don't know why only Marion got leprosy. I just told you,

No, you told me what YOU think.
Show me where it says those words and I'll believe you - otherwise you are just reading your own ideas into the passage.

Childofgodharrison said:
but you want the bible to actually say she got leprosy because she didn't have the covering the Aaron did.

The passage does not say that Aaron had a covering; that is your idea.
I'm sorry if you can't see that.

Childofgodharrison said:
And as for the coverings. The passage tells you that the man is the head of the woman and then go on to talk about covering, because it's one and the same. It's not saying that the head of the woman is man and then out of the blue say she need a hat on her head to worship God. It is saying that he is her spiritual covering.

If the man was the woman's spiritual covering, she WOULDN'T need to cover her head to prophesy - Scripture would say that women could only prophesy, pray, teach etc in the presence of men because they need a spiritual covering and the man provides it.

What "covering" did Mary Magdalene have when she went and told the 11 male disciples that Jesus was risen?
She had the Lord's authority, but you have already said that it is not enough for women to believe they are covered by Jesus alone.

Childofgodharrison · Mar 17, 2021

Strong in Him said:
Numbers 12:1-11

Please show me where it says, in that passage, that Aaron had a covering which prevented him from getting a skin disease?

No, you told me what YOU think.
Show me where it says those words and I'll believe you - otherwise you are just reading your own ideas into the passage.

The passage does not say that Aaron had a covering; that is your idea.
I'm sorry if you can't see that.

If the man was the woman's spiritual covering, she WOULDN'T need to cover her head to prophesy - Scripture would say that women could only prophesy, pray, teach etc in the presence of men because they need a spiritual covering and the man provides it.

What "covering" did Mary Magdalene have when she went and told the 11 male disciples that Jesus was risen?
She had the Lord's authority, but you have already said that it is not enough for women to believe they are covered by Jesus alone.

Gen. 3: 16,
16 To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
I'm sorry, you just don't understand. You still think the covering is a hat. I'll ask God to reveal it to you. I'm wasting my time you just don't understand. You are still on milk.

Strong in Him · Mar 18, 2021

Childofgodharrison said:
Gen. 3: 16,
16 To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
I'm sorry, you just don't understand. You still think the covering is a hat. I'll ask God to reveal it to you. I'm wasting my time you just don't understand. You are still on milk.

I asked you to show me from the passage that you quoted, where it said that Aaron didn't get leprosy because he had a covering.
Clearly you couldn't.
Glad we've sorted that one out.

Childofgodharrison said:
I'm sorry, you just don't understand.

I don't understand why you take Scriptures out of context and, when I ask you about them, then quote other Scriptures that are completely irrelevant, no.

Childofgodharrison said:
You still think the covering is a hat.

It's you who keeps mentioning hats; not me.
I asked you to show me the verses in Numbers 12 which proved that Aaron had a covering, like you insisted.

Childofgodharrison said:
I'm wasting my time

This whole discussion is a waste of time - it's nothing to do with the Gospel.

Childofgodharrison said:
You are still on milk.

No.
This isn't even Christian doctrine, part of the Gospel and necessary for salvation.

Taking Scriptures out of context to make a point, and misapplying them, however, is a different matter.

Childofgodharrison · Mar 18, 2021

Strong in Him said:
Numbers 12:1-11

Please show me where it says, in that passage, that Aaron had a covering which prevented him from getting a skin disease?

No, you told me what YOU think.
Show me where it says those words and I'll believe you - otherwise you are just reading your own ideas into the passage.

The passage does not say that Aaron had a covering; that is your idea.
I'm sorry if you can't see that.

If the man was the woman's spiritual covering, she WOULDN'T need to cover her head to prophesy - Scripture would say that women could only prophesy, pray, teach etc in the presence of men because they need a spiritual covering and the man provides it.

What "covering" did Mary Magdalene have when she went and told the 11 male disciples that Jesus was risen?
She had the Lord's authority, but you have already said that it is not enough for women to believe they are covered by Jesus alone.

Exodus 39:1
Moreover, from the blue and purple and scarlet material, they made finely woven garments for ministering in the holy place as well as the holy garments which were for Aaron, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.
You probably won't except this scripture either.

Does the Bible forbid women from being preachers/pastors?

Active Member

Holy, Righteous, Ratchet Squad

Great is thy faithfulness

Active Member

Clara bonam audax

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Great is thy faithfulness

Holy, Righteous, Ratchet Squad

Active Member

Great is thy faithfulness

Clara bonam audax

Active Member

Active Member

Great is thy faithfulness

Active Member

Great is thy faithfulness

Active Member

Great is thy faithfulness

Active Member

Similar threads