Can Women Pastor ?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

Not at all! Did only the women that Paul was talking about in I Tim. have to dress modestly? The epistle was written "so that you may know how to behave yourself in the house of God, which IS THE CHURCH.........." It still goes for today: "I do not allow a woman to speak, or to excercise authority over a man." Is the God-called ministry in a position of authority w/in the church? Of course it is [Heb. 13]. This is what Paul explicitly forbids.

I'm just throwing a point out for consideration.

The Law was plain about not working or doing things on the Sabbath. Jesus broke the Law. We can get so side-tracked by the precepts we miss the mission. That's all I'm saying.

I have friends who agree with you, and that's why I enjoy hearing your arguments and points.

[Sister Alvear]

Originally Posted by rdp

So you're gonna' just entirely ignore the primary definition of "to foretell"???? C'mon Sis. Alvear...........................why not quote from Strong's or Vine's??

foretell...I could give an example of that...I was teaching a seminar on the false doctrines of William Branham when all of a sudden I spoke up and said someone that is here tonight will die tomorrow...

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Apologetic trick? Hahaha. There you go again using words that lack any sense to the conversation. Yes, I deny that word definitions and syntax are the primary factor in exegesis. Please refer me to a source otherwise. I'll be happy to reconsider. Historical-cultural context does not battle with scripture, it helps us understand it's meaning. All the tools work together. They aren't in competition. There's only a Hermeneutic or there's not. No "full" and "light."

You apparently do not understand the meaning of apologetics. And, still waiting on your all important credentials!

So, you place history on the same plane as Scripture? I agree [for about the 3rd time now] that history is a "help" [seize on that word], but you entirely side-stepped my comments on 1st century historical records. Tell us Jeffrey, how concrete is the historical narrative of the 1st century outside of the recognized canon?? Answer pls.:__________?

I'll be nice. But you're making this more comical when you don't admit you're just making things up.

Ughhh, YOU're the one who apparently does not even know what apologetics is! Would you mind defining this term for us? Sheeesh, just gets worse & worse eh'........................

[Sister Alvear]

A prophecy is the message that has been communicated to a prophet[1] which the prophet then communicates to others. In general, this message can involve divine inspiration, revelation, or interpretation. More specifically, it may be a professed psychic prediction. Confusion often exists between the word "prophecy" (noun) and "to prophesy" (verb). A memory phrase to help distinguish between "prophecy" (pronounced with the long e sound as in "see") and "prophesy" (pronounced with the long i sound as in "sigh"): "When a prophet prophesies he or she utters prophecies."[2]

The concept is found throughout the religions of the world. (wikipedia)

[Jeffrey]

You apparently do not understand the meaning of apologetics. And, still waiting on your all important credentials!

So, you place history on the same plane as Scripture? I agree [for about the 3rd time now] that history is a "help" [seize on that word], but you entirely side-stepped my comments on 1st century historical records. Tell us Jeffrey, how concrete is the historical narrative of the 1st century outside of the recognized canon?? Answer pls.:__________?

I'll be nice. But you're making this more comical when you don't admit you're just making things up.
Ughhh, YOU're the one who apparently does not even know what apologetics is! Would you mind defining this term for us? Sheeesh, just gets worse & worse eh'........................

I fully understand what apologetics are: providing a reasoned defense (in our context) of the faith. This has nothing to do with our conversation. Please tell me how it does. And what in God's name is an "apologetic trick?"


Yes, this is getting more and more comical. Spicing the thread up for a moment, I suppose. I ask again: what are your hermeneutic credentials?

Maybe we should get back to your primary list of points. Things were going better that way. It was when you got puffy-chested and thought you were the Great AFF Scholar, but started throwing out words you didn't understand, and saying things that were categorically false.

[Sister Alvear]

The Christian prophet is a "spokesman for God," much as Aaron was for Moses before Pharaoh (Ex 4:15-17; 7:1),[11] one who speaks what he hears by revelation rather than from his own mind.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Wow. Where do I start. What is it I need to do my homework on exactly, rdp? I ask again, where did you get your training in hermeneutics? I doubt you've had any. Simply observe from the Biblical record? Yeah, pretty much you flunked hermeneutics 101. Come again.

I see, totally avoid my points about the apostles, scorn me, refuse to state your "credentials," then expect the dialogue to advance. Alrightyyyyyyyy then! Have you ever heard of Edward Harthill's "Prinicples of Biblical Hermeneutics"?

Then you answer my other response to your implicit/explicit argument by telling me to go back and read what you said? Could you not proctor a response?

Ok, Scholar. Now apply the Law of First Mention to tongues. I am all ears. To do that (remember) you will have to understand what Law of First Mention is all about, how it can be used, etc. Secondly, do you have anything explicit to indicate one must speak in tongues? The other camp has plenty of explicit passages saying how to be saved otherwise. Just turning your own flawed argument on you.

Why thanks for asking...happy to oblige! Jesus emphatically states in Jn. 3:8 that "everyone born of the Spirit," you would "hear the sound thereof." The Greek word for "sound" is "phone'," where we get the English word for "phonics." Itliterally defines as "language, voice." See Vine's, Strongs, etc.

Now, The Law of First Mention basically affirms [quoting from memory since I'm in the library] that the 1st time a phenomena/subject is mentioned in Scripture, every subsequesnt reference will relate back to this foundational experience as its model/paradigm. The 1st time that we someone "filled with the Holy Spirit" in the NT church is in Acts chp. 2, "And they were ALL filled with the Holy Spirit, and spoke in other tongues as the Spirit of God gave the utterance."

Tell us Jeffrey, should we expect the same results today as those initial recipients, or do we receive it in another way? And what's your Scriptural justification? Spare me I Cor. 14, as this is easily shown "flawed"!

Not a cop out, but have to go. Been here for about 2 hrs. now, have things to do 2nite. Look back soon, so far nothing but scorn. If you want to advance the conversation, I suggest you tone down your rhetoric.

[Sister Alvear]

Listen to these words of an atheist:

Were I a religionist, did I truly, firmly, consistently believe, as millions say they do, that the knowledge and the practice of religion in this life influences the destiny in another, the Spirit of truth be my witness, religion should be to me everything. I would cast aside earthly enjoyments as dross, earthly cares as follies, and earthly thoughts and feelings as less than vanity. Religion should be my first waking thought, and my last image when sleep sunk me in unconsciousness. I would labor in her cause alone. I would not labor for the meat that perisheth, not for the treasure on earth, where moth and rust corrupts, and thieves break through and steal; but only for a crown of glory in heavenly regions. Where treasure and happiness are alike beyond the reach of time or chance. I would take thought for eternity alone. I would esteem one soul gained to heaven worth a life of suffering. There should be neither worldly prudence nor calculating circumstance in my engrossing zeal. Earthly consequences should never stay my hand or seal my lips. I would speak to the imagination, awaken the feelings, stir up the passions, and arouse the fancy. Earth, its joys and its griefs, should occupy no moments of my thoughts; for these are but the affairs of a portion of eternity, and on the immortal souls around me, soon to be everlastingly miserable or everlastingly happy. I would deem all who thought only of this world, merely seeking to increase temporal happiness, and laboring to obtain temporal goods, pure madmen. I would go forth to the world and preach to it, in season and out of season; and my text should be, “What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (A.S. Ormsby, in Alone with God)

sad that an atheist would do whatmany christians will not do....

[Sister Alvear]

Carest Thou Not? (Amy Carmichael)

The tom-toms thumped all night, and the darkness shuddered all around me like a living, feeling thing. I could not sleep, so I lay awake and looked; and I saw, At my feet a precipice broke sheer down into infinite space. I looked, but saw no bottom; only cloud shapes, and unfathomable depths. I saw streams of people flowing from all quarters. All were blind, stone blind; all made straight for the precipice edge. There were shrieks as they suddenly knew themselves were falling, and a tossing up of arms, catching, clutching at empty air. Some went over quietly without a sound.
Then I saw along the edge there were sentries set at intervals, but the intervals were too great. The people fell in their blindness, quite unwarned; and a gulf yawned like the mouth of hell. Then I saw a group of people under some trees, with their backs turned towards the gulf. They were making daisy chains. Sometimes when a piercing scream reached them it disturbed them, and they thought it a rather vulgar noise. And if one of their number wanted to go and do something to help, then all the others would pull that one down. “Why should you get so excited about it? You must wait for a definite call to go! You haven’t finished your daisy chain yet.”
There was another group. It was made up of people whose great desire was to get more sentries out; but they found that very few wanted to go, and sometimes there were no sentries set for miles and miles of the edge. Once a girl stood alone in her place, waving the people back; but her mother and other relatives called, and reminded her that her furlough was due. No one was sent to guard her gap, and over and over the people fell like a waterfall of souls.
Then they sang a hymn. There came another sound of a million broken hearts wrung out in one full drop, one sob. And a horror of darkness was upon me, for I knew what it was. It was the cry of blood. Then thundered the voice of the Lord, “What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.”
The tom-toms beat heavily, the darkness still shuddered and shivered about me: I heard the yells of the devil-dancers and weird shrieks of the devil possessed just outside the gate. What does it matter after all? It has gone on for years; it will go on for years. Why make such a fuss about it? God forgive us! God arouse us! Shame on us for our sin! Help us reach these multiplied millions around the world with the Gospel through the printed page, before they go into a Christ less eternity.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I fully understand what apologetics are: providing a reasoned defense (in our context) of the faith. This has nothing to do with our conversation. Please tell me how it does. And what in God's name is an "apologetic trick?"

Nice try, but no cigar! Apolgetics is a defense alright [employed 8 times in the NT], which is PRECISELY what we're doing! Sheesh, how does this "have nothing to do w/ our conversation"???? Man, this is wierd!


Yes, this is getting more and more comical. Spicing the thread up for a moment, I suppose. I ask again: what are your hermeneutic credentials?

Why, you've even got me smiling now Jeffrey ol' fellow! The ol' "credentials" ploy is just ridiculous. You've yet to answer my questions, yet expect me to be at your beckoning call?? Ain't gonna' happen.................'till you learn to answer my questions as well!

Maybe we should get back to your primary list of points. Things were going better that way. It was when you got puffy-chested and thought you were the Great AFF Scholar, but started throwing out words you didn't understand, and saying things that were categorically false.

Not hardly! YOU falsely claim that I'm making "categorically false" statements. YOU apparently need more "credentials" of your own! Regardless, I'm not really interested in all of this, but simply won't allow you to attack a straw man...as you've been trying to do.

MUST run........will deal w/ you later [but would prefer to stick to the text]....LORD willing.