Can Women Pastor ?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by 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)

Have really lost interest in responding to you about this. You just refuse to engage I Tim. 2 & keep ranting about "Prophecy," which is primarily "to foretell"....not biblical expositions to church members.

Think I'll stick w/ the clear instructions to the church......"I do NOT ALLOW a woman to teach, or to excercise authority over a man....." It'll still be staring them in the face when "women preachers" are finished!

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

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.

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"?

His name is Hartill, not Harthill. I've heard of him, but never read his stuff. So you read his book? Well, kudos to you for making an effort. I recommend a class, based on our exchanges thus far. I'm only saying that because you've said things that are contrary to the value of hermeneutics, then offered statements that were simply false.

That's a crafty handling of First Mention, if I've ever seen. Who uses the translation of that verse to mean language? I'll answer this one: NO ONE! The Passage is likely talking about the mystery of being born from above. To inject into John that Jesus "meant", or that John meant to even imply, He was referring to speaking in tongues, is a huge stretch, at the least.

You do realize that you're entire theory of "implicit never overriding explicit" has just been proven false by your own method of interpretation? That's really the only point I was trying to make.

There were more results and signs than just speaking with tongues. Also, we have other Scriptures from Paul and Luke that include Spirit infilling without tongues being present. Without tongues being emphasized explicitly by any of the Apostles, or Early Church, taking a narrative in Acts to mean this is a commandment for salvation is another stretch. Your method of First Mention would mean that people would have fire sitting on their shoulders as well at every event of Spirit infilling.

[Sister Alvear]

God Himself came into the world through a woman.

The vessel that He used that was meant to bring benefit to all of mankind through the good news of the gospel in the face of the Savior was a lowly servant who was a woman....
The news of the resurrection came through a woman
The GO YE command was given to all christians...
Acts 8 tells us both MEN and women preached....deny that and you denythe BIBLE....

[Sister Alvear]

Originally Posted by rdp

Have really lost interest in responding to you about this. You just refuse to engage I Tim. 2 & keep ranting about "Prophecy," which is primarily "to foretell"....not biblical expositions to church members.

Think I'll stick w/ the clear instructions to the church......"I do NOT ALLOW a woman to teach, or to excercise authority over a man....." It'll still be staring them in the face when "women preachers" are finished!

NO sir...there will always be women preachers...
prophecy is to edify the church....

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rdp

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.

Straw man? Is this your NEW fanciful word you are just throwing out?

Saying historical-cultural context is not part of the exegetical process is false. To elevate lexicons as the "primary exegetical tool" is false. There are many more things, but alas I'll stop at that. Please tell me what the straw man is here? Also tell me what "apologetics" have to do with anything here? Or "apologetic tricks?" lol

Stick to the Text... again you posture as a exegete, but don't seem to understand the whole process of interpreting scripture.

[Sister Alvear]

sorry if you go to heaven I plan to be there....

[Sister Alvear]

Moses said in Numbers 11:29, "Would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put His spirit upon them!"

[LadyRev]

Originally Posted by rdp

Have really lost interest in responding to you about this. You just refuse to engage I Tim. 2 & keep ranting about "Prophecy," which is primarily "to foretell"....not biblical expositions to church members.

Think I'll stick w/ the clear instructions to the church......"I do NOT ALLOW a woman to teach, or to excercise authority over a man....." It'll still be staring them in the face when "women preachers" are finished!

Actually, I'd hate to see what will be staring you in the face when you are "finished".

Last time I checked, God was still on the throne, not man.

[Sister Alvear]

The earliest secular extant account of Christian women suffering for their faith was given by Tacitus in his Annales (9.3.32) written in AD 57, about the same time that Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians, and by Pliny the Younger in his famous letter to Trajan c.112 (Epp.x.xcvi). Tacticus described the trial of Pomponia Graecina, a woman of high rank, who was accused of "foreign superstition" and handed over to her husband as judge for her trial. This woman was the first Christian persecuted for the faith that history records outside the New Testament.

Pliny the Younger wrote "I thought it the more necessary, therefore, to find out what truth there was in this (accusation against Christians) by applying torture to two maidservants who were called ministers. But I found nothing but a depraved and extravagant superstition." [Pliny, Epp.X (at Trajan) xcvi] These women, who may well have been quite young, were probably slaves since they were called maidservants. Yet they were recognized publicly as Christian ministers (Latin "ministrae", lit. "female ministers"). Their witness for Christ must have been public, for they were arrested and tortured to incriminate the rest of the church..

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

His name is Hartill, not Harthill. I've heard of him, but never read his stuff. So you read his book? Well, kudos to you for making an effort. I recommend a class, based on our exchanges thus far. I'm only saying that because you've said things that are contrary to the value of hermeneutics, then offered statements that were simply false.

Have to be quick, but let me help you out [just kidding!] I also recommend to you invest in some alternate reading material, lest you reveal a scholastical prejudice/bias. If you've never even hardly heard of Daniel Wallace [calling him "my pal"??], I doubt your own "credentials"! He's world class scholar & textual critic.

That's a crafty handling of First Mention, if I've ever seen. Who uses the translation of that verse to mean language? I'll answer this one: NO ONE! The Passage is likely talking about the mystery of being born from above. To inject into John that Jesus "meant", or that John meant to even imply, He was referring to speaking in tongues, is a huge stretch, at the least.

Argumentum ad Populum [i.e., "WHO uses...."] alert, not to mention "Irrelevant Appeal to Authority". Jesus EXPLICITLY states "so is everyone born of the Spirit." What? "You [read slowly] HEAR the SOUND..." No "implicit" at all...entirely explicit! And, "mystery" is never mentioned, thus you excercise eisegesis as opposed to exegesis. But what is mentioned is "Sound/Language" & "everyone born of the Spirit"! Put your eraser down, it's still there. This was a prophecy of Pentecost w/ the appendages of Wind/Sound as its fulfillment. "So is everyone born of the Spirit."

You do realize that you're entire theory of "implicit never overriding explicit" has just been proven false by your own method of interpretation? That's really the only point I was trying to make.

Not one bit Jeffrey. "Language/Sound", "everyone born of the Spirit" is explicitly mentioned, not implicit.

There were more results and signs than just speaking with tongues. Also, we have other Scriptures from Paul and Luke that include Spirit infilling without tongues being present. Without tongues being emphasized explicitly by any of the Apostles, or Early Church, taking a narrative in Acts to mean this is a commandment for salvation is another stretch. Your method of First Mention would mean that people would have fire sitting on their shoulders as well at every event of Spirit infilling.

Nope! There was also fire, lightenings, etc. at the giving of the 1st covenant on Sinai, yet none of this is seen at the other readings of the Law [after the institution], same w/ the 2nd covenant at Pentecost, yet we DO see tongue talking again [Acts 10, 19, I Cor. 14, & most likely Acts 8, though not stated]. This does no violence to the Law of First Mention, since these examples adequately relate back to Acts 2.

Try tommorrow Jeffrey!