The apostle Paul

Originally posted by josephw
Men are not better than women. Don't be silly.
We are equal in sole, but not in role. And nobody is really equal. We all have strengths and weaknesses.

"...equal in soul, but not in role..."

I cannot agree with you on this issue.

I'm assuming the church you attend has women who teach Sunday school. Why then should women be prohibited from leading the congregation? After all, each Sunday, the preacher (pastor, etc.) teaches the congregation how to act, what that day's passage means, etc. Why would you trust women to teach children but not the congregation? If you do not have issues against women teachers in church, why then would you have issues against women leaders in the church?

I'm assuming you are still basing your entire position against women in church roles on the writings of Paul. We have already established that Paul's writings on such issues were biased. And before you even begin to claim that the entire Bible is the innerant word of God, you yourself admitted that it had flaws!

Originally posted by wittywonka
"...equal in soul, but not in role..."

I cannot agree with you on this issue.

I'm assuming the church you attend has women who teach Sunday school. Why then should women be prohibited from leading the congregation? After all, each Sunday, the preacher (pastor, etc.) teaches the congregation how to act, what that day's passage means, ...[text shortened]... hat the entire Bible is the innerant word of God, you yourself admitted that it had flaws!

Perhaps. Then again perhaps not. I know that I mentioned "prophetesses" that have been included in the Bible. However, what of women "preists"? In sermon competition #2 I brought up the fact that Levites were chosen for the role of preists. In fact, ONLY levites were chosen as priests as commanded by God. It was their ROLE to be priests. Also, it does not mention women assuming the role of priestess within the Levite tribe. Is this because women were simply not mentioned or was it because women were excluded from the role entirely? One can only speculate because it does not say for sure. I am comfortable, however, with the notion that we all have ROLES to play. However, it does not necessarily make one greater or less than the other, rather, it simply means we may have different tasks assigned to us by God. Therefore, if we are serving God it would behoove us to seek him and seek him alone in terms of such roles, not man.

Originally posted by wittywonka
I have been trying to say this forever here on RHP!

Roman society (the general time period in which Paul lived) was patriarchal (and that is an understatement, and saying that it is an understatement is an understatement) and intolerant of much that has gained (rightful) tolerance over the years (for example, homosexuality).

But that is my opinion, and I know many on this site who continue to disagree with me.

What about sex outside of marrriage? What about sex with other species? What about sex with minors? Where is the line drawn in terms of sexual conduct and why?

Originally posted by whodey
...it does not mention women assuming the role of priestess within the Levite tribe. Is this because women were simply not mentioned or was it because women were excluded from the role entirely? One can only speculate because it does not say for sure.

Point taken.

Originally posted by whodey
What about sex outside of marrriage? What about sex with other species? What about sex with minors? Where is the line drawn in terms of sexual conduct and why?

Well done, you caught me generalizing. I have a bad habit of that, thank you for correcting me. I am trying to stop, but it takes time. 😉

I was generalizing when I meant to specify homosexuality.

Originally posted by whodey
Your point is well taken. In fact, Paul did get into arguements over whether the Jews should continue some of the pracitces of the Law of Moses. After all, these men were raised via Jewish tradition. For example, they were taught to circumcise themselves and such. In fact, these types of disputes continue in the church today. For example, should Christia up in the letter of the law that we forget why we have the law or what it was intended for.

You argument is based on the idea that what is more important is the faith, and the law is the secondry thing. But I see you have misconceptoin here.

Don't you agree that the law is orginially inspired by GOD?

Why do you think GOD gave the law from the begining?

You look at the law as curse which was carried out by Jesus on the Cross. That is how Paul see it, while the remainig 12 apstols didn't (because Jesus was clear about that "I didn't come to break the law or the prophets" ).

When talking about Islam our look to the law is totally different: We believe that GOD know what is the best way for humans to live their lifes. And so when he gave us a law it should be the perfect way to live. So when we follow the law it is part of the faith and we can't separate it. If we believe in GOD and his prophets, then we must believe in his law as well, and we must follow it. So following the law is not just a matter of work and how much goodies I did in my life to grante the heaven, no it is a decleration of submission to GOD which complete our faith in him. This point is what you miss Christian, and I don't know how you understand it. How do you think that the law of GOD is not a good thing to follow if you believe in GOD?

Islam also has disputes within the confines of the Quran. However, what makes someone a Muslim?

If there is an agreement about somthing in Quran or Sunna, but someone didn't follow it then that might not make him a muslim.

Example: There is an agreement that a Muslim should pray Five times a day. Every prayer is well known. So if a Muslim refused to pray at all , or even to pray one of them because he thinks GOD didn't ask him to do so (or as you think about the law that it is not GOOD) then he is not a Muslim.

The basics of Islam there is no disputes in them. There is disputes of course, but that mainly in subsidiary issus. No one ask should I pray or not.

Therefore, my challenge to you is to find me written authentic evidence that ANY of the 12 disciples did not place their hope in the resurrective power of Jesus Christ for their salvation. In my opinion, if you can do this, you would shadder the modern day Christian faith to peices.

Wow, this is a good challenge, I'm working on it. Just give me sometime 🙂. This chance doesn't come twice.

Just a word of warning. Christ was also accused of breaking the Sabbath. After all, he was doing a "work" when he healed on the Sabbath.

I think you misunderstand this. I will tell how I see the message of Jesus if he is Just a prophet for Jews?

Jews used to follow the literal meaning of the law killing any sort of Mercy in it. This was including the sabbath. They understanded it as a complete rest, but that is not what GOD wanted from it. So what Jesus did is not a complete breaking , but showing the real meaning to them.

Jews idea about the law that there was no flexibility, Which broke the spirit of the law.. But Jesus wanted to show them no there is flexibility, as long as it has nothing to do with the basic faith.

That is what Islam teach us. Yes there is a law and we have to follow it, but also there are exceptions.

We are asked to wash our face, hands and legs before prayer. But what if there is no water. Will we stop praying? , no there is another solution. And even if this solution is not avaliable , we can pray without it.

Same goes for everything "necessity permits what was forbidden".

This what Jews missed about the law of GOD.

I hope you can understand me..

Originally posted by ahosyney
[b]You argument is based on the idea that what is more important is the faith, and the law is the secondry thing. But I see you have misconceptoin here.

That is NOT what I am saying. What I am saying is that the law was given for a specific purpose. For example, the rule about the Sabbath was SUPPOSE to be a liberating event for the children of Israel. During that time men worked 24/7 and were dictated to by men who had power over them. In essence, either you had power of your own or you became a slave to someone else. The rule about the Sabbath gave the common man a day of pause to consider their lives and reflect upon the meaning of life other than manuel labor. It was given in a spirit of love as where the Pharisees who accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath by healing someone on the Sabbath was not breaking the spirit of the law even though it was a "work". In essence, the law is given to us in a spirit of love. Man does not kill, steal, bear false witness, ignore his creator or put others before what he has created if they are in fact walking in love. Just as the Bible says, ALL of the laws of the prophets hang on the law of loving your neighbor as yourself and loving God above all else. I think Paul says it best when he says in 1 Corinthians chapter 13 that we see through a glass darkly. In other words, the law is a shadow of the true light of the law which is love. Paul continues by saying that whether there be faith, or prophesy, etc. they will ALL pass away but love is what remains. This chapter is a MUST read if you have never read it. Promise me you will!

As far as the law being a curse, if I go and murder someone the the law of the land becomes a curse to me, no? I then need to pay for breaking the law. Does that mean that I then choose not to adhere or recognize the law or say the law is bad? No. However, there is a price to pay for my crime and I will pay with my life unless I am set free. In terms of the God of the Bible, ANY and ALL sin causes death. If I had never sinned, the law would then not be a concern or a curse to me, however, that is not the case. Therefore, Christ is what sets us free from the curse of the law. That is the good news of the gospel!!!

Originally posted by wittywonka
"...equal in soul, but not in role..."

I cannot agree with you on this issue.

I'm assuming the church you attend has women who teach Sunday school. Why then should women be prohibited from leading the congregation? After all, each Sunday, the preacher (pastor, etc.) teaches the congregation how to act, what that day's passage means, ...[text shortened]... hat the entire Bible is the innerant word of God, you yourself admitted that it had flaws!

You do not agree with equal in soul not role? I have never heard of
that phrase before, but it does carry with it some truth. It does not
mean that we are diminished by our roles with regard to our
station in life. Throughout the Old Testament and New Testament God
makes it clear He put importance on the people not their position
in life, or even their authority in this life. Kings are not allowed to
take other’s wives away; King David sinned when He used his
authority to get what he wanted, Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the
Hittite. We are also warned in the New Testament to:

Luke 20:46
"Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets.

We are the ones that make station in life a value judgment on the
person not God, I believe it is a sin to do so too.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You do not agree with equal in soul not role? I have never heard of
that phrase before, but it does carry with it some truth. It does not
mean that we are diminished by our roles with regard to our
station in life. Throughout the Old Testament and New Testament God
makes it clear He put importance on the people not their position
in life, or even their ...[text shortened]... ion in life a value judgment on the
person not God, I believe it is a sin to do so too.
Kelly

But see, the story of David is told in a way that makes the sin taking what belonged to Uriah. Because she was married to Uriah, it was wrong. She's not a sofa. What about what she wanted? I don't remember the story, but since he was in a position of power over her, doesn't that make it a story of rape? But if you are saying that men and women are equal in soul not role, you are saying that it isn't rape because her role as female means she has no say in how her body is used by others. Being female isn't a station in life nor a role.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
But see, the story of David is told in a way that makes the sin taking what belonged to Uriah. Because she was married to Uriah, it was wrong. She's not a sofa. What about what she wanted? I don't remember the story, but since he was in a position of power over her, doesn't that make it a story of rape? But if you are saying that men and wome ...[text shortened]... no say in how her body is used by others. Being female isn't a station in life nor a role.

I'm saying the rules apply to all, it does not matter what position each
holds all the rules apply, unlike this country where those that write
them do it in such a way they do not apply to them many times, or
the friends of those that write them. David could not because he was
King just take her even if she wanted him too, it did not matter.
Kelly

Originally posted by josephw
You're reading too much into this.
Just because women are excluded from leadership IN THE LOCAL ASSEMBLY does not diminish them in any way. As a matter of fact, if properly understood, the bible does not make one person better than another. But there must be order in the church, or else we get what is so obviously apparent in the church today. Disunity.

I am going to exclude you from particpating in the forums of Redhotpawn. Just because you are excluded does not diminish you in any way. In fact, if properly understood, this does not make one better than another. There must be order in this forum or else we get what is so obviously apparent in the forums today. Disunity.

Originally posted by kirksey957
I am going to exclude you from particpating in the forums of Redhotpawn. Just because you are excluded does not diminish you in any way. In fact, if properly understood, this does not make one better than another. There must be order in this forum or else we get what is so obviously apparent in the forums today. Disunity.

Amen.

Originally posted by josephw

We are equal in sole, but not in role.

Your wife has big feet?

Originally posted by pawnhandler
She's not a sofa.

But was she a shofa? 😉

Originally posted by kirksey957
I am going to exclude you from particpating in the forums of Redhotpawn. Just because you are excluded does not diminish you in any way. In fact, if properly understood, this does not make one better than another. There must be order in this forum or else we get what is so obviously apparent in the forums today. Disunity.

There's just one problem: who's going to volunteer to go home with josephw and let him ask questions about the forum discussions?

His daughter could, I suppose. Talk about a neat inversion.