MY Call? Shouldn't it be GOD'S Call?

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On Wed, 28 Oct 1998 02:03:36 -0600 tlwitness@juno.com (Jerry Welch)
writes:
>Based on what, exactly?  Paul made a clear distinction between the 
>genders and there is no historical records that would make such 
>claims, so where do you get this from?

1 Cor.11:5 and 1 Cor.14:3-5.  The distinction in gender when women are
prophesying is made by the long hair on a woman. 1 Cor. 11 says women can
prophesy as long as she has a sign of submission on her head which is her
hair.( 1 Cor. 14 says that prophesying is for the edification of the
church.) IOW, if a woman has short hair, she would be out of gender
disorder when praying or prophesying. (This would include all women,
since we all pray.)  

>I did.  I said that your assumption (which was your original question) 
>if worded as you believed was inaccurate to start with since the Bible 
>will not contradict itself.

Maybe you should've said "I don't believe that" rather than "if that's
what you believe" and explained yourself.  It would've made things
clearer. The question is not my assumption, but the assumption on the
part of some who don't believe in women preachers, which is why I brought
it up.  It would appear to be a moot point concerning you as we seem to
agree that 1 Cor. 14:35 is not talking about preaching.

>I have to know what your intention with the question is.  I am not 
>going to assume if there is a possibility that you are saying 
>something different.

Why can't you just explain what the scripture means as it stands?

>In the original Greek, I'm sorry, but it is the exact same word.  
>Check your Strong's.

I am not a Greek/Hebrew scholar.  It does say the same word in the
Strong's but the Interlinear translates it as man.  I am assuming since
the Interlinear is a direct translation from the original that it must be
accurate and so I go with it. I suspect the translation of the word "man"
has to do with the surrounding context.

>So since the original words are the same in both parts of the chapter 
>that we are referencing, at what point do you think it makes a 
>contextual change and based on what? 

There appears to be a text change beginning at verse 11 where it leaves
off speaking of "women" and starts speaking about "the woman".

>Name calling doesn't help anything.

Come now, Jerry, don't go getting sensitive on me. :  ) You stated that
women shouldn't have websites that minister to men and I said it showed
an extreme viewpoint. Your opinion-My opinion. 

>Yes I did.  I clearly said, "God wanted it there".

You really didn't say why though.  I am asking for a definition of what
you think these verses mean.  If you are going to build a case on these
scriptures, everything should follow through.

>Yes I did.  I said that I didn't understand that verse. 

Which really isn't an answer from someone who is trying to tell women
that we cannot preach. The word "notwithstanding" connects the verse to
the rest of the scriptures that we are discussing. My point behind
bringing these questions in is this: You and some have said very boldly
and brashly in no uncertain terms that the Word of God is against women
preachers. I figure if you know so certainly that you are right, you
ought to be able to explain the things that pertain to the subject. If
not, maybe you should say ," I *think* women preachers are going against
the scriptures" and tone it down a  bit.

>>Margaret Thatcher was a political figure.  When did she prophesy?
>
>My point exactly.

You lost me here. Deborah prophesied and she also was a judge of Israel
which is a type of the church.  People went to her for judgements like
they went to Moses.  She had to decide what the scripture said and then
apply it to the situations of peoples lives.

>Neither.  So now you are going to say that "Prophetesses" existed, so 
>if a prophetess (generic) equals a Priest, there needed to be no women 
>priests, but that is still incorrect, since God made a specific and 
>distinct separation of the sexes and their roles and the role of the 
>man was to lead, not the woman.

I wish you wouldn't speak for me.  First, it would seem the priests were
more of a figurehead with a job.  The prophets were called by God
himself.  In the New Testament we are all kings and priests both men and
women.

>That it is God's Will for man to lead, not woman?

In the home, definately. Elsewhere, I am undecided as to how much
authority women should have.  Some think women should not be General
Superintendent. I just don't know.  After all, Deborah was head honcho
and also subject to her husband at the same time.  Why wasn't Deborah's
husband in charge?

>If she was witnessing as the lady at the well did, I have no problem 
>with that.  

Anna was a prophetess not just a "witnesser".

>Correct.  I'm not saying that God can't talk to women, but the rank 
>and order are there.  The chain of command is Jesus > Man > Woman.

This is the rank for the home, for sure.

>IF God had intended for women to be spiritual leaders, why were women 
>prohibited from going into the Temple as far as men?

My opinion is that since the man is the head of the household, God was
trying to establish that fact in His people. This would put the man first
as far as spiritual authority in the home.  If a woman is a pastor her
husband still has spiritual authority over her.

>>Since tongues and interpretation is equal to prophecy, they are 
>either 
>>both wrong or both right.

You didn't address this and I would like you to.

>So John taught doctrines that were contradictory to Paul? 

I don't think Paul taught against women preachers.
 
>And if you believe this, WHERE does it say that John taught that women 
>could teach, minister to or Pastor men?

There is a great possibility that the woman he was writing to was the
pastor of the church in her house. 

CD Sterret in his posts writes that women can preach but not pastor based
on his study of shepherds, saying that no women kept sheep, but he forgot
about Rachel.

>She did what we today would call witnessing and I don't know of ANYONE 
>on this list who would discourage any woman, or any Christian, for 
>that matter, from witnessing.

Right. This woman *testified*. Nowhere does it say she was a prophetess. 
They are two different things.

BTW, if a woman set up a website to witness, it would undoubtably be read
by men and minister to them.

>I do want to thank you very much for responding to my post.  It was
>very kind of you.

Sometimes I don't feel like responding, but then I remember that the
subject really should be discussed. None of us has all the answers.  If
we can respect the fact that others have their own viewpoint and don't
have to agree with us all the time, that should do it.

Lynne Yohnk
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]