--------Catholicism is post-Messianic Judaism with Roy Schoeman-kzfaq.info/get/bejne/md6eqdZ12MmZmmw.html

Amen

Sooo much this.

God can use us all, even if people don't like it, God will provide that gift that individual to fulfil that purpose at that time.

Exactly.

1 Timothy 2 8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. 1 Corinthians 14 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Amen.

And amen.

Praying for this. He is a blessing to the body.

Sadly, he announced yesterday that he has a short time left here on earth. Just heartbreaking. I hate cancer.

@@jasongoad1084 Oh man, I missed that announcement. I will be praying for peace and comfort for his family. I am sad, he is such a blessing to the body of Christ.

Amen

Now that's a great name you have there, crashtestdhimmi, wish I'd thought of it.

Bible still does say the man is the head of the women though.

The assignments are as follows: Men lead. Women cook.

@@ngkngk875 Right.

I would say whichever way a person answers their answer needs to be harmonious with all scripture. We cannot take the passage and rubber stamp it over all scripture as all scripture does not agree that a woman cannot exercise authority over a man.

@@elgatofelix8917 Men rule if God rules the men. Weak vice ridden men should not rule, and other men should discipline them, remind them that primarily they are stewards not masters. This is where men have always lost the game, keeping each other in check, holy.

What I find is that no one is consistent on it. The same church that would never think of a female in the pulpit will sponsor a female missionary. It's fine for a woman to preach the gospel, just not in our four walls. She can go over there and build four more walls. And far from being silent in church, she can teach Sunday school and do virtually everything except this one thing. No one actually follows Paul's formula. Not even Paul did.

@@Wraiths_and_Wreckage I've often thought the same about women missionaries within this discussion. Being a missionary for over 30 years, I have seen and known many that do more in a day than many men who stand in American pulpits do in a year. I was just in a very remote part of Guatemala where there are no comforts. The missionary who initiated the work I visited there and now helps to support others who have come behind is a woman. She's tenacious. I was blessed and impressed to know her and her collogues-mostly women.

Why did you click on the link if you weren't even going to listen to anything? It's redundant to keep claiming something is "clear" when the video you are watching is CLEARLY pointing out how UNCLEAR the thing is!

It's not as conclusive when limited to Eden, but I've found a connection with headship described in 1 Corinthians 11 and the relationship between the Father and the Son as well as the Son and man in John 17. If Paul really is comparing those relationships with the relationship between a man and a woman, there is a headship based in equality if done as intended. Different roles, but in unity as one. Am I stretching it?

Help isn't a good word because God even defines himself as a help. English speaking countries use it in a way that we think of a maidservice but its not a hebrew way of thinking of it. It's a military term. In Hebrew it reads more like "and I will create a corresponding might"

Woman was subservient to man even before the fall. It's how it's meant to be. It's a feature, not a bug caused by the fall.

@@Pedant_Patrol not even close to begging correct. With that logic Adam never needs to sin on his own because he’ll just be liable for eve- yet that never happens because Adam is never chastised for her own sin. In fact that is a direct violation of a Torah law that you cannot be blamed for the sin of another. What you are describing is a caste system, not gods ideal creation. They have complete agency and independence and they both share the same prime directive to reign over Eden. God never admonishes Adam for not stopping eve, and eve is never blamed for Adam accepting the forbidden fruit from her. They both choose for themselves. You can’t say women are liable without them having any authority - it doesn’t work and is a double standard. They rule as equals, never over each other. The only time this changes is when God describes how the dominos will fall due to their errors, not before. You can’t rule over another image of God and keep the same prohibitions in plaice, and also suggest that one has more authority than the other.

People aren’t considering the arc of creation and what that means. Eve was created within sacred space, within Eden. Everything with an Eden is considered a delight, because that’s what Eden means. The dust and substance of human beings was taken from outside of that scared space to form Adam, who was later placed in the garden. This is a metaphor to show that what we are from is not worth anything until God gives us worth dust has no value. There are things that are true within the creation account that illustrate the most simple aspects of creation from the most complex and sophisticated creation efforts. Spiritually, men and women are of the same in value and substance but genetically women are far more complicated than men. You can look this up yourself X chromosomes are more complicated than Y, and given the fact that we are having children, we are complicated for that matter alone. If you read carefully, you will notice that there are specific steps within the human act of creation that applies to both men and women. first, they are made privately. Adam was made, and then placed in the garden, Adam was rendered into deep unconsciousness without warning or explanation and removes his side, which is unfortunately translated as rib in English. Eve is later brought to the man. Secondly, They were both formed and fashioned, showcasing a personal and deep investment from the creator to the creation, where everything else is spoken into creation except for us. The word form has two Hebrew yods in the word in the Paleo Hebrew picture, for that is hands, implying God is using full effort, or ‘both hands’ in making us. Third, they knew you God before they knew each other. This initial contact with God after their first moments of existence showcase is that we have a specific and private relationship with our creator. forth, this also sends a clear message that we are not created as collectives, but as specific individuals. the government would love it if we were created as a collective, as units, like the birds of the air and the fish of the sea, but we are not because we are created in the image of God, and that makes us unique agents who have been bestowed the very same attributes that God has. We are all made as individuals and then brought together in marriage, as God did in the Eden. Think about the picture that is being painted here: God is taking a side of Adam, not a foot, not a head, not a hand, but a literal side, and then declares that he will be making a ‘corresponding might’. Corresponding meaning in front of each other, side-by-side they were created, and a face to face, they relate to each other. Even after the fall, they are given fur robes by God, which are priestly symbols to tell us that, even in our fallen state, we are still made in the image of God, and still have the same mandate to rule creation as best we can, we are just bound to do it under fallen conditions until the kingdom arrives.

Sadly, I saw this as a challenge, not an intelligent debate... The brother even had it prepped on his phone... It was a classic, "I got you now Buddy" moment.

@@nereida116 hahaha. Yup...

@@AngelGonzalez-ng9ve Watch again how he keeps the mic leaning near his lips... Sad, again, but so evident. These angry agendas are ultimately connected to a past experience, an unbalanced ego, an inferiority complex, or the fear factor- a disarming change. And fear, plus unacceptable change, brings about our illusion of Control. Me da pena.

@@AngelGonzalez-ng9ve Lord Jesus -Our Christ -bless you copiously and keep you Angel! Amen.🤲🏼

@@nereida116 He seemed very eager, but a challenge to debate is a challenge. Nothing wrong with that

Indeed. It's in God's wisdom, at this time, for men to lead in certain areas (through Jesus' style servant leadership of course).

I agree.

Thank you. I agree. Men are the heads of their households, as they were priests in the temple...and one argument that has been brought up is that when a woman was in leadership in the Bible usually it's when His people were under judgement. Women have their roles - and there ARE strong women in the Bible - but it's clear that men were chosen for leadership

I did not see your comment until after I had written mine. I am in agreement with you. Here is what I wrote... ______________ But we're not in Eden. We are on a fallen Earth, living in sinful flesh...a body of death. I remember hearing about a "Christian" church who started a nudist society, and their reason too was to point to Eden. That is how they justified it. But THEY ARE NOT IN EDEN! And nowhere does Christ tell His church to invoke Eden in making such decisions. Until we are in our glorified bodies, we (being in our sinful body of death) must continue living under the restrictions of being born again of spirit, but still living in this Earthly, fallen body.

Funny that it's a bunch of guys agreeing that only guys should be in charge.. Correct, we are not in Eden, but he's saying that when all other arguments cancel each other out that is the yardstick to measure by. I would say "love your neighbor as yourself" is an even a better way to frame it. Your neighbors are also women, FYI.

Right, and just an example, some parents abuse their children, but that mournful reality does not undermine the legitimacy of the parental role.

--------Catholicism is post-Messianic Judaism with Roy Schoeman-kzfaq.info/get/bejne/md6eqdZ12MmZmmw.html

Thanks Jackson!

So, what was his position after 30 hours of study? Was it clear in one way or the other or was it like in this video, completely neutral?

-----From a protestant missionary to the traditional Catholicisme. Go to the Mass in Latin, you will understand the whole Bible by the rite itself. NO, we live in the fallen world; women can't be in the priestly ministry.

@@nikokapanen82 He's still busy with it. I don't know how many more videos are still scheduled. But he's always saying that he's a "soft" Complementarian.

--------Catholicism is post-Messianic Judaism with Roy Schoeman-kzfaq.info/get/bejne/md6eqdZ12MmZmmw.html

Mike is wrong about a lot because he never does any reading from the paleo Hebrew which breaks things down to a micro level. That alone makes me think of him as lazy. If he wanted real answers he’d get as specific as you can, and he’s not even close.

That's right. Women can serve in the church. They can serve in ministry. They can even lead others in the church (ie other women and children). What Paul was getting at is they should not, be head of, or be put into leadership of other men inside the church.

The issue is leadership in the Assembly, not spreading the Gospel.

Amen. Humanity (male and female) has been reconciled to the Lord. Before him we are each considered sons, heirs, and kings.

@@kmountain5533 You think you're greater than Paul and have better understanding of God and scripture than him? That's something. Have you been taken to the 3rd Heaven, to the throne of God? Have you been selected by God to be the one to spread the church from the Jews to the pagan nations? Has Jesus appeared to you and audibly spoken to you?

@@kmountain5533 do you believe paul is a follower and a believer of Jesus Christ...? And not a con man

Why does Heiser AVOID honestly answering the question and obfuscate with double speak?? Makes me angry and especially considering what he presents himself as being! It’s VERY clear Paul said women are NOT to teach or exercise authority over men in the New Testament assembly and quotes Eden to back it up! Women as pastors is the sole question, period! That’s it! Not as prophets or anything else; pastors is the question!

Feels?

Cool.

​@@veronica_._._._Yeah. Can't let your emotion get the best of you and make it stop you from going to church. I speak from experience.

@@StyreneDreamsOfficial Gatekeepers won't keep me away from "The Presence"

@@veronica_._._._ Amen Amen!

But then you get into eschatology… just going off scripture, we don’t know for sure if there’s a final Day of the Lord coming or not

Why would you embrace as normative the Fallen state? We who are New Creations in Christ the Second Adam should aspire to and reach for the equality evident in the Old Creation before the Fall -- unless you believe we should also intentionally avoid things that make work easier, reducing the "sweat of the brow," and that make childbirth less painful.

So many church traditions, all read that same bible, and disagree with each other on so many points. Many hide behind "we believe in what the bible says and that's why we believe this 'n this". Like Michael says at 4:28 . What if arguments in favour and against a statement can be proven AND disproven with the bible... then what? Then we leave interpretation to experts like Michael ;)

@@timoloef The experts disagree with each other. What will you do now? I'll do like the Bereans did, and "study the scrptures day and night" to figure out if what Paul preached them was true. And Paul praised them for fact checking him by the scripture, calling them noble. In Paul we have more than Heiser, or any other contemporary "expert". Trusting in experts gets you no further than trusting in church traditions. And if you say it's the Bible that is unreadable, then both the church and the traditions are for nothing.

@@AnnaMarianne the problem with most "experts" is that they are not experts at all. They studied the bible wearing the glasses of their own church culture and so they are biased. The bible is a book that you read in your teens, your twentees, thirties etc. and everytime you read it you learn something new. So, it serves a purpose. Church traditions usually seem to be there just to justify their own existence and most of them can not be traced back to the bible. Just realize that they are man-made traditions and see if they serve a purpose for yourself. It's all personal in the end.

Now that’s what I’m talking about, and he also told us not to lean on our own understanding,what the word say that’s what it is,it’s not what we think or thank it’s what he said,now how hard is that to grasp. Heavenly Father bless you sister

Or brother

Kind of sums it up perfectly with Biblical scripture. And then practically we can look at the Ellen G whites, Beth Moores and know Pauls statement is even more correct

You can always verify scripture with scripture...and in the verse you quoted it is verified many times. Voddie Baucham summed up this exact question in one of his sermons correctly and with scriputure to back it up

Adam was the federal head over Eve while in Eden. God made Adam first and Eve was made from Adam. When Eve ate of the fruit, her eyes were not opened. It was only after Adam ate that both their eyes were opened because Adam was the fountainhead of humanity. Adam’s one act of disobedience affected everyone downstream from him. Jesus is the final Adam, our federal head, who makes us righteous from his one act of righteousness. So yes both Adam and Eve were expected to be servant leaders in Eden, but the headship was also in place in Eden, meaning there was a distinction between male and female in roles.

@The FBI It is not a matter of a woman can teaching and preaching, she can, but if a woman can be the leader of a church, she can`t. 💕

@The FBI I do not think it is my job to defend something that is very clear in the scriptures, as if it were my own opinion, and you can always come up with IF IF IF examples, but it is pointless, am I right or wrong ?

The Scriptures, particularly the New Testament Scriptures are not historical and do not refer to historical circumstances. In the same way that the Lord of the Rings is not historical and does not refer to historical circumstances. The New Testament must be read as though it was fiction, you cannot carry things between the mundane world and the world of the New Testament as though there is no seam between these two worlds. History does not just march on from the last page of Revelation, but is a self contained story, with Characters and Plot and Scenes, etc and cannot be forced into the temporal world.

@@echeneis2256What are you saying? Of course there's history in the New Testament. It contains the most verified Historical documents of it's time! There's more proof for Jesus historical existence than there is for Alexander the Great's.

I want to start by saying that I agree with you... but I never hear anyone make this argument for something truly unpopular. It's just a way to bludgeon egalitarians. It's an excuse people invoke when they want to belittle the other side (I'm not saying this is *your* motivation, but it usually is the motivation behind this kind of language). To make it a little more clear: I never hear Christians say "you either follow God's word or you don't!" about James 5:1-6. I'll have an easier time believing people who make this argument the minute I see them come to church wearing thrift-store clothes, driving a used car. But it's all designer-suits and BMW's. The minute you suggest taking care of widows or orphans, the excuses come rolling in. Ultimately, unless you have achieved a state of "sinless perfection" and put Billy Graham and Mother Theresa to shame, you can't make this argument without being a great big hypocrite.

@@josephbrandenburg4373 This is going to be extremely long my friend, so just keep reading if you would, okay? What churches are you speaking of where people are driving in with BMW's and designer suits? And just be aware I used to know people who drove BMW's that didn't have a lot of money, rather due to the high mileage of the car they payed a pretty respectable low budget price for the car. I wouldn't judge a book by it's cover automatically simply because someone has money. For instance what we see on the hypocritical news and internet youtube specials is that preachers have millions of dollars so automatically they skimmed the top from the funding of the church itself. Keep in mind many of these people write books, have side businesses, and have other ways to make money. I have no doubt that the Word of Faith movement (for example) is a scam in itself to make money, and there are even pastors out there who claim to be Jesus himself. In the Bible it's stated to beware of wolves in sheeps clothing, and how do we KNOW they are wolves? Do they preach the Bible or do they twist it? Dude that doesn't mean these guys are making money off of their congregation though. I've known quite a few pastors that had side jobs to occupy their time with, and yes.... to make a little more money, and there's nothing wrong with that. The rich people that James was talking about were the ones who screwed people over and stepped on anyone and everyone to get what they had, and that was just as common back then as it is today. When the young rich ruler came to Jesus and Jesus told him to sell off all of his possessions and give it to the poor and follow him..... dude don't you see what Jesus was doing? He was showing the people that the rich young ruler loved his belongings and his wealth more than God. That's all that was. When Jesus said.... "It is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle (the eye of a needle in those days was known as a very narrow walkway where most people would have to walk in single file to walk in it, and there were certain sections called "eyes" where it was an arched doorway like structure that was built only so high.... that being said they usually weren't arched high enough for large animals to go through..... for any reference you should speak to someone who knows about the structures and cultures of that time period to understand the reference); understand what Jesus said when his disciples asked "Then who can enter the kingdom of Heaven.... and Jesus's response was.... "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible".... meaning the whole point to the rich young ruler was that he didn't trust God with what.... well..... God gave him and allowed him to have in the first place. Jesus was God, and as such God was telling him what to do with his possessions, and the man wasn't willing to give it up. Dude..... that's a big problem in todays world because God WILL ask you to give things and even people up to follow him. Remember as well what the disciples did... heck what Abraham and Moses and many others did to follow God.... they left their families, friends, and places of comfort to succeed in God's task. How many people are willing to do that today? Would you leave all that you cherish to follow God's instructions? Look at Abraham when God called him to sacrifice his own son..... just...... WOW. And God stopped him before he did it. That's what it means when God calls us..... sometimes it's a test, and sometimes..... we have to give it all up like Jesus spoke of the pearl and burying it in the land then selling everything you own to possess it. Sometimes..... that's what God calls us to do..... but you need to keep this in mind..... God doesn't ALWAYS do that. As for the widows and orphans you better believe we're called to help them and take care of them in their times of need. I agree with you on this point..... if God gives us wealth to begin with, and we don't help others when God slaps us right in the face with them..... that's defiant. That's giving God the finger. You don't do that. But dude.... where most people are coming from is jealousy when they speak about rich pastors. Think of your favorite actor/actress, favorite politician, favorite musician? Do you judge them the way you judge the pastors? There's a lot of money floating around unnoticed that's given to charity constantly by many churches across the country.... the difference is they aren't making a public spectacle about it like you see on you tube or with actors or musicians ir politicians who make it a point to toot their own trumpets on national tv for a headliner...... "LOOK WHAT I DID! I'M A GOOD PERSON!" That's what the Pharisees used to do. Jesus said.... "Do not let your left hand know what your hand hand is doing".... meaning..... don't be like the Pharisees who want praise from men. Do it in secret, because it's not for your honor, it's for God's. So..... dude just keep all this in mind. I'm not saying preachers and churches don't do what you're saying they do, I'm sure there are.... I'm positive they are...... but that doesn't mean they all do that. That's like saying all black people are drug dealers and thieves because there's a few dummies out there that do that thing, or saying that all white people are slave owners from the 1800's. I don't mean to bring this stuff up but it's the only way that most people understand anymore due to the times. I'll use what's "relevant" even if it really isn't. Okay.... I'm done now.

@@therant3837 regarding the quotation from the sermon on the mount: the gate you are referring to was built in the middle ages. Jesus was referring to a sewing needle. Jesus was saying that it was impossible, not difficult. You have missed my point entirely and written several paragraphs under a wrong assumption (not your fault), so let me clarify. (James 2: 1-15 sheds more like on this) the Bible is replete with examples of God praising the humble and bringing the proud low. Every passage in the Bible that discusses modesty instructs us to avoid costly displays of wealth. The reason I mentioned designer suits and BMW's is precisely because they serve no purpose but to show off one's wealth. Mennonites and other anabaptist groups take this very serioisly and practice something called "plainclothes"... but then they get other things wrong. The fact that you made a wrong assumption here is proof of my point, though. That you would go so far as to imply that my opinion is born of jealousy really drives it home. You can'tsay you want to follow scripture when you don'tknow what it says. I used this example because I knew it would be hard to swallow, because I never see Christians in my culture (American) paying any heed to what the Bible says about how they ought to spend their money and time and how they ought to present themselves. We don't live in a time where we can lay all we have at the Apostle's feet for distribution to the needy. But I remain firmly convinced that as long as there are rich Christians, there should not be poor Christians, and as long as there are fat Christians there should be no starving Christians. Well, it isn't as if i escape from the charge of hypocrisy, either. I'm not doing nearly enough for the needs of the Body of Christ... that's why i avoid saying things that make it look like I'm the one who's gettinf everything right.

@@josephbrandenburg4373 I tell you what.... I know people who have been to seminary school school already as I have not yet.... but soon I am going. I'll get back to you on this..... I promise you that. It might be a while.... Just out of curiosity are you a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness?

@@therant3837 Naw, I grew up in a Presbyterian (PCA) church so I still have a membership there.. but I don't consider myself part of any denomination. Presbyterians are disasterously wrong about soteriology, even though they get a lot of other things right. I appreciate your civility. I tried not to word anything in my reply as a personal attack and I'm very grateful you didn't take it that way. I was only trying to say that I think it's risky to say things like "I follow the scripture!" because it's only really true if you live a perfect life! And no one does!

Perhaps the women in the Corinth church were using it as a time to gossip about other peoples sins? just a guess honestly

​@@Mwinslow1467and may of been worshipping idols. So causing chaos and distraction. Is what I have heard.

Since a woman could be a pastor in the Old Covenant, a woman can be a pastor in the New Covenant. Simple really. I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah. Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. She was a pastor, according to the scriptures. This is how the Judges are described in Chronicles, by God. In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’ -excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 NASB translation A woman could only be given the authority by God to execute a man for his sin, if women are spiritually equal to men. A Judge could judge homicide cases according to Deuteronomy. Therefore Deborah, as a Judge, could execute a man for his sin. A Judge's verdict could not be altered or appealed. A Judge was cleared to teach from scripture as he/she gave a verdict, according to Deuteronomy. Since in Judges 4, men went to Deborah to be judged, a woman could teach men, even in the Old Covenant in a public setting. A Judge was REQUIRED in scripture to judge only the hardest of cases. If your beliefs can't explain all this, they must be false.

@@user-iz8np3vv4i what do you think 1 Timothy 2:12 means then?

@@HHGary Sorry for the delay. I received no notification. But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. -1 Timothy 2:12 Deborah is what God actually did. Paul's teachings are all over the place, but that is yet another essay. Deborah essay: read time 12 minutes, free, postable

​@@user-iz8np3vv4iI'm just trying to understand... so God's words in Timothy are wrong?

@@HHGary You have to understand the story of Deborah AND what a Judge was. That is the place to start. If you want the Table of Contents of my other essay (on some of Paul's teachings) , that certainly can be pasted up. You can pick one or more 'Parts' and I can paste that part/teaching up for you.

That is a good way of putting it......or like handling a hot potato

No he didn't, he answered pretty straight up, when the guy tried to bring up an example (Deborah) heisser immediately shot it down, so he clearly wasn't afraid of tackling the issue and wasn't "dodging" anything.

@@23045678 Yeah OK.

Haha, nobody got the definite answer they wanted.

@@23045678 He did not clearly answer what is his position on the matter, he kept as neutral position as he could.

Pride is the deadliest sin for a reason, it goes from egotistical to the most self pitiful mentality that tells us that we aren't worthy of salvation or whatever

@@mrmerfeo4320 For me, via decades of experience, the most powerful and key behaviors within Christ and His people are: SURRENDER & YIELD in love.

@@nereida116 The word 'surrender' is viewed in a miriad of ways...and though I understand to a degree of what you are saying, there are rules and laws in Gods Kingdom...These are important questions that need to align with scripture...and with debate 'iron sharpens iron' and merely 'surrendering'/submission is not good doctrine

That much was quite clear.

@@kmountain5533 'Surrendering to Christ' is much different than to 'surrendering' to what makes people feel good...sorry you missed the point

-----From a protestant missionary to the traditional Catholicisme. Go to the Mass in Latin, you will understand the whole Bible by the rite itself. NO, we live in the fallen world; women can't be in the priestly ministry.

@@twnb7733 horsesh!t

@@ANARCH3TYPE Where is the tomb of the Apostle Paul? In a Catholic Church in Rome.

@@twnb7733 both your priestly ministry and the response you made about women are complete horsesh!t. Who cares where a man’s dead body is?

@@ANARCH3TYPE I am a woman; and I have been living like a man : success, money, independence, single, childless. Women around me, no one is married. May I remind you that the Apostle Paul composed most of the New-Testament?

(I didn't watch the video.) By both sides, I guess you mean Complementarianism and Egalitarianism. I am egalitarian. I can post my essay on the judge Deborah if requested. I don't know about this channel. Mike Winger has done several videos. He is complementarian.

Exactly, it doesn't matter what we think or how well we can argue a side. Here on earth, women are subject to the authority of their husbands, and not to be teaching men. 1 Timothy 2:12

Yes it’s not up to human reasoning.

@@megansousa2659 In Jesus I trust. Thanks for the scripture. Surprised @ Dr. Heiser on this matter....not sure if he's more of a scientist or a real believer in Christ. This level or exercising ' opinion ' isn't good for the scholarly....in my opinion. lol.peace

Agreed

@@megansousa2659 And his brothers should always correct him when the husband abused his authority or leads his family into sin. Responsibility always seems to be interpreted as wilfulness and licence (Pride) we live by secular standards.

Pondering... Who did Paul direct his letter to? Greeks? Jews? Romans? What was historically and culturally occurring in that specific place and time? Was it a blanket statement or directed to a specific congregation? What was the context? A Biblical verse without context lacks legs to stand on.

@@nereida116 So would you then propose that certain scripture is only edifying to specific people groups while others are not?

Exactly!

Paul's women comments are directed straight the feminist cult of the goddess Artemis of Ephesus. If everyone knew what was happening there'd be no discussion. But since most "christians" don't bother to investigate or research the Bible we end up with make believe doctrines and false interpretations.

@@baltichammer6162 The problem is this, however: What type of evidence do we possess that Paul was specifically addressing the cult of Artemis? Do we have any specific detail in the NT that directly demonstrates this? Any archaeological or literary evidence outside of the NT that shows that a certain group of women in Paul's Ephesian churches were promoting a syncretized Artemis/Christian message? Granted, we have circumstantial evidence that this "could" have happened. Elsewhere, Heiser acknowledges the evidence is not conclusive here. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/esmhYMqDstmXpaM.html. Not impossible, but just not conclusive, which explains why Heiser tends to back off on this issue: Each position can be argued either way. Regarding the Gnosticism hypothesis, we actually have good evidence that Gnostic Christians were teaching that Eve came before Adam, but not until the 2nd century. This hypothesis fits the data, but not the date, as it would push the writing of Acts into the second century (or late first at best), which is too late for Paul. It seems strange the early church would have been so silent on the matter. If only we had stronger evidence in favor of the Artemis cult hypothesis. Much of this comes down to how much you value early church tradition and who bears the burden of proof.

It's hard to watch a great mind go. We really benefited him from a time when a lot of people feel lost.

@@TheNocturnium yes

Scholars can help us understand the finer points that are often overlooked in passages especially when it comes to cultural norms of the audiences involved. But I too think he over reads the Scripture here. In Eden Adam served in a different role than Eve. They were truly equally yoked but still had different responsibilities in the temple.

@@RealCaptainAwesome absolutely 💯

The "plain and simple" is not plain and simple unless you like to twist Scripture. "Plain & Simple" means no contextual understanding or blissfully unaware of the backstory. There is very very little "plain & simple" in the Bible. That's what makes it so awesome and wondrous.

@Baltic Hammer plain and simple sometimes means just that. The meaning is obvious. We twist scriptures at times to fit in with our own perceptions and ideas, which causes confusion and the creation of false doctrines, interpretations, and divisions. There is a danger of leaning more on "scholarly" knowledge than dependence on the Holy Spirit to make plain what He inspired in the first place..

@Sold out Completely by the way you have opened your response, making assertions I do not claim, I can see you are a person who takes comments out of context and responds from erroneous assumptions. There is no need to engage any further.

I think that might be God doing the best possible with an unideal situation like with Deborah.

@anjeluriel4457 I was just thinking about Deborah. Reminds me also of the rocks crying out passage. God will use what He may to accomplish His will.

@@winniecash1654 Exactly, God will use what He will to accomplish His plan but we shouldn’t use the exceptions to invalidate the norm.

@@kmountain5533 From what I understand, most of these women are considered pariahs by their cruel, Islamic culture. I would highly recommend that you visit FAI International (Frontier Alliance International). They produced a documentary called Sheep Among Wolves. It will probably leave you in tears There's more than one video. Just search for the one about the underground church in Iran. There may be some men who are Christian there too, but they are not the majority.

If you knew the backstory of Ephesus and the Artemis cult (radical feminism) then you'd completely understand WHY Paul writes what he does. But since so many "christians" choose to not understand the context of biblical writings they end up manufacturing doctrines they like.

@@baltichammer6162 Oh, sure, let's totally contradict what Paul gave command on for an alleged historical setting 🙄

@@xnihilo1044 "Alleged setting"??????? You need to spend the couple hundred hours researching like I did. Then you'll see the puzzles falling into place. Paul had his hands full in Ephesus with the aggressive cult followers of Artemis. Every point of the Artemis beliefs is aimed directly to oppose the Bible's narrative. Its like it was custom made to attack or challenge everything in the OT/NT. Learning about Ephesus and its famous goddess cleared up all questions on WHY Paul and others were sent to work there. Here's an excellent lecture on Corinth and what was happening there with the womens' lib and the fashion rage of dressing and hair styling to look like a prostitute. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/i9WVmrmV2NrKnmg.html

@@baltichammer6162 Ooooh! You're a scholar. So I take it you put White-Out over that verse to fit your scholarly research.

@@xnihilo1044 I see you are a mocker who is too lazy to do any research. Best to keep silent and be thought the fool.

@@kmountain5533 They didn't magically disappear. Jesus didn't bring back His kingdom on Earth, but opened for us the way to Heaven.

@@damnedmadman all the curses "magically" disappeared!! That is the power of the blood. You just need to proclaim His absolute finished work or you can keep living under your curse!!! =

@@katerinaa.whitehouse4104 No, it's not finished. Obviously many things aren't fulfilled yet. They will be when He comes back in glory. Only then we should expect a universal redemption.

@@kmountain5533 Jesus died for our sins yes.... but that didn't magically fix the nature of men and women. Men still make better leaders and protectors. Women still make better helpers and are far better at being nurturing. Both have their pitfalls as well. Men abuse power more often and women are emotionally manipulative. This remains true despite Jesus dying on the cross.

@@damnedmadman omg. He said it himself you pagan!!! It is finished... And in His name I rebuke the demon on unbelief inside you

We are though aren’t we? Otherwise we would never sin, or tired, or get sick.

We are under the new covenant, but that does not mean that the conditions of the world that we have to struggle against have been eliminated, even though they have been alleviated in certain ways. I think Paul is mostly concerned about the serpent (and evil forces) targeting Eve, and trying to spare women from an undue burden, especially as things against Christians will continuously become more aggressive and violent towards the end of days. Right up until Christ death he told his apostles to go get swords because after his death, things would actually get harder for Christians in many ways. This isn’t really a matter of ‘can’ woman preach, it’s more of a matter of for the protection of women they shouldn’t. Women in many ways are vulnerable enough and to add to the burden can seem unfair. It also is possible that if women preach a lot of men will be lazy and simply stop. It’s also possible that we are seeing this from the vantage point of a first world relatively safe society. We don’t necessarily have to worry about our churches being burned down like people do in Egypt or other parts of the world.

@@bell5309 the question is whether an heritable, ontological moral change occured at the fall (and the answer is: no). The western church has held to this view since Augustine, but it's not supported by reason or scripture. So though we face the consequences of sin, and though we have an orientation towards evil, we are not a different kind of human being. Having received the regeneration from the Holy Spirit, is it reasonable to say that we are still undee the curse? As we grow in sanctification, we become more and more like the original Adamic ideal. It's one of those "already and not yet" situations. We're already cleansed byt we're not already fully transformed in our minds. We're already redeemed but our bodies have to be resurrected for the full effect.

@@josephbrandenburg4373 to say that a belief in original sin is without reason and scriptural support, as if the arrival at such a belief was done without reason or could not have been reasoned to and (worst of all) has absolutely no basis in scripture, is juvenile, insulting, and at the end wrong. Of course, there are reasons why people believe it, and they used reason to get there, and those reasons are based in scripture. Its odd that you even said that. It seems you do not fully realize the destructiveness, the malignancy, nor the finality of sin. It did change us (us, as in all humanity, the damned and the redeemed, because you seem to play fast and loose with the meaning, i.e. one moment meaning humanity while the next moment meaning only the saved). God no longer walked with us, our every inclination was toward evil, the very Earth was cursed beneath our feet. Humanity, indeed all of creation, was fundamentaly changed. And like begets like. Thats why it is written, "rebellion is bound up in the heart of a child," and, "there is none that seek after God, no not one," and, "our righteousness is as filthy rags." Thats why, "it grieved the Lord that He had made man." Obviously something changed, certainly not God, and certainly God didnt intend for us to live in willful disobedience. Something changed, and it was because of sin. Your retorical question was asked as if the answer was obviously "no," (because you played around with the word "us," now you intend it to mean only the redeemed.) when, in fact the answer is "yes." Having been redeemed, it is perfectly reasonable and, more importantly, biblical to say we (the saved) are still under the curse of sin. As you yourself point out, the process of sanctification is not complete, and will not be fully complete this side of heaven, so the effects of sin are still to be expected on this side. Even Jesus, Our Lord, experienced all the innocent malidies of the fall (e.g. He grew hungry amd thirsty, He grew tired and slept, He actually grew in favor with the Lord, etc.) Now, half of the reason for us (the saved) still living under the curse of sin is that we are not fully sanctified, amd the other half of the reason comes from those who reject Christ. When the New Jerusalem comes we will be free from even the presence of sin. You kind of talk about this, but i think you confuse justification with sanctification. We (the saved) are fully justified in Christ, yes, but we are not fully sanctified... amd so we (the saved) still sin.

@@olorinmartinez this is all too much to reply to, so I will only reply to this part: I was trying to be brief by saying that thr idea of original guilt is not supported by scripture or reason- I should have written that none of those arguments from scripture or reason stand up to scrutiny, precisely because of scripture and reason. Any offense that was taken at this was taken, not given.

The Pastoral Epistles are forgeries.

Woman was made from man's side. To be a helper. "It is not good for man to be alone." It was Eve who sinned first, but who did God go to first, for the account? God went to Adam. "What is this you have done?" Then the blame game started and continues to this very day. Paul is pretty clear. God holds us men accountable for the things done by women alongside and "under" us. I think men who want to be the "boss" are missing a lot of context. I like Heiser's resolution here. "The Edenic Ideal." What God made before we fell. A partnership. We are one in Christ. All this is post fall reasoning. I think we do well to invite women to be our partners.

I don't think they were vegan, read Genesis 9:3

@@Dolfiey Pre-fall, they were vegan. Post-fall they were allowed to kill and eat animals. There is an unspecified amount of time between Creation and Fall. Could've been a day. Could've been a year or two. Or more. During that time it is not described that they ate meat, only after the fall.

@@Dolfiey Genesis 9 is post flood. A very long time after the fall. If there was no death in the world before the fall then the logical conclusion is Adam and Eve were vegan, more specifically fruitarian, due to the fact that eating meat requires harvesting it from a dead animal and eating anything other than the fruit of a plant would require killing the plant.

@@Dolfiey Genesis 9:3 isn't addressed to Adam and Eve though, is it? Is that post-eden and post-fall?

Men and women are equal images of God. Both have worth and value. One is not above the other.

When did we “rise above” the patriarchy? Are we free from the Trinity as well, which Paul used as an illustration for the roles of the family and the church? Did Christ redeem the flesh to allow us to chose which scripture was time based and which we can now throw out because of our “enlightenment?” Paul didn’t care about the culture in which he lived then. We shouldn’t care about the culture we live in now. We don’t have the roles described in Timothy, Genesis and others because of our need to bend to culture or our lack of understanding the ideal. We have the roles because it is in our humility to follow God and to realize that we are NOT HIM, that He is glorified. Our flesh and our society is not better now or (progressed) than the first century. But our pride clearly has exploded.

@@bretttimmons2653 not certain how this responds

@@rodneystewart-wilcox4001 the response is in the focus of the church while we are here. To say that we somehow are rising above our flesh to personify the ideal (Eden), is to say we have have the perspective of Him in our grasp. We don’t. That is why he provided the boundaries to live by. Paul talks of those boundaries, not as cultural contextual but has theological walls. This is why he references Genesis and the fall. To argue and Dr. Heiser does in this video that because there are “arguments” for each side we should default to a perceived ideal before the fall is to ignore our fallen state and the corruption of our flesh regardless of the presence of the Spirit. Therefore in my view we should be patient. Live by the Spirit but be wary of the flesh. And that means respecting the sometimes seemingly arbitrary boundaries of the roles that we have been given. We see in our culture people giving into their flesh to change their sexual desires and even their genders, contrary to the roles they have been created to personify. How is this different? Because we “feel” that the roles are too restrictive? That His word somehow was lacking in context as understood for thousands of years. Paul puts an end to that by saying to ignore the culture in understanding your worth. BUT play your part in Love understanding that in Heaven all will be different. That is why he didn’t advocate for rebelling against political systems or earthy evil institutions. Not because they were not evil, but because our lives are not meant to glorify us but Him. In serving, suffering, and loving we show the world that Heaven is the goal, not a better version of our dying flesh. Stop fighting what we perceive to be earthy injustice with more earthy desires and serve Him. In the way He asked us to do so.

There's a lot of things men and women aren't equal in. Childbirth for instance. Equality and worth aren't the same thing. Roles and hierarchy are ment for good in the Bible. It's good that God is above us. It's a good thing that children doesn't get do decide over their parents. It's also a good thing that men and women are set to serve differently in some areas.

1 Timothy 2 8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. 1 Corinthians 14 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Charlotte Moon who was a missionary in China in 1872. She died of malnutrition while spreading the gospel. She continually tried to get more funds but was ignored until her death. Then the Christmas fund was established in her name. I'm sure there are many more but that is the one that comes to my mind.

Paul’s rationale for his stance against women teaching men is post-Edenic.

@@garywhitt98 Paul's rationale, as an apostle, was Eden since Eve was deceived before she fell, not after.

💯 agree!

@@googIesux From 1 Timothy 2- "11 A woman a should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; b she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. "...post-fall (or post-Edenic) after the initial conditions of Eden from which Heiser makes his argument.

The difference here is that Eve was targeted specifically by Satan and still is post fall. We have several warnings of laws against women warned about in revelation. We have the “enmity” meaning that women are continuously targets of Satan, because Eve was the first person to call Satan the anti-truth, the one who “deceives”. Remember, they were naked, which, in Hebrew means that they were transparent. What you see, is what you get, which is incontrast to Satan’s craftiness, which means that he has a hidden agenda. There’s also a difference between a sin and a transgression. Adam disobeyed full well knowing what he did, but eve believed a lie, and then called satan out over it. The motive of the sin is different.

Even in the Old Covenant: Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel went up to her for judgment. -excerpt Judges 4 To not accept the decision of a judge resulted in the death penalty. (I did an essay on Deborah. Reply if you want it.)

Why can’t a woman lead a man? Women make up the majority of children’s leaders in the church, which means they are teaching and leading boys. Tell me, at what age does a male have to be so that a woman is no longer allowed to lead or teach him? 13, 18, 21, 30? How do we know what the age is? Is it because a godly woman’s theology suddenly goes bad once a male reaches a certain age? Is there really nothing that a man can learn from a woman spiritually? Also, if Adam simply needed a “helper” God would have given him a dog. Woman was taken out of man to be his equal and his full match. To be the strength at his side, taken from his side. “Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh.” Is your own flesh and bone your helper, or part of you and equal to you? Yes, God created men and women with physical differences, so that they could procreate, and yes, women are typically physically weaker than men, but men and women are equal image bearers in God’s eyes. Reducing a woman to a “helper” or a side kick and saying she can’t lead men, does lessen her worth. Anyone who is kind and cares about other people should be a helper. This includes men and women. The problem is our understanding of the original hebrew words ezer kenegdo. Being a “helper” is not a role and that word has been abused throughout the centuries to keep women in their place and keep them from advancing God’s kingdom by fulfilling the great commission.

You need to study the hermeneutics surrounding highly misunderstood verses like 1 Timothy 2:12. I would suggest studying the works surrounding it by Dr. Ben Witherington III.

@@whyareyouasking7153Super eloquently put, thank you.

Have you read the old testament? Or how about Apollos getting corrected by a woman?

@@ri3m4nn and taught by her

Exactly, if we just look at the Old Testament, a lot of the problems the Israelites had and the reason Israel would suffer is because humans thought “we can do better”.

Genesis 2:24 "one flesh"

That is not what helper means and it’s not with the Hebrew says. God even calls himself as a help, do you consider God to be a lesser roll than you? And it clearly says that stewardship of the garden was given to both of them read carefully, and actually think critically before you say more stupid things.

"the adam" was given stewardship over Eden. "The Adam" does not mean male. This comes later in the text.

He did give scripture but okay

@@areallycoolhat5427 Usually you verify scripture with scripture...we have 'instances' of it, however, over and over the Bible confirms that men are leaders, and women are only in leadership roles when there's judgement on the land

What scripture?

@@areallycoolhat5427 He tried to make a point that Scripture is totally neutral on this subject when in reality it is not.

@@nikokapanen82 he cited exodus 4. I think he wanted to go into more detail but didn't because it was still a qna, others were probably waiting their turn.

God is called a helper too, duh. Eliezer literally means God is my help. You clearly have no understanding to the mind of God. In hebrew it means something along the lines of "corresponding might"

It is not a difficult issue, as Paul was pretty straightforward about God saying that women are not supposed to possess any kind of ecclesiastical authority over a man.

@@theeternalsbeliever1779 that’s pretty ignorant. Women are missionaries just as the tent maker couple in the New Testament. They can be judges, take the nazarite vow, be prophets. So clearly there is a difference here we aren’t seeing as clearly as Paul was, and the early church is radically different then what is was in the days of Rome, which muddies the waters as we are seeing the 1st world version of the church from our frame of reference. We aren’t “greeting one another with a kiss” as we are commanded to do by Paul either. To pretend like our circumstances are comparable isn’t honest and if we take one of his comments seriously then you have to apply all of them, and no one is doing that.

@@F7dJa you aren’t following. my entire point is that you’re thinking about help in the wrong way .that’s exactly my point as ezer is referred to ‘help’ just as God is in English but in Hebrew, it’s not the same connection. Hence the name Eliezer - God (El) is my (I) help (ezer). And that’s not the full phrase, this is really not hard people need to actually think critically for a second. In the Latin Vulgate, this is translated as virago because has a warrior/military meanings because those translators were also picking up on the fact that these are military / warfare terms as ezer is used elsewhere. this is someone that is a strong force. My golden retriever was named jazer (ezer/azer) dizahab which means golden helper.

@@kmountain5533 what does this have to do with my comment?

Yeh this is always a hot button topic but it would not if seminaries or the "giants of the faith" did a little research into Ephesus. Its hard work but if I can do it and figure WHY Paul writes what he does, then there is zero reasons why others cannot do the same. But they chose to be willfully ignorant. Seriously, how many centuries does it take to understand the proper context of a Bible verse?? Makes me think the misinterpretation and ignorance is deliberate.

I suggest you read about Deborah in Judges 4, else my essay on her. Jews that came to Christ already knew her story.

@@user-iz8np3vv4iyeah, Deborah was the only time a Judge not the military leader, and also was the only time a Judge going to battle was seen as a disgrace by God and punished

@@disguisedcentennial835 you wrote: the only time a Judge going to battle was seen as a disgrace by God and punished But Barak pursued the chariots and the army as far as Harosheth-hagoyim, and all the army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword; not even one was left. Also: So God subdued Jabin the king of Canaan on that day before the sons of Israel. And the hand of the sons of Israel pressed harder and harder upon Jabin the king of Canaan, until they had eliminated Jabin the king of Canaan. -excerpts Judges 4 And the land was at rest for forty years. -excerpt Judges 5 last sentence, and the end of the story of Deborah

@@user-iz8np3vv4i Judges 4:9 (ESV): 9 And she said, “I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh.

@@disguisedcentennial835 you wrote: was the only time a Judge going to battle was seen as a disgrace by God and punished There was no disgrace on her part. No scriptures say that or hint at that.

1 Timothy 2 8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. 1 Corinthians 14 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

This is the first I’ve ever heard about Lydia being a bishop. This sounds like a personal bias issue and reading something into the scriptures that’s not actually there.

Where do you see Lydia called a bishop?

@@briancoles4249 from Kendall’s comment. “Lydia was installed in the function of a bishop”. I’m curious what makes him think she was a bishop.

Evidence, please.

@@Pedant_Patrol it’s difficult to tell who you’re asking for evidence. I’m assuming you’re asking Kendall for evidence also?

We do not live in the first century though.

Paul addresses this topic to the Corinthians and Ephesians (Timothy). Paul was not making a cultural argument. Women can serve in church and ministry and even lead other women and children. Paul was addressing that women should not be lead over men inside the church.

@@robertemard9452 I agree that it is preferable to have men lead and I wouldn't attend a church with a woman pastor, but I don't think God saves based on perfect theology or practice.

@@kmountain5533 I never suggested that they are unable to do so, but just because you can do something that didn't make it proper to do it.

@@kmountain5533 it is not proper, according to the Bible. You are free to be wrong.

@@kmountain5533 and they don't take church seriously because people in weak churches stand for nothing except the ever shrinking circle of acceptable things to do as they abandon more and more to the culture instead of being bold and resisting the lies and perversion of this world.