What do you think the Gospel is? A message given through words. We are not all called to be in the ministry of a teacher, but we are all called to teach. This is what is called proclaiming the good news. How many people do you need to be called a Church? Two or three is all that is needed.
Moving past this hurt & bitterness seems difficult :/
- Thread starter autumn oddity
- Start date
What do you think the Gospel is? A message given through words. We are not all called to be in the ministry of a teacher, but we are all called to teach. This is what is called proclaiming the good news. How many people do you need to be called a Church? Two or three is all that is needed.
"Anyone" is generic, and so is "he". It's hard for many to see this because in today's vernacular, for some reason (laziness), people use the plural word, "they" to convey a person in general, which is incorrect.
It is because I actually read what you said that I replied. You made an issue of the ''anyone'' and used the ''he'' mentioned later. When there is a ''he'' with the anyone. Making your argument moot.
If anything is insane it is this reply of yours to mine. Did you even read what I wrote???
In the "Penacostal", and "full Gospel" Churches you see women pastors all the time. Pretty much all pastors are gifted in the area of teaching, but the ministry gift of teaching does not make one a pastor.
Did you? Why do you use the word, "insane"?
Last edited:
Let me help you....... Find the two "**" and read what I said on that line.
Brother you can not just start in the middle of a paragraph and post a single scripture trying to proof anything.
1 Ti 3:1. The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.
1 Ti 3:2. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, (ESV)
The word "anyone" it does not mean men, or male. It means anyone, or whosoever desires the office of overseer.
** The part of the scripture that says, "he desires a noble task." has nothing to do with a "man, or male. The KJV says "he desires". Which means, "To have the affections directed toward something." The "he" is referring to "whosoever", or "anyone" who desires this office.
''He'' is not generic here. Paul qualifies it with ''Husband of one wife''. He did not say spouse of one spouse. Or wife of one husband. Are you done twisting scripture?
Now why on earth would you do this thing????
You choose the "translation" that says "ANYONE". You picked the one that meets your "WANTS" and I guess that is OK but the problem is you just did what you accused me of doing. I posted what the King James translation says and did so from the very beginning.
1 Timothy 3:1
King James Bible
"This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work."
American Standard
"It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do".
Douay-Rheims Bible
"A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work."
English Revised Version
Faithful is the saying, If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
Webster's Bible Translation
This is a true saying, If a man desireth the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
Then you asked this..........
"Does this mean that only married men can be a overseer.?
The Bible seems very clear to me.
1 Timothy 3:2 (ESV)
" Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach".
Personally I have always thought that an elder/deacon/pastor is to be a MAN that the church and community can look up to as an example of Christ-likeness and godly leadership. If his divorce and/or remarriage situation detracts from this purpose, perhaps he should not serve in the position of elder/deacon/pastor. It is important to remember, though, that just because a man is disqualified from serving as an elder/deacon/pastor, he is still a valuable member of the body of Christ. Every Christian possesses spiritual gifts and is called to participate in edifying other believers with those gifts.
Then you said.................
"Paul was never married!! "
That actually has nothing to do with the question at hand !!! #1, most all scholars I know of believe that Paul was a widower. That being neither true or false, the bottom line is that there is no Bible fact anywhere that the Apostle Paul was ever a pastor. So that comment you had goes out the door.
Are you sure you want to continue this back and forth of Bible trivia on who is right and who is wrong. IT is not matter of right or wrong but simply do you accept the Bible directions or reject them.
Then you said..........
"No where in scripture does it say women are excluded from this office."
Heres one!.
1 Tim. 2:12-14..............
"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression".
Heres another one..!
1 Timothy 3:2 ............
"An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach".
ooops, here is another one!
1 Timothy 3:8 ........
" Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain,
Do you really want to go on with this back and forth my brother???? I think that we both have said all that needs to be said about this.
Yes and noticed this.
''Once again, it is asinine to think that God withholds certain gifts and abilities to anyone on the basis of gender!''
I did not say that = false accusation. Being an elder is not a gift.
''As you imply, that would be just as ridiculous as if God discriminates racially as well''
If you read what I wrote then I just have to assume you can't discern the difference in dna between skin pigmentation and ''whats between our legs'' as you say.
''But somehow, when He says He doesn't see race, ethnicity or gender, you and far too many others completely disregard it, most likely because you cannot see people through His eyes.''
I can't believe you said that.
''That's a problem for the Body of Christ. But we soldier on!''
Clearly. Heresy, insults, no discernment and all.....
Hehe, yes. I see now. I read the bottom part as you going on with the other lines.
I still don't agree. He would have said 'they'. Then there is what I said in post #88
The words, "he desireth" is made up of one Greek word, which does not have any "male, man" meaning. It only means, " To have the affections directed toward something". That can be either a man or a women to have such desires.
He simply means that one needs to have been married once.
Glad you read it.
Brother you should know better that the words, "If a man" has no male, or man meaning to it in the Greek.
"If a man" From the "complete Word Study"
eí tis; conditional expression from ei (G1487), if, and tis (G5100), any. If any, if someone, used with the sort of emphasis for hóstis (G3748), whosoever, whatsoever, everyone who. With the indic. pres. (Mar_9:35; Luk_14:26; 1Co_3:12; 1Co_8:2-3;
Brother Major, in every instance where is talks about a man wanting to be a overseer it mentions he must only be married to one women. Is that a absolute requirement that he must be married? Not a chance, as their have many many overseers who have never been married. Paul was an Apostle in which he had oversight of many Churches, and he was never married as he said about him self. Right now according to your thinking only married men can be in the ministry in the Church which is not true as already proven through many other scriptures.
Classic case of taking scripture out of "context" to make ones point without taking into account other scriptures. Anyone can make the Word of God to say anything by taking one scriptures and added another with out taking the context in which it was said.
If Holy Spirit is trying to break through to you about His truth in an area, and you are determined to see it with your natural eyes, you are rejecting His voice.
My dear brother. God bless you and I mean that but how in the world do you consider that verse being out of context????
OK. Lets do this shall we. I will list the whole contextual verses.
I only posted that one verse because that is all you asked for. I did not list the whole thing as I did not think the text was in any way defensible. So allow me to post the entire charge from Paul to Timothy concerning the qualifications of leadership within the church. "Contextually" there are Two Scriptural offices in the church according to Paul, deacon and Pastor/bishop.
1 Timothy 3:1-13King James Version (KJV)
"This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. Likewise(Same as bishops) must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus."
Now, having done that to show "contextual" correctness, we can all se that this only confirms exactly what the one verse I posted said and there is NO contextual issue only a reading of the words and accepting them as true or false.
Who's he? Does he also know that we ought to consider context, too?