DaveW

I would like to ask for prayer from my OB family regarding my upcoming triple heart by-pass surgery. There is no firm date for this surgery, but it will happen soon.
Last week the docs tried a procedure to put in stents, but it was unsuccessful, so a triple heart by-pass is needed.
Please pray with and for me.

1Co 2:4-5
(4)  And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
(5)  That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
 
Heb 4:12
(12)  For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
 

Pro 26:4-5
(4)  Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
(5)  Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
 

Administration note:
God gave us all a free will to believe what and who we believe. I trust everyone reading this will take the time and read what the Bible says rather than what man says. In the past man has got things wrong in the church (every denomination and non-denomination) when they listen mans opinions, but God's word never changes. Trust God's Word over man and you'll never be wrong. Beware of people that point you to more of what man says rather than God. That's what cults do. God is the one we are accountable to.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

I will state this as well: Just because God does not qualify a person for the pastoral position does not mean they are "uneducated" or incapable of doing the job. God set it up where the pastor is a "husband of one wife" (1 Tim 3:2). God distinctly made males and females different, both physically and mentally. God chose pastors to be men, and I can't give birth because that's not how God made me. There are some ministries that God called people in our church to do that I probably can do better, but God did not call me for that ministry like He did them, and I'm okay with following God.
The women in our church play a role just as important as mine in our church. I will not sit back and let people disrespect women and the roles that God has given them in our New Testament church.

It's not my rule, it's how God set it up.  The only way to support woman pastors is to quote more people than Scripture. 

Looks like someone's going to be getting a letter from John of Patmos 

Dr. Morley, in spite of your voluminous copy and paste  techniques, it is easy to see through the many deflections you constantly post. This long winded reply is just one of many examples of this.
I am quite sure that Holy Spirit inspired scripture is able to communicate His exact meaning to those to whom He writes, those who also have the benefit of being indwelt by this very same Spirit. Scripture backs this up nicely with words easy to understand. John 16:13 (KJV) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Having said that, I copy and paste the following that you posted: “the husband of one wife” – this phrase shows the bishop is male. But it also shows that he is married. Is that a requirement?  Notice that you provide your own question at the end of the scripture, "is that a requirement?"
This question is a deflection regarding not only what someone else posted, but also a deflection of what scripture obviously means. It is also patently obtuse on your part, for the scripture rightly assumes that the reader understands that a PASTOR is a man and of the male gender, not gender neutral, which is a term you love to use and unscriptural.
This in no manner demands that a pastor be married; but it does demand that if he is married, he is to be the husband of one wife, as opposed to multiple wives.
Also interesting and contradictory in this verse is the fact that you acknowledge that the Bishop or husband is male, while at other times demanding that Bishop, husband, or man is "gender neutral."
This all proves to me that I, as well as others in this thread, are fully capable of understanding scripture without you interpreting it for us.

I thought this thread was about the validity of women pastors. You seem to keep introducing rabbit ? trails at every turn. Your "gender neutral" theory has been addressed by several here, yet you refuse to hear and accept those interpretations...yet we are supposed to WILLINGLY accept yours. No thanks, Doc. 

Women as Pastors
The qualifications for a bishop, elder, and deacon.
Here are the qualifications of a bishop and a deacon. Read the whole passage in your bible, because I have omitted the parts not pertaining to being a man as a condition of candidacy. I shoot with a rifle not a shotgun. The shotgun approach is used, not for context, but for introducing confusion by those who wish to prove that women can be pastors. That is the truth of it.
1 Timothy 3:1-16 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, … 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)  8 Likewise must the deacons be … 11 Even so must their wives be grave, … 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
Titus 1:5-12 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, …
Women in the church.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 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.
1 Timothy 2:12-14 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.
Isaiah puts shame on women ruling.
Isaiah 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
The passages above are clear and plain. Read it. Stay on topic. The office of Apostle is not the same as the office of pastors. The idea that Junia was an apostle, is disputed by Wesley, John Trapp, Matthew Poole, Ellicott, Coke, Adam Clark, Albert Barnes, and John Calvin. Some of their comments are listed below.
Romans 16:7 … who are of note among the apostles; were well known by, and in great account with the twelve apostles, though not of their number; they might be converted by them, and be followers of them in Judea… John Gill
Who are of note among the apostles; i.e. they were well known to the apostles, and were in good esteem with them: not only the twelve, together with Paul and Barnabas, but other teachers are sometimes called apostles, or messengers; see 2Co 8:23; Php 2:25. Some have thought these two, Andronicus and Junia, were of the number of the seventy disciples, who are mentioned Lu 10:1. Others, that they were of the one hundred and twenty, who are mentioned in Ac 1:15; or of those that were converted by the first preaching of Peter, and the rest, Ac 2:41; 4:4. By what follows, it appeareth they were of considerable standing in Christianity. … Matthew Poole
Ver. 7. Andronicus and Junia— Or, Junias. Diodati thinks that by apostles in this verse are meant the evangelists; and that the meaning is, that these persons were noted messengers of the churches; but it is more probable that they were some early converts, who had been known and much esteemed by the apostles before the dispersion occasioned by the death of Stephen: and if so, St. Paul perhaps might once have been active in persecuting them, and have learned their names at first with an hostile intent of hunting them down to destruction. See Craddock's Apostol. Hist. Diodati, and Doddridge. … Coke … Adam Clarke
Who are of note. The word translated of note, (epishmoi) denotes, properly, those who are marked, designated, or distinguished in any way; used either in a good or bad sense. Comp. Mt 27:16. Here it is used in a good sense.
Among the apostles. This does not mean that they were apostles, as has been sometimes supposed. For,
(1.) there is no account of their having been appointed as such.
(2.) The expression is not one which would have been used if they had been. It would have been, "who were distinguished apostles." Comp. Ro 1:1; 1Co 1:1; 2Co 1:1; Col 1:1.
(3.) It by no means implies that they were apostles. All that the expression fairly implies is, that they were known to the other apostles; that they were regarded by them as worthy of their affection and confidence; that they had been known by them, as Paul immediately adds, before he was himself converted. They had been converted before he was, and were distinguished in Jerusalem among the early Christians, and honoured with the friendship of the other apostles.
(4.) The design of the office of apostles was to bear witness to the life, death, resurrection, doctrines, and miracles of Christ. Comp. Mt 10; Ac 1:21; 22:15. As there is no evidence that they had been witnesses of these things, or appointed to it, it is improbable that they were set apart to the apostolic office,
(5.) The word apostles is used sometimes to designate messengers of churches; or those who were sent from one church to another on some important business; and if this expression meant that they were apostles, it could only be in some such sense as having obtained deserved credit and eminence in that business. See Php 2:25; 2Co 8:23. Albert Barnes.

Without wanting to argue with this guy - there is no point arguing with a man such as this - I will point out a few things:
After my initial post in this thread, where I stated that Bible truth is truth, He refused to acknowledge that the Bible has absolute truths but instead manoeuvred around the point to state that all sorts of groups believe what they follow is Bible truth. In doing so, he promotes the point of view that the Bible has no absolute truths, but only perceived truths. This aligns with his presented "bible studies", which are all about perception and "interpretation".
 
Then after my second post he first states only his opinion (and the opinions of others) that Junia is a female name. He is relying on the convention in Greek that male names end in a consonant and female names end in a vowel. But this is the ONLY evidence that can be presented and it is not a 100% certainty. As displayed by for instance.... Aquila.... who is married to Priscilla.
Act 18:2
(2)  And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
Apparently, because of the surrounding language Aquila is a man ("His wife"), but if we insist that the regular convention be 100% consistent then this couple would fit right into today's societal redefinitons. (He will probably use this in his next book as a proof of alternative lifestyles being promoted in the Bible).
Further, he discards the word "kinsmen" as being generic and non-gendered, because it suits his argument, however the Bible uses two words, and these are clearly used according to whether only men are referred to or more generically, a group of people which could include women.
Luk 2:44
(44)  But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
Luk 21:16
(16)  And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.
The only use of "kinsman/men being in dispute being this one referring to Junia, which is only in dispute because people WANT Junia to be a female name, WITH NO EVIDENCE of such.
He also admits that husband and wife are inherently masculine and inherently feminine but the sidesteps that entirely to force the verse to be irrelevant with a side argument which is not relevant to the discussion.
In doing so, he makes the Word of God to none effect with humanistic reasonings, again emphasising the point that he has no regard to what the Word of God actually says.
This man has constantly and consistently ignored what the Bible actually says in order to redefine, re-understand, reinterpret, and simply outright ignore what the Word of God actually says.
He does this in every thread he has posted or participated in (as far as I can see), and he has come onto an Independent Baptist forum to make merchandise of the Lord (he promoted his books aggressively until he was told he was not allowed to do so here), and to try to sway anyone who comes looking for Bible truth away from Bible truth. Bible truth which he believes is entirely relative to who is reading it, as I pointed out in my first statements on this post.
Finally, anyone who disagrees with him he proclaims to be dishonest, mean spirited, and not acting according to the directions of the Lord, or in a manner aligning with a "Good Christian character".
To that I say only:
Tit 3:9-11
(9)  But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
(10)  A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
(11)  Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
 
and:
Rom 16:17-18
(17)  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
(18)  For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
 
It is indeed Biblical to mark out men such as this man, who has posted foolish questions designed to sway people from the simplicity in Christ, and who has by his actions before he was stopped, shown that his purpose was to swell his own belly by the merchandising of his own thoughts as he promoted his own writings, the whole while twisting and ignoring the Word of God, claiming that it is not the Word of God as it is written.
 
My advice to anyone reading OLB at this time, is that where you see this man's name on a post, you need to be aware that this man does not value the Word of God as the Word of God, he has no desire to reveal the truth of the Word of God, but only his own perceptions and interpretations of the Word of God, and the god that he follows is simply not the God of the Bible.
And finally, none of this is an unfounded personal attack, as the facts that I state are clearly seen in his own posts and answers to other people's posts. I am not angry, other than to be offended at the blatant misuse, mirepresentation, and wresting of the Word of God, and disguised evil intent to draw people away from biblical truth. I am not attacking the man, but what the man has said and presented on this forum. It does however indicate the character of such a man and as such he will no doubt cry "ad hominin" to it.
 

Without wanting to argue with this guy - there is no point arguing with a man such as this - I will point out a few things:
After my initial post in this thread, where I stated that Bible truth is truth, He refused to acknowledge that the Bible has absolute truths but instead manoeuvred around the point to state that all sorts of groups believe what they follow is Bible truth. In doing so, he promotes the point of view that the Bible has no absolute truths, but only perceived truths. This aligns with his presented "bible studies", which are all about perception and "interpretation".
 
Then after my second post he first states only his opinion (and the opinions of others) that Junia is a female name. He is relying on the convention in Greek that male names end in a consonant and female names end in a vowel. But this is the ONLY evidence that can be presented and it is not a 100% certainty. As displayed by for instance.... Aquila.... who is married to Priscilla.
Act 18:2
(2)  And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
Apparently, because of the surrounding language Aquila is a man ("His wife"), but if we insist that the regular convention be 100% consistent then this couple would fit right into today's societal redefinitons. (He will probably use this in his next book as a proof of alternative lifestyles being promoted in the Bible).
Further, he discards the word "kinsmen" as being generic and non-gendered, because it suits his argument, however the Bible uses two words, and these are clearly used according to whether only men are referred to or more generically, a group of people which could include women.
Luk 2:44
(44)  But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
Luk 21:16
(16)  And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.
The only use of "kinsman/men being in dispute being this one referring to Junia, which is only in dispute because people WANT Junia to be a female name, WITH NO EVIDENCE of such.
He also admits that husband and wife are inherently masculine and inherently feminine but the sidesteps that entirely to force the verse to be irrelevant with a side argument which is not relevant to the discussion.
In doing so, he makes the Word of God to none effect with humanistic reasonings, again emphasising the point that he has no regard to what the Word of God actually says.
This man has constantly and consistently ignored what the Bible actually says in order to redefine, re-understand, reinterpret, and simply outright ignore what the Word of God actually says.
He does this in every thread he has posted or participated in (as far as I can see), and he has come onto an Independent Baptist forum to make merchandise of the Lord (he promoted his books aggressively until he was told he was not allowed to do so here), and to try to sway anyone who comes looking for Bible truth away from Bible truth. Bible truth which he believes is entirely relative to who is reading it, as I pointed out in my first statements on this post.
Finally, anyone who disagrees with him he proclaims to be dishonest, mean spirited, and not acting according to the directions of the Lord, or in a manner aligning with a "Good Christian character".
To that I say only:
Tit 3:9-11
(9)  But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
(10)  A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
(11)  Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
 
and:
Rom 16:17-18
(17)  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
(18)  For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
 
It is indeed Biblical to mark out men such as this man, who has posted foolish questions designed to sway people from the simplicity in Christ, and who has by his actions before he was stopped, shown that his purpose was to swell his own belly by the merchandising of his own thoughts as he promoted his own writings, the whole while twisting and ignoring the Word of God, claiming that it is not the Word of God as it is written.
 
My advice to anyone reading OLB at this time, is that where you see this man's name on a post, you need to be aware that this man does not value the Word of God as the Word of God, he has no desire to reveal the truth of the Word of God, but only his own perceptions and interpretations of the Word of God, and the god that he follows is simply not the God of the Bible.
And finally, none of this is an unfounded personal attack, as the facts that I state are clearly seen in his own posts and answers to other people's posts. I am not angry, other than to be offended at the blatant misuse, mirepresentation, and wresting of the Word of God, and disguised evil intent to draw people away from biblical truth. I am not attacking the man, but what the man has said and presented on this forum. It does however indicate the character of such a man and as such he will no doubt cry "ad hominin" to it.
 

Without wanting to argue with this guy - there is no point arguing with a man such as this - I will point out a few things:
After my initial post in this thread, where I stated that Bible truth is truth, He refused to acknowledge that the Bible has absolute truths but instead manoeuvred around the point to state that all sorts of groups believe what they follow is Bible truth. In doing so, he promotes the point of view that the Bible has no absolute truths, but only perceived truths. This aligns with his presented "bible studies", which are all about perception and "interpretation".
 
Then after my second post he first states only his opinion (and the opinions of others) that Junia is a female name. He is relying on the convention in Greek that male names end in a consonant and female names end in a vowel. But this is the ONLY evidence that can be presented and it is not a 100% certainty. As displayed by for instance.... Aquila.... who is married to Priscilla.
Act 18:2
(2)  And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
Apparently, because of the surrounding language Aquila is a man ("His wife"), but if we insist that the regular convention be 100% consistent then this couple would fit right into today's societal redefinitons. (He will probably use this in his next book as a proof of alternative lifestyles being promoted in the Bible).
Further, he discards the word "kinsmen" as being generic and non-gendered, because it suits his argument, however the Bible uses two words, and these are clearly used according to whether only men are referred to or more generically, a group of people which could include women.
Luk 2:44
(44)  But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
Luk 21:16
(16)  And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.
The only use of "kinsman/men being in dispute being this one referring to Junia, which is only in dispute because people WANT Junia to be a female name, WITH NO EVIDENCE of such.
He also admits that husband and wife are inherently masculine and inherently feminine but the sidesteps that entirely to force the verse to be irrelevant with a side argument which is not relevant to the discussion.
In doing so, he makes the Word of God to none effect with humanistic reasonings, again emphasising the point that he has no regard to what the Word of God actually says.
This man has constantly and consistently ignored what the Bible actually says in order to redefine, re-understand, reinterpret, and simply outright ignore what the Word of God actually says.
He does this in every thread he has posted or participated in (as far as I can see), and he has come onto an Independent Baptist forum to make merchandise of the Lord (he promoted his books aggressively until he was told he was not allowed to do so here), and to try to sway anyone who comes looking for Bible truth away from Bible truth. Bible truth which he believes is entirely relative to who is reading it, as I pointed out in my first statements on this post.
Finally, anyone who disagrees with him he proclaims to be dishonest, mean spirited, and not acting according to the directions of the Lord, or in a manner aligning with a "Good Christian character".
To that I say only:
Tit 3:9-11
(9)  But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
(10)  A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
(11)  Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
 
and:
Rom 16:17-18
(17)  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
(18)  For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
 
It is indeed Biblical to mark out men such as this man, who has posted foolish questions designed to sway people from the simplicity in Christ, and who has by his actions before he was stopped, shown that his purpose was to swell his own belly by the merchandising of his own thoughts as he promoted his own writings, the whole while twisting and ignoring the Word of God, claiming that it is not the Word of God as it is written.
 
My advice to anyone reading OLB at this time, is that where you see this man's name on a post, you need to be aware that this man does not value the Word of God as the Word of God, he has no desire to reveal the truth of the Word of God, but only his own perceptions and interpretations of the Word of God, and the god that he follows is simply not the God of the Bible.
And finally, none of this is an unfounded personal attack, as the facts that I state are clearly seen in his own posts and answers to other people's posts. I am not angry, other than to be offended at the blatant misuse, mirepresentation, and wresting of the Word of God, and disguised evil intent to draw people away from biblical truth. I am not attacking the man, but what the man has said and presented on this forum. It does however indicate the character of such a man and as such he will no doubt cry "ad hominin" to it.
 

Without wanting to argue with this guy - there is no point arguing with a man such as this - I will point out a few things:
After my initial post in this thread, where I stated that Bible truth is truth, He refused to acknowledge that the Bible has absolute truths but instead manoeuvred around the point to state that all sorts of groups believe what they follow is Bible truth. In doing so, he promotes the point of view that the Bible has no absolute truths, but only perceived truths. This aligns with his presented "bible studies", which are all about perception and "interpretation".
 
Then after my second post he first states only his opinion (and the opinions of others) that Junia is a female name. He is relying on the convention in Greek that male names end in a consonant and female names end in a vowel. But this is the ONLY evidence that can be presented and it is not a 100% certainty. As displayed by for instance.... Aquila.... who is married to Priscilla.
Act 18:2
(2)  And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
Apparently, because of the surrounding language Aquila is a man ("His wife"), but if we insist that the regular convention be 100% consistent then this couple would fit right into today's societal redefinitons. (He will probably use this in his next book as a proof of alternative lifestyles being promoted in the Bible).
Further, he discards the word "kinsmen" as being generic and non-gendered, because it suits his argument, however the Bible uses two words, and these are clearly used according to whether only men are referred to or more generically, a group of people which could include women.
Luk 2:44
(44)  But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
Luk 21:16
(16)  And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.
The only use of "kinsman/men being in dispute being this one referring to Junia, which is only in dispute because people WANT Junia to be a female name, WITH NO EVIDENCE of such.
He also admits that husband and wife are inherently masculine and inherently feminine but the sidesteps that entirely to force the verse to be irrelevant with a side argument which is not relevant to the discussion.
In doing so, he makes the Word of God to none effect with humanistic reasonings, again emphasising the point that he has no regard to what the Word of God actually says.
This man has constantly and consistently ignored what the Bible actually says in order to redefine, re-understand, reinterpret, and simply outright ignore what the Word of God actually says.
He does this in every thread he has posted or participated in (as far as I can see), and he has come onto an Independent Baptist forum to make merchandise of the Lord (he promoted his books aggressively until he was told he was not allowed to do so here), and to try to sway anyone who comes looking for Bible truth away from Bible truth. Bible truth which he believes is entirely relative to who is reading it, as I pointed out in my first statements on this post.
Finally, anyone who disagrees with him he proclaims to be dishonest, mean spirited, and not acting according to the directions of the Lord, or in a manner aligning with a "Good Christian character".
To that I say only:
Tit 3:9-11
(9)  But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
(10)  A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
(11)  Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
 
and:
Rom 16:17-18
(17)  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
(18)  For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
 
It is indeed Biblical to mark out men such as this man, who has posted foolish questions designed to sway people from the simplicity in Christ, and who has by his actions before he was stopped, shown that his purpose was to swell his own belly by the merchandising of his own thoughts as he promoted his own writings, the whole while twisting and ignoring the Word of God, claiming that it is not the Word of God as it is written.
 
My advice to anyone reading OLB at this time, is that where you see this man's name on a post, you need to be aware that this man does not value the Word of God as the Word of God, he has no desire to reveal the truth of the Word of God, but only his own perceptions and interpretations of the Word of God, and the god that he follows is simply not the God of the Bible.
And finally, none of this is an unfounded personal attack, as the facts that I state are clearly seen in his own posts and answers to other people's posts. I am not angry, other than to be offended at the blatant misuse, mirepresentation, and wresting of the Word of God, and disguised evil intent to draw people away from biblical truth. I am not attacking the man, but what the man has said and presented on this forum. It does however indicate the character of such a man and as such he will no doubt cry "ad hominin" to it.
 

Without wanting to argue with this guy - there is no point arguing with a man such as this - I will point out a few things:
After my initial post in this thread, where I stated that Bible truth is truth, He refused to acknowledge that the Bible has absolute truths but instead manoeuvred around the point to state that all sorts of groups believe what they follow is Bible truth. In doing so, he promotes the point of view that the Bible has no absolute truths, but only perceived truths. This aligns with his presented "bible studies", which are all about perception and "interpretation".
 
Then after my second post he first states only his opinion (and the opinions of others) that Junia is a female name. He is relying on the convention in Greek that male names end in a consonant and female names end in a vowel. But this is the ONLY evidence that can be presented and it is not a 100% certainty. As displayed by for instance.... Aquila.... who is married to Priscilla.
Act 18:2
(2)  And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
Apparently, because of the surrounding language Aquila is a man ("His wife"), but if we insist that the regular convention be 100% consistent then this couple would fit right into today's societal redefinitons. (He will probably use this in his next book as a proof of alternative lifestyles being promoted in the Bible).
Further, he discards the word "kinsmen" as being generic and non-gendered, because it suits his argument, however the Bible uses two words, and these are clearly used according to whether only men are referred to or more generically, a group of people which could include women.
Luk 2:44
(44)  But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
Luk 21:16
(16)  And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.
The only use of "kinsman/men being in dispute being this one referring to Junia, which is only in dispute because people WANT Junia to be a female name, WITH NO EVIDENCE of such.
He also admits that husband and wife are inherently masculine and inherently feminine but the sidesteps that entirely to force the verse to be irrelevant with a side argument which is not relevant to the discussion.
In doing so, he makes the Word of God to none effect with humanistic reasonings, again emphasising the point that he has no regard to what the Word of God actually says.
This man has constantly and consistently ignored what the Bible actually says in order to redefine, re-understand, reinterpret, and simply outright ignore what the Word of God actually says.
He does this in every thread he has posted or participated in (as far as I can see), and he has come onto an Independent Baptist forum to make merchandise of the Lord (he promoted his books aggressively until he was told he was not allowed to do so here), and to try to sway anyone who comes looking for Bible truth away from Bible truth. Bible truth which he believes is entirely relative to who is reading it, as I pointed out in my first statements on this post.
Finally, anyone who disagrees with him he proclaims to be dishonest, mean spirited, and not acting according to the directions of the Lord, or in a manner aligning with a "Good Christian character".
To that I say only:
Tit 3:9-11
(9)  But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
(10)  A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
(11)  Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
 
and:
Rom 16:17-18
(17)  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
(18)  For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
 
It is indeed Biblical to mark out men such as this man, who has posted foolish questions designed to sway people from the simplicity in Christ, and who has by his actions before he was stopped, shown that his purpose was to swell his own belly by the merchandising of his own thoughts as he promoted his own writings, the whole while twisting and ignoring the Word of God, claiming that it is not the Word of God as it is written.
 
My advice to anyone reading OLB at this time, is that where you see this man's name on a post, you need to be aware that this man does not value the Word of God as the Word of God, he has no desire to reveal the truth of the Word of God, but only his own perceptions and interpretations of the Word of God, and the god that he follows is simply not the God of the Bible.
And finally, none of this is an unfounded personal attack, as the facts that I state are clearly seen in his own posts and answers to other people's posts. I am not angry, other than to be offended at the blatant misuse, mirepresentation, and wresting of the Word of God, and disguised evil intent to draw people away from biblical truth. I am not attacking the man, but what the man has said and presented on this forum. It does however indicate the character of such a man and as such he will no doubt cry "ad hominin" to it.
 

It's still not the same ? 

"who are of note among the apostles" could just as easily mean 'who are esteemed by the apostles'. In other words, when the apostles consider these two individuals, they are held in high regard. There is no need to force the title of Apostle on either of these two, whether they be male or female.

Lets quote the verse itself and see what it says about Junia......
Rom 16:7
(7)  Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
 
I don't know, but it seems to me that it says KINSMEN.........
You can talk about naming conventions, but your decision to make it female is an ASSUMPTION that is not borne out by the verse itself.
This is a ridiculous argument.
You conveniently neglect to quote other verses:
Act 18:2
(2)  And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
Act 18:26
(26)  And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
1Co 16:19
(19)  The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
 
By placing Aquila's name ahead of his wife's in these passages, Paul (OK Luke in two of these) appears to esteem him ahead of Priscilla as a co-worker.
Finally, 
I don't know, how about:
1Ti 3:2
(2)  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
 
And don't even try to say that this should be "Partner of one Partner".
The Word Husband in this passage is inherently masculine, whilst the word wife is inherently feminine. Even in the Greek if you choose to go there.
And to argue that it was acceptable culturally to do this, is to say that God doesn't know enough to write His Word they way He needs to, and that He is bound by cultural ideologies. Not the God that my Bible describes, although apparently your god is restricted by culture.
 
I am just a dumb bloke who chooses to understand what the Bible says in the way that it says it.
I hope I never become intelligent enough to figure out that the Bible doesn't mean what it says. Like you.
 

Lets quote the verse itself and see what it says about Junia......
Rom 16:7
(7)  Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
 
I don't know, but it seems to me that it says KINSMEN.........
You can talk about naming conventions, but your decision to make it female is an ASSUMPTION that is not borne out by the verse itself.
This is a ridiculous argument.
You conveniently neglect to quote other verses:
Act 18:2
(2)  And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
Act 18:26
(26)  And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
1Co 16:19
(19)  The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
 
By placing Aquila's name ahead of his wife's in these passages, Paul (OK Luke in two of these) appears to esteem him ahead of Priscilla as a co-worker.
Finally, 
I don't know, how about:
1Ti 3:2
(2)  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
 
And don't even try to say that this should be "Partner of one Partner".
The Word Husband in this passage is inherently masculine, whilst the word wife is inherently feminine. Even in the Greek if you choose to go there.
And to argue that it was acceptable culturally to do this, is to say that God doesn't know enough to write His Word they way He needs to, and that He is bound by cultural ideologies. Not the God that my Bible describes, although apparently your god is restricted by culture.
 
I am just a dumb bloke who chooses to understand what the Bible says in the way that it says it.
I hope I never become intelligent enough to figure out that the Bible doesn't mean what it says. Like you.
 

Lets quote the verse itself and see what it says about Junia......
Rom 16:7
(7)  Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
 
I don't know, but it seems to me that it says KINSMEN.........
You can talk about naming conventions, but your decision to make it female is an ASSUMPTION that is not borne out by the verse itself.
This is a ridiculous argument.
You conveniently neglect to quote other verses:
Act 18:2
(2)  And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
Act 18:26
(26)  And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
1Co 16:19
(19)  The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
 
By placing Aquila's name ahead of his wife's in these passages, Paul (OK Luke in two of these) appears to esteem him ahead of Priscilla as a co-worker.
Finally, 
I don't know, how about:
1Ti 3:2
(2)  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
 
And don't even try to say that this should be "Partner of one Partner".
The Word Husband in this passage is inherently masculine, whilst the word wife is inherently feminine. Even in the Greek if you choose to go there.
And to argue that it was acceptable culturally to do this, is to say that God doesn't know enough to write His Word they way He needs to, and that He is bound by cultural ideologies. Not the God that my Bible describes, although apparently your god is restricted by culture.
 
I am just a dumb bloke who chooses to understand what the Bible says in the way that it says it.
I hope I never become intelligent enough to figure out that the Bible doesn't mean what it says. Like you.
 

Lets quote the verse itself and see what it says about Junia......
Rom 16:7
(7)  Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
 
I don't know, but it seems to me that it says KINSMEN.........
You can talk about naming conventions, but your decision to make it female is an ASSUMPTION that is not borne out by the verse itself.
This is a ridiculous argument.
You conveniently neglect to quote other verses:
Act 18:2
(2)  And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
Act 18:26
(26)  And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
1Co 16:19
(19)  The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
 
By placing Aquila's name ahead of his wife's in these passages, Paul (OK Luke in two of these) appears to esteem him ahead of Priscilla as a co-worker.
Finally, 
I don't know, how about:
1Ti 3:2
(2)  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
 
And don't even try to say that this should be "Partner of one Partner".
The Word Husband in this passage is inherently masculine, whilst the word wife is inherently feminine. Even in the Greek if you choose to go there.
And to argue that it was acceptable culturally to do this, is to say that God doesn't know enough to write His Word they way He needs to, and that He is bound by cultural ideologies. Not the God that my Bible describes, although apparently your god is restricted by culture.
 
I am just a dumb bloke who chooses to understand what the Bible says in the way that it says it.
I hope I never become intelligent enough to figure out that the Bible doesn't mean what it says. Like you.
 

Lets quote the verse itself and see what it says about Junia......
Rom 16:7
(7)  Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
 
I don't know, but it seems to me that it says KINSMEN.........
You can talk about naming conventions, but your decision to make it female is an ASSUMPTION that is not borne out by the verse itself.
This is a ridiculous argument.
You conveniently neglect to quote other verses:
Act 18:2
(2)  And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
Act 18:26
(26)  And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
1Co 16:19
(19)  The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
 
By placing Aquila's name ahead of his wife's in these passages, Paul (OK Luke in two of these) appears to esteem him ahead of Priscilla as a co-worker.
Finally, 
I don't know, how about:
1Ti 3:2
(2)  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
 
And don't even try to say that this should be "Partner of one Partner".
The Word Husband in this passage is inherently masculine, whilst the word wife is inherently feminine. Even in the Greek if you choose to go there.
And to argue that it was acceptable culturally to do this, is to say that God doesn't know enough to write His Word they way He needs to, and that He is bound by cultural ideologies. Not the God that my Bible describes, although apparently your god is restricted by culture.
 
I am just a dumb bloke who chooses to understand what the Bible says in the way that it says it.
I hope I never become intelligent enough to figure out that the Bible doesn't mean what it says. Like you.
 

This is a wrong statement, but it shows again the attitude of this man. 
"Do We Also Have Bible-Based Doctrines That Are Wrong? Is There a Case for Women as Pastors?"
To even ask this question shows that this man has no regard for biblical truth. If a doctrine is Bible-Based, then it is not wrong. If it is wrong, then it is not Bible-Based.
The things that he references in his original post that he says were wrong, were...... not biblically based, but corrupted. Or he has taken them out of context.
A simple reading of the relevant Scriptures makes it plain that there is no biblical case for women pastors.

Yep.... you've indeed shared "your thoughts"..... again. Too bad it wasn't like Jim and others like me have requested.... scripture. ?

1 Timothy 2:11-13 (KJV) Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
No woman can qualify as a Pastor according to Scripture.
1 Timothy 3:1-7 (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.