Women ought not to be the head in a ministerial role

Contention 1. Exodus: Hebrews 13:8 Indeed, God never changes. But what he uses changes. Eg. 1. The flood. He did that once. With my opponent’s argument, we would have had a flood several times over. 2. Prophets. There are no longer prophets. God didn’t change, He just changed the way He teaches. I was not weaseling out of an argument. Romans 16:1-2 Oh good, finally New Testament proof! Errr… Not. The verse talks about Phoebe, a woman deacon. Definition of deacon: Servant. Deacons do not teach men. This verse, unfortunately for my opponent, still does not prove anything. We’ll have to presume Con HAS NO PROOF, and I DO. Judges: “You are…lost in your information… you have no way of refuting it” Insult #1 of many. 1. I wasn’t saying it was a prohibition back then. It sure was a shame. 2. Cross-Apply my point about New Testament vs. Old Testament. “Nice try. .. dropped argument stuff” Try? My opponent still hasn’t brought them up so I win on those points. “Pretty cute” Insult #2 of many. “Horrible rebuttal” Insult #3 of many. (See a pattern? ) Cross-Apply my response to the Hebrews verse which also applies to Malachi. Luke: Cross-Apply the new covenant vs. old covenant point. Contention 2. Where in there does it mention that it’s fine for a woman to teach? It just states man/woman relations to God are the same, not the same towards to each other. Contention 3. “Poor argument” Insult #4 of many. My opponent just quotes Hebrews and Malachi. Cross-Apply my simple response to these faulty verses. Contention 4. 1. They believe that they have some kind of duty to do so probably using the same misused verses as my opponent. 2. There’s a difference between God actually speaking to a woman like in the Bible and these women pastors just saying they felt they should be in this ministry You can’t just say that because they say God told them to he did. It is a faulty argument. Timothy: Evidence that they were treated low? No. I have evidence that they were treated fairly, though. Just cross-apply Con’s verse about Phoebe the deacon. She obviously can talk. She wasn’t told to hush up and sit still. She wasn’t teaching men, either. The perfect balance. Corinth: 1. I never said that they shouldn’t be in the ministry. I said they shouldn’t teach men. 2. My opponent did not respond, she just said to stick to a side. Cultural Approach: Insult #(I lost count. Oh yeah, 5! ) Of course my opponent needs evidence. She might as well say Russia will collapse tomorrow “because she said so. ” She doesn’t have a Ph. D in studying these things; she needs to quote someone who actually studied the culture. Secondly, I provided my own evidence on this point: her evidence about Phoebe the deacon. “He has done a poor job in refuting it” Insult # (Drum roll) 6 She either used the faulty Hebrews and Malachi verses, insulted me, or repeated her past points. My opponent barely refuted anything. I responded to them accordingly. Let’s recap the Malachi and Hebrews verse. My response to this is that yes, God doesn’t change, but, his methods change over the years. I gave two examples: prophets and the flood. Here’s some more. God made a donkey speak to someone in the Bible. When was the last time you heard of an animal speaking in the news? He used an angel to kill thousands. When was the last time you heard that thousands are being attacked by an angel? God’s methods obviously change. He no longer uses women to teach. ALL of my opponent’s verses that “prove” that women should teach men are either faulty or are before the new covenant.