Women ought not to be the head in a ministerial role

Contention 1. Exodus: Wow, very very poor argument yet again. No, my point is that "God is the same yesterday today and forever "(Hebrews 13:8). If God used women for ministry at any point in the Bible then it's open season for women today. Don't try and weasle your way out of an arguement by trying to say "well that was then and this is now. " Clearly women have been used for ministry in the old and new testament. If you want a New testament example, that's completely fine. Read Romans 16:1-2. There's your new testament example since you're so insistent upon that. Phoebe was a first-century Christian in Cenchreae, the eastern port of Corinth . Paul gives her a comparatively lengthy introduction and accommodation. Judges: Doesn't matter that Deborah lived before Isaiah? Well, it does if you said in the debate she does. You are clearly lost in your information and when confronted with it you try and blow it off by saying that this doesn't matter. Clearly you have no way of refuting it. I understand that you are trying to say that he was mocking Israel for having a women leader but you have to understand the difference between political and spiritual leadership. Their were women in ministry it was rare but because it was rare doesn't mean it was a prohibition. Nice try with the dropped arguement stuff. My arguement wasn't that it was bad under her leadership, i was debating that God put her in the leadership therefore validating her place. That was pretty cute though. As a judge she was head of Israel in lieu of a King therefore she was the head of a ministerial role and don't try and say that that is old testament therefore it doesn't matter. That's a horrible rebuttal and a cop out way of responding to a point. "Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8. "I am the Lord and I do not change" (Malachi 3:6). Luke: If you look back at my previous points, I have clearly defended this and upheld it. Contention 2: "That doesn't mean he doesn't differentiate between the two when it comes to ROLES in their relationship towards each other"? Obviously, you haven't read the book of Galatians where it says in chapter three verse twenty-eight, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, MALE NOR FEMALE, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. " Contention 3: Wow again, another poor arguement. My opponent states "we are debating whether they've been used for a ministerial role. Also, the resolution by common sense is saying that we are debating whether they should be in a ministerial role NOW ADAYS. " If they were used back then for it, they are used today for it. Yet again, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8) and Malachi 3:6, "I am the Lord and Change not. " Contention 4: You can't try and invalidate a claim by trying to say they aren't called and saying you have supposed scripture for it. I really doubt someone would want to be in ministry when they aren't suppose to. ------HIS CASE------ Timothy: Like I said back in the times of the disciples women were treated low. Therefore Paul didn't allow them to speak. It was a cultural approach when dealing with that issue back then. Corinth: Changing your argument again? You just said that it means women should not teach other men in church but prieviously you said they shouldn't be in ministry at all. Stick to one side. Cultural app: "Provide evidence" A horrible debate tactic that people say when they don't know how to rebut a point. I have refuted every point in my opponent's case and my case still stands. He has done a poor job in refuting it. God HAS used women in the Bible in the past and for ministry so therefore He does today. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. " Hebrews 13:8 "I am the Lord and don't change. "