End Time Army of Women Preachers Psalms 68:11

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by Sasha

Ok. I thought usurping was taking by force authority over someone.

Pliny?

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by Pliny

The post, which is a copy and paste from this site http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-ge...teach-apollos/ without proper acknowledgment, is yet one more object lesson as to why women should not teach or preach.

The great lengths that they go to in an attempt to justify what scripture clearly says should not happen and as we will see did not happen here, in spite of the copy and pasting of someone else's thought.

It has been stated multiple times that women can and should witness. This is what is clearly happening here. Also, it should be pointed out that she was not alone for there was in fact a he there as well. Even if we assume, and that is what this is an assumption, that Priscilla took the lead role it is a role of witnessing not feeding the flock of God. Some just can't seem to understand the difference.

Apollos was a disciple of John (Acts 18:25). We know factually that he was "mighty" in the scriptures (Acts 18:24). So what was he lacking knowledge in? It was not the scripture! The only thing he was lacking in was who fulfilled the cry of John:
(Joh 1:26 KJV) John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
(Joh 1:27 KJV) He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

Who fulfilled this? That is what Apollos needed to know. This is what Aquila and Priscilla explained. Notice as well that this was after synagogue not during synagogue (Acts 18:26). They took him aside. It would have been out of order for either of them to disrupt the service and especially Priscilla since women were not allowed to speak at synagogue. What they helped Apollos understand was not a long drawn out discipleship Bible study rather it was simply explaining how Jesus Christ is the one who came after John who was mightier than John. They witnessed to him about the fulfillment of what he already believed. Most importantly this was done outside the synagogue, likely in their own house.

All of the above verbose commentary does absolutely nothing to advance the cause of women preachers. Instead all it does is illustrate that women should not feed the flock of God. Here, a well known woman seeks to advance her cause by arguing about a moment of witnessing indicating a fundamental lack of knowledge concerning the difference between witnessing and feeding God's flock, preaching and teaching.

This fundamental lack of knowledge has been seen consistently over and over in spite of the many times it has been said that women should witness and seek to be used in the gifts of the Spirit yet still there remains a stubborn willful ignorance to the facts. We even saw earlier where she made up her own facts that are patently false - the idea that Paul would never quote from the Talmud or the writer of Corinthians was quoting the Talmud (something to that effect) is patently false because the Talmud, specifically the Mishna was not began until the end of the 2nd century or the early third century.

Seriously, you guys are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand, you say women cannot teach men. On the other, you say they can.

Is witnessing not teaching? If I tell someone something they don't know, I have taught them something, whether you want to admit it or not. How I do it, whether on the phone, behind a pulpit, standing on a rock, or performing sign language makes no difference.

If women cannot teach, then they cannot TEACH! I didn't see Paul giving out exceptions in the scriptures you are claiming where he said WOMEN CANNOT TEACH MEN, do you?

[Sasha]

I'm wondering why any man who truly believes that women are not to teach them would want to waste time with this issue?

Seriously, if I don't believe someone has the right to talk to me, the last thing I'd be doing is talking to them!

Don't you boys have anything else better to do?

[Sasha]

What does being in a synagogue have to do with anything?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

Of course when you recognize that Paul did not teach the Talmud but Grace, you realize Paul would never use the Talmud to prove anything. The author of this statement about women remaining silent used the Talmud as the basis of this practice.

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

The Talmud Called the Voice of a Woman “Shameful.” “It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men” (Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin).“The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness” (Talmud, Berachot Kiddushin).
Sounds like Branham doctrine....

You have already proven you know little to nothing about the Talmud, like its origins. This must be more copy and pasting... All this is, is an attempt to slander the Talmud and by extension anything that goes against women preachers. This is truly shameful.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

Priscilla, along with her husband, taught a man.

Now, it would seem that if Paul really believed and taught that a woman should not teach a man, does not it make good sense that Priscilla, having him around him both day and night for one year and six months (Acts 18:1 1), would have known that it was not the perfect plan of God to have done such a "hideous" deed? Would not she have backed off and either verbally or quietly made it known to her husband that to explain the Gospel to a man was her husband's job alone?

"Aquila, go talk to him man to man. You know that is Paul's way. That's the perfect way. I'll go home and throw something in the microwave."

No, the opposite is true. Priscilla caught the true spirit of Paul, which was the true spirit of God. In Christ, there is no male or female. The cross brings equality to all. She was accustomed to ministering and working alongside her husband, and they both brought a life-changing word to him.

Later, Paul referred to them in the last chapters of Romans and I Corinthians. In Romans, he puts Priscilla first; in I Corinthians, Aquila. They evidently had an equal anointing and ability to teach, a model of husband and wife ministry. Never do we hear him saying something like, "Now church, beware. Priscilla likes to teach men. And you know I don't condone that." No, he gave her honor and recognized the validity of her ministry, even stating that all the churches of the Gentiles gave thanks for her (Rom. 16:4). He gave them equal footing with himself, calling them fellow laborers. (copied)

Priscilla and her husband did NOT teach in the synagogue. Every time you post you prove you cannot discern fundamental concepts. Again you confuse witnessing with the preaching and teaching associated with feeding God's flock. Also, you fail to recognize that Apollos was ALREADY MIGHTY in the scripture. What he needed to know was simply that Jesus was the person John pointed to. Your jumping to conclusions and wishful thinking are amazing indeed. They, like all Christians, are fellow-laborers. To make a doctrine about Priscilla's name being first is another reason why women should sit down and listen. BTW Paul did not give her equal footing with him. He was an apostle she most definitely was NOT!

A lot of people were grateful for Tabitha as well (Acts 9 you should read that) but that does not mean she was an apostle and on equal footing with Paul or Peter. Good grief. The complete lack of basic hermeneutics is why women should not be allowed in a pulpit.

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Priscilla and her husband did NOT teach in the synagogue. Every time you post you prove you cannot discern fundamental concepts. Again you confuse witnessing with the preaching and teaching associated with feeding God's flock. Also, you fail to recognize that Apollos was ALREADY MIGHTY in the scripture. What he needed to know was simply that Jesus was the person John pointed to. Your jumping to conclusions and wishful thinking are amazing indeed. They, like all Christians, are fellow-laborers. To make a doctrine about Priscilla's name being first is another reason why women should sit down and listen. BTW Paul did not give her equal footing with him. He was an apostle she most definitely was NOT!

A lot of people were grateful for Tabitha as well (Acts 9 you should read that) but that does not mean she was an apostle and on equal footing with Paul or Peter. Good grief. The complete lack of basic hermeneutics is why women should not be allowed in a pulpit.

So, women teaching men OUTSIDE the synagogue is perfectly ok.

Again, where do you find Paul mentioning that in scripture?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

Either I am lost or I am saved for spending my whole life teaching pagan men and women the story of Jesus...now Pliny what do you think?
Were the women wrong to go tell the men that Jesus arose? Was Deborah wrong to judge (govern) Isreal and lead an army? Was Huldah wrong to tell the priests and King, Thus saith the Lord, Was Anna wrong to speak to all thse that waited for redemption, remember she was in the temple?

I think you need to stay out of pulpits. You have demonstrated numerous times you cannot comprehend the most fundamental and basic facts - the bishop is the husband of one wife. Also, the bible is clear women are not to usurp authority - to move out from the created order. Women did not teach in the synagogue and neither do they teach in the church. It has been said so many times it is apparent you are willfully ignorant. There is a difference between pulpit ministry and witnessing. You can't seem to understand this basic fundamental concept. You have posted things you have not verified and revealed the foolishness of doing such things. This is simply an object lesson as to why women and you particularly should not get behind a pulpit. Truth does not seem to matter.

The last questions of your post only serves to underscore the fact that you cannot understand the difference between witnessing and feeding God's flock. I have already addressed those women. I will one more time briefly discuss Anna - She was at the temple. She was a prophetess. She spoke under inspiration just as in the church all can speak prophetically through the gifts of the Spirit. This has been said so many times I wonder if you even read anything other than the garbage from internet blogs that support your delusion.

One more time. All should witness, all should seek to be used of God and everyone has a place in the kingdom of God. Men are not any better than women and there is nothing more beautiful than a godly woman. Likewise, there is nothing more ugly than a woman trying to be a man or vice versa. There is a created order. Man was created first. The woman was deceived not the man. These are the arguments of Paul. The Elders, men, are tasked with feeding the flock of God - a bishop must be the husband of one wife.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

Was Barak "deceived" when he took orders from Deborah? (See Judg. 4:14.) Did baby Jesus come under a harmful influence when Anna prophesied over Him? (See Luke 2:36-38.) Was Apollos spiritually emasculated when he submitted to the teaching of Priscilla? (See Acts 18:26.) Of course not!

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

Jesus specified – “These signs shall follow THEM THAT BELIEVE”.
This includes both the sexes....

Object lesson once again. Everyone should be encouraged to witness and be used in the gifts of the Spirit. Only men, and few of them, are called to be bishops/elders feeding the flock of God.

You just cannot seem to understand fundamental concepts which is an object lesson as to why women should not teach or preach - to act as bishops/elders.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Sasha

Pliny?

Sorry. I did not know that was a question. I thought it was a statement.

Usurping can be forceful but Paul's argument is stepping outside the created order. That can be either active or passive.