End Time Army of Women Preachers Psalms 68:11

[RJR]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It is written,

Titus 2:3 - The aged women likewise, that [they be] in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

Who were they to teach? Keep reading...

Tit 2:4..  ..That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

Nothing like those stubborn facts that keep getting in the way.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by RJR

Who were they to teach? Keep reading...

Tit 2:4..  ..That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

Nothing like those stubborn facts that keep getting in the way.

Ah... but they are to teach! And, there is no prohibition to women prophesying with their heads covered in gatherings (sign of submission).

[RJR]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Ah... but they are to teach! And, there is no prohibition to women prophesying with their heads covered in gatherings (sign of submission).

Yes, teach the younger women. A far cry from what you are implying.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by RJR

Yes, teach the younger women. A far cry from what you are implying.

Wrong. Paul said that to prophesy with their heads uncovered was to shamed a woman's "head" (her husband). Paul also said that if a woman wouldn't cover her head, let her also be shorn or shaven, because it is as if she already were. That was a penalty inflicted publically on immoral and immodest women. Paul was basically saying, if women don't cover their heads in gatherings while prophesying, they look like harlots. And it was a big deal, because while prophesying they had the entire groups attention. Custom in Paul's day was that a woman should wear a head covering when in mixed company. It wasn't required if the gathering was strictly women.

So... the fact that Paul allows a woman to prophesy with her head covered indicates that a woman can indeed speak before mixed company. Now, you'll argue that "prophesying isn't preaching". And frankly, I think that's stupid. Because prophesy is anointed preaching that is being led of the Holy Ghost wherein words of knowledge, wisdom, and interpretation often flow.

[RJR]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Wrong. Paul said that to prophesy with their heads uncovered was to shamed a woman's "head" (her husband). Paul also said that if a woman wouldn't cover her head, let her also be shorn or shaven, because it is as if she already were. That was a penalty inflicted publically on immoral and immodest women. Paul was basically saying, if women don't cover their heads in gatherings while prophesying, they look like harlots. And it was a big deal, because while prophesying they had the entire groups attention. Custom in Paul's day was that a woman should wear a head covering when in mixed company. It wasn't required if the gathering was strictly women.

So... the fact that Paul allows a woman to prophesy with her head covered indicates that a woman can indeed speak before mixed company. Now, you'll argue that "prophesying isn't preaching". And frankly, I think that's stupid. Because prophesy is anointed preaching that is being led of the Holy Ghost wherein words of knowledge, wisdom, and interpretation often flow.

Frankly I think making up one's definitions to terms is the same. It has been shown repeatedly on this forum what the definitions are, just keep covering your eyes and making up the definitions. The term is break forth under sudden impulse and to foretell future events, comes through revelation. A gift of the Spirit and not preaching. You are the one inserting modern concepts into the text.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by RJR

Frankly I think making up one's definitions to terms is the same. It has been shown repeatedly on this forum what the definitions are, just keep covering your eyes and making up the definitions. The term is break forth under sudden impulse and to foretell future events, comes through revelation. A gift of the Spirit and not preaching. You are the one inserting modern concepts into the text.

[Esther]

JR and Pliny, where do you stand on Apostles and prophets today?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Esther

JR and Pliny, where do you stand on Apostles and prophets today?

Doesn't matter because if there are not any save those called by Jesus then there are no women among them. If there are women could not be qualified inasmuch as they cannot be qualified to be an elder. Therefore, it is a straw-man argument and fails the logic test.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Doesn't matter because if there are not any save those called by Jesus then there are no women among them. If there are women could not be qualified inasmuch as they cannot be qualified to be an elder. Therefore, it is a straw-man argument and fails the logic test.

You are too hung up on women, the question was not in reference to women but whether you believe in Apostles and Prophets in today's time? Simple question really.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Esther

You are too hung up on women, the question was not in reference to women but whether you believe in Apostles and Prophets in today's time? Simple question really.

And answered in a simple fashion.