End Time Army of Women Preachers Psalms 68:11

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Sasha

One can preach without using scripture. Jesus did it all the time. Often He told parables and taught the lesson that resulted. His teaching became scripture, they weren't scripture to begin with.

Seriously? Jesus is God and what He says is God-Breathed, that is the very definition of scripture.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Seriously? Jesus is God and what He says is God-Breathed, that is the very definition of scripture.

BUT the definition given already here as to what Preaching is, was to EXEGETE already existing scriptures....

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

BUT the definition given already here as to what Preaching is, was to EXEGETE already existing scriptures....

So... You don't think God has a right to give scripture... Straw man alert!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pliny

So... You don't think God has a right to give scripture... Straw man alert!

First of all, I never said "God does not have a right to GIVE scriptures"

Second, what you just posted was a Strawman.

Third, please deal with the point I made and not instead replace it with your own made up argument I did NOT make.

I'll repeat it for you, the definition of PREACH was given here to mean someone who EXEGETES already existing scriptures.

If we are now gonna change that definition to someone that introduces NEW scriptures then we have a serious problem with adding to the Word of God by modern day "Preachers"

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

First of all, I never said "God does not have a right to GIVE scriptures"

Second, what you just posted was a Strawman.

Third, please deal with the point I made and not instead replace it with your own made up argument I did NOT make.

I'll repeat it for you, the definition of PREACH was given here to mean someone who EXEGETES already existing scriptures.

If we are now gonna change that definition to someone that introduces NEW scriptures then we have a serious problem with adding to the Word of God by modern day "Preachers"

Bologna. Jesus is the living word, past, present and future.

[RJR]

Originally Posted by Pliny

So... You don't think God has a right to give scripture... Straw man alert!

It appears some are making up their arguments as they go and hope that any claim made may have some veracity.

As you have pointed out earlier, He was the Word...

1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1Jn 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;
1Jn 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

It is kind of hard to discuss a subject with some when their defense is not always in harmony with their claims. It is like trying to nail jello to the wall.

Sorta like...

1Ti 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by RJR

I agree, it does not appear too many women posting on this thread has a man of God who is over them.

RJR, you are in no position to assert this. Certainly no man on this forum is in the position to be in authority over any woman here. I am submitted to God, my husband and other authorities in my life; not strangers on the internet.

Originally Posted by Pliny

So you have no positive proof for your assertion. Not to worry, I didn't expect any. Based upon your logic Luke was a pilot since he is never said not to be a pilot...

What assertion? You made an assertion and I simply commented that it was a poor argument. I'm now asserting something? I'm pointing out that you can't use the fact that something wasn't recorded as a strong argument for "it didn't happen." You seem like a smart man, so I'm not sure why you want to argue about this particular comment. A lack of record isn't proof of much, other than a lack of record.

Originally Posted by rdp

...On what biblical-textual basis do you assert that a man can pastor a church & yet not preach? Or, that a man can teach & not preach....esp. since "teaching" is lexically defined as "to exposit from the Scriptures" (which it would be virtually impossible to not do while "preaching")?

Can you provide the biblical-textual basis that asserts a man must preach in order to pastor a church? Unless you're using the terms "bishop" and "pastor" interchangeably, which I don't believe scripture does, I'm not sure where you're getting that.

But, since you've appealed to Strong's (which is actually a poor source) - here's what he has to say about the Greek verb translated as "speak" in I Cor. 14.34 - "Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says."

Why is Strong's a poor source, and what is a better one? I'm willing to dig deeper, but I don't think scripture needs to be taken four languages deep to be understood. Lay people should be able to read scripture with nothing else in hand and understand it. I get a little suspicious of any doctrine that requires a theology degree to explain. It feels like we're reverting back to Catholicism when you have to have "priests" explain to the ignorant laity what scripture says and what it means.

"Preach, say, speak. A prolonged form of an otherwise obsolete verb; to talk, i.e. Utter words -- Preach, say, speak (after), talk, tell, utter (http://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/2980.htm).

Will you also accept Dr. Strong's primary definition here?[/B][/COLOR]

I have no reason not to. If you do accept that definition, it complements the fact that Paul deliberately used the word "teach" instead of "preach" in I Timothy 2. If he had used laleo, then a stronger case could have been made for very literal silence of women in church.

Originally Posted by RJR

...1Ti 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

Are you a teacher of the law?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

What assertion? You made an assertion and I simply commented that it was a poor argument. I'm now asserting something? I'm pointing out that you can't use the fact that something wasn't recorded as a strong argument for "it didn't happen." You seem like a smart man, so I'm not sure why you want to argue about this particular comment. A lack of record isn't proof of much, other than a lack of record.

You have in fact made an assertion. I will have to try to find time later to illustrate it. Not sure when. I have work tomorrow and a Bible study tomorrow night.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Can you provide the biblical-textual basis that asserts a man must preach in order to pastor a church? Unless you're using the terms "bishop" and "pastor" interchangeably, which I don't believe scripture does, I'm not sure where you're getting that.


Paul told Timothy to "PREACH the Word to the churches he was over." How can an overseer or shepherd guide their flock without ever using the Bible ?


Respectfully, this is a very odd doctrine that you're pedaling here. How would you feel if your pastor never "preached" to the church?? Strange.




Why is Strong's a poor source, and what is a better one? I'm willing to dig deeper, but I don't think scripture needs to be taken four languages deep to be understood. Lay people should be able to read scripture with nothing else in hand and understand it. I get a little suspicious of any doctrine that requires a theology degree to explain. It feels like we're reverting back to Catholicism when you have to have "priests" explain to the ignorant laity what scripture says and what it means.


I agree, we can accept the Word of God as it's written:


I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.




I have no reason not to. If you do accept that definition, it complements the fact that Paul deliberately used the word "teach" instead of "preach" in I Timothy 2. If he had used laleo, then a stronger case could have been made for very literal silence of women in church.

Yes, & the Greek verb "teach" is defined as "to exposit from the Scriptures" no less than 220 times in the NT. That's our whole point - women are strictly forbidden to do this in the NT church to men.

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Seriously? Jesus is God and what He says is God-Breathed, that is the very definition of scripture.

The claim was made that one cannot preach without using scripture. While I agree with you, Jesus wasn't quoting scripture when preaching.

But let's move on. John The Baptist often preached without using scripture, yet many of his words also became scripture.