End Time Army of Women Preachers Psalms 68:11

[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.