End Time Army of Women Preachers Psalms 68:11

[Pliny]

Thank you for the object lesson in WHY women should not be allowed to usurp authority over the man and attempt to teach. To argue that it was the Corinthian church that was telling women to be silent is absurd. 1 Cor. 14:34 is clearly an Pauline admonition as the verses above it. This is in harmony with what Paul told Timothy 1 Tim. 2:11.

Witht hat said let me say I agree there were women preachers in ancient times. In fact Irenaeus speaks of some:
Irenaeus Against Heresies
Book I
Chapter XIII
[Marcus] handing mixed cups to the women, he bids them consecrate these in his presence. When this has been done, he himself produces another cup of much larger size than that which the deluded woman has consecrated, ) and pouting from the smaller one consecrated by the woman into that which has been brought forward by himself, he at the same time pronounces these words…

Irenaeus lets us know there were women preachers among heretics. Origen tells us this was common among the polytheistic heathens:

Origen
Book VII
Chapter VI
Jupiter, "who rules over wintry Dodona, where his prophets have ever unwashed feet, and sleep upon the ground," has rejected the male sex, and, as Celsus observes, employs the women of Dodona for the prophetic office.

I could also document the oracles of Delphi but it is pointless. There were women preachers among heathen and heretics but NOT in the church of God. Here is a quote from the Apostolic Constitutions:

Book III
VI. We do not permit our "women to teach in the Church," but only to pray and hear those that teach; for our Master and Lord, Jesus Himself, when He sent us the twelve to make disciples of the people and of the nations, did nowhere send out women to preach, although He did not want such. For there were with us the mother of our Lord and His sisters; also Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Martha and Mary the sisters of Lazarus; Salome, and certain others. For, had it been necessary for women to teach, He Himself had first commanded these also to instruct the people with us. For "if the head of the wife be the man..."

Book III
IX. Now, as to women's baptizing, we let you know that there is no small peril to those that undertake it. Therefore we do not advise you to it; for it is dangerous, or rather wicked and impious. For if the "man be the head of the woman," and he be originally ordained for the priesthood, it is not just to abrogate the order of the creation, and leave the principal to come to the extreme part of the body. For the woman is the body of the man, taken from his side, and subject to him, from whom she was separated for the procreation of children. For says He, "He shall rule over thee." For the principal part of the woman is the man, as being her head.


Edited to add:
It is also painfully obvious that some do not know the difference between "preaching/teaching" and the gifts of the Spirit.
Nice to know God has "old thinking" since he had ample opportunity to appoint women to the priestly office under the Levitivcal priesthood yet failed to do so. Again how absurd.

[Sasha]

Pliny, you said this: allowed to usurp authority over the man and attempt to teach.

What is usurping authority?

[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.

"But they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." Paul would never use the Law to enforce any behavior. Paul taught that the Law was nailed to the cross (see Ephesians 2:15 and Colossians 2:14), so why would he appeal to the Law to ban women? Paul did not agree with the statement but questioned it.

Only the Talmud had it's strange opinions about woman....there is NO law in the Bible that prohibits women from obeying God...In response to this ban on women, Paul says, "Let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command" (14:37). Paul taught and wrote that the women in Corinth could prophesy with their heads covered (ch 11). He also wrote, "For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged " (14:31). All can prophesy. That includes women!
The traditional interpretations of these two Scripture citations contradict clear passages that allow women to participate in Christian ministry, even in the assembly. It appears, so it seems to me, that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 relates to what the Judaizers were saying, not Paul. I can not find one statement in the Old Testament where women were told to keep silent or could not take a position of leadership.

The old anti women opinion...Barak was a sissy so if God used a donkey He could use a woman...that statement in my opinion is borderline with calling God a fool...God makes no mistakes. He chose Deborah...He put it in her heart and blessed her and cursed those that would not fight with her for God's cause. We need to be careful lest we find ourselves cursing what God has blessed....

More absurdities and more object lessons as to why women should not be allowed to teach or preach to men.
Apparently some believe the Law was abolished yet what did Jesus say?
(Mat 5:17 KJV) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Not only this but some must not believe Jeremiah either since Jeremiah said God would write the Law in the hearts of man:
(Jer 31:31 KJV) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
(Jer 31:32 KJV) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
(Jer 31:33 KJV) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Apparently, according to some, since Paul would never use the Law, Paul must have either been ignorant of Jeremiah or contradicts Jeremiah. That is the logic of stating Paul would never use the Law. In fact Paul DID use the Law:
(Rom 7:7 KJV) What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
(Rom 7:12 KJV) Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

This was written to the Corinthian church as well!
(1Co 9:7 KJV) Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
(1Co 9:8 KJV) Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
(1Co 9:9 KJV) For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?


I guess Paul did not know what he was saying when he said:
(Gal 5:14 KJV) For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
And that is in perfect harmony with this:
(Mat 22:36 KJV) Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
(Mat 22:37 KJV) Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
(Mat 22:38 KJV) This is the first and great commandment.
(Mat 22:39 KJV) And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
(Mat 22:40 KJV) On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


BTW you have no idea what or when the Talmud was written. It was began in third century which is certainly one reason Paul would not have cited it... Just another reason why women should not teach or preach but remain silent and learn. Here is a link about the Talmud:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/..._&_mishna.html

Its true that Paul would never cite the Tamud to "prove anything". That's not necessarily because he wouldn't but because IT DID NOT EXIST when Paul was alive. There are so many fallacies in these posts that it is easier to just say these are object lessons as to why women should NOT teach or preach.

One more, It was said above:

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

The author of this statement about women remaining silent used the Talmud as the basis of this practice.
"But they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law." Paul would never use the Law to enforce any behavior. Paul taught that the Law was nailed to the cross (see Ephesians 2:15 and Colossians 2:14), so why would he appeal to the Law to ban women? Paul did not agree with the statement but questioned it.

We are to believe, according to Sis. Alvear's fictitious man, that he used something that did not exist to prove his point. Oh brother! Give me a break! Just another object lesson why women should keep silent and learn...

[Praxeas]

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.

I disagree with this. Paul and the NT most certainly WOULD use the Talmud. They not only used the Talmud but other concepts from rabbinical literature to teach just as Paul used Cretian "prophet" to teach.

Tit 1:12 One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Sasha

Pliny, you said this: allowed to usurp authority over the man and attempt to teach.

What is usurping authority?

I will give you Kittle's definition.
"Adam as the first man is mentioned in 1 Tim.2:13-14 in connection with the order of the community set out in 1 Tim. 2:1 - 3:16. In the section which deals with the right conduct of the woman in the service of God (2:9-15) the demand that she should be subordinate to man (2:12) is given as a basis in early biblical history. This establishes the supremacy of man at creation by the fact a. that he was created first (2:13), and b. that Eve was first deceived (2:14)... The order of God at creation is still His will for the community (cf Mk. 10:6).

Usurping then means for the woman to become her own authority. It is clear that women have a role and to step outside that role is to step outside the creative order. A clear example of this is found in Rev. 2:20 where a woman has usurped authority and is teaching men.

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by Pliny

I will give you Kittle's definition.
"Adam as the first man is mentioned in 1 Tim.2:13-14 in connection with the order of the community set out in 1 Tim. 2:1 - 3:16. In the section which deals with the right conduct of the woman in the service of God (2:9-15) the demand that she should be subordinate to man (2:12) is given as a basis in early biblical history. This establishes the supremacy of man at creation by the fact a. that he was created first (2:13), and b. that Eve was first deceived (2:14)... The order of God at creation is still His will for the community (cf Mk. 10:6).

Usurping then means for the woman to become her own authority. It is clear that women have a role and to step outside that role is to step outside the creative order. A clear example of this is found in Rev. 2:20 where a woman has usurped authority and is teaching men.

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

[Roxanne Murphy]

Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. (Revelation 2:20 KJV)

But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. (Revelation 2:14 KJV)

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (Acts 15:19, 20 KJV)

You know when you let scripture interpret scripture, you realize that the problem in the church in Thyatira was not a woman teaching, it was WHAT she was teaching, things that were specifically forbidden to the Gentile believers.
Or you can continue to force scripture through the filter of personal idea and belief.

[Pliny]

No kidding...

The ONLY scripture where a woman was teaching and what do we have?
False doctrine. That is precisely the point and the same point made by Paul:
(1Ti 2:11 KJV) Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
(1Ti 2:12 KJV) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
(1Ti 2:13 KJV) For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
(1Ti 2:14 KJV) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.


Kind of like stating:

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.

Paul did not quote from the Talmud because the Talmud did not exist in his day. Also, it is patently false to assert someone, like the fictitious author of the statement mentioned above, was quoting from something that did not yet exist...

[Roxanne Murphy]

Pliny, that is a feeble attempt to salvage your misuse of scripture. Jesus, the One speaking to the apostle John, did NOT say, I have somewhat against you because a woman is teaching. He said, she is teaching my servants to sin. The same problem was noted 6 versed prior in the same chapter of Revelation, in the church at Pergamos. The problem was not who was teaching but what was being taught.

And just a few notes from your misused text:
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. (1 Timothy 2:11-15 KJV)

In the context of this passage, the apostle does not say, I suffer not women to teach men". He clearly uses the terms "the woman" and "the man", thus referencing the marriage relationship. The man is the head of the woman says I Corinthians 11, again referencing the marriage relationship. Men by reason of their gender are not head over me, that authority belongs to my husband alone. According to these scriptures, I would be completely out of order if I were to decide to take over as the head of our home. However, if I am called upon to lead a group in the church that has men and women in it, or if I am called upon to deliver a Word from The Lord to the congregation, so long as I am in submission to my husband, I am not out of order.

I realize that my posts are not likely to change the minds of those who are fully set in their opinions. But I do hope that they will be of help to those who with an honest heart are emulating the Bereans and checking the scriptures daily to see if these things are true (or not).

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Roxanne Murphy

Pliny, that is a feeble attempt to salvage your misuse of scripture. Jesus, the One speaking to the apostle John, did NOT say, I have somewhat against you because a woman is teaching. He said, she is teaching my servants to sin. The same problem was noted 6 versed prior in the same chapter of Revelation, in the church at Pergamos. The problem was not who was teaching but what was being taught.

And just a few notes from your misused text:
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. (1 Timothy 2:11-15 KJV)

In the context of this passage, the apostle does not say, I suffer not women to teach men". He clearly uses the terms "the woman" and "the man", thus referencing the marriage relationship. The man is the head of the woman says I Corinthians 11, again referencing the marriage relationship. Men by reason of their gender are not head over me, that authority belongs to my husband alone. According to these scriptures, I would be completely out of order if I were to decide to take over as the head of our home. However, if I am called upon to lead a group in the church that has men and women in it, or if I am called upon to deliver a Word from The Lord to the congregation, so long as I am in submission to my husband, I am not out of order.

I realize that my posts are not likely to change the minds of those who are fully set in their opinions. But I do hope that they will be of help to those who with an honest heart are emulating the Bereans and checking the scriptures daily to see if these things are true (or not).

Here is the absurdity of this post:

You said:
"the One speaking to the apostle John, did NOT say, I have somewhat against you because a woman is teaching."

Then in the very next sentence you said:
" He said, she is teaching my servants to sin."

Like I said:
"The ONLY scripture where a woman was teaching and what do we have?
False doctrine. That is precisely the point and the same point made by Paul:
(1Ti 2:11 KJV) Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
(1Ti 2:12 KJV) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
(1Ti 2:13 KJV) For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
(1Ti 2:14 KJV) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

The only misuse is yours. You clearly cannot understand the statement "I suffer NOT a woman to teach nor usurp authority over the man". How absurd to say that this is only at home where the wife, a word Paul could have used and didn't, then to allow that role reversal in a church setting. You would be completely out of order to take control at home or to get up and try to teach men in a church setting - feeding the flock of God. That role is the sole domain of the man. A bishop must be the husband of one wife.

This post is yet another example of why women should not be allowed to teach men...

Edited to add:
This may be shocking to you but here it is:
VWS
In silence (ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ)
See on peaceable, 1Ti_2:2. Rev. renders quietness; but the admonition concerns the behavior of women in religious assemblies. Comp. 1Co_14:34. The word is used in the sense of silence, Act_22:2 : with the broader meaning quietness in 2Th_3:12.


You see, the misuse of scripture is yours when you try to twist it to mean something that it doesn't.
Again Kittle's definition, Kittle was a Greek scholar BTW.
"Adam as the first man is mentioned in 1 Tim.2:13-14 in connection with the order of the community set out in 1 Tim. 2:1 - 3:16. In the section which deals with the right conduct of the woman in the service of God (2:9-15) the demand that she should be subordinate to man (2:12) is given as a basis in early biblical history. This establishes the supremacy of man at creation by the fact a. that he was created first (2:13), and b. that Eve was first deceived (2:14)... The order of God at creation is still His will for the community (cf Mk. 10:6).