End Time Army of Women Preachers Psalms 68:11

[rdp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

In my experience, even ministers who opposed women as pastors would occasionally allow a woman to speak. My own father did that a few times.

My problem with this debate is that the "silence in the church" is usually only taken literally in reference to preaching, when in fact, Paul specifically mentioned teaching and nothing else. The same people who oppose women preaching are often fine with them singing, testifying, prophesying or teaching Sunday School classes. That's inconsistent.

If they are going to take the passage literally, it should be to ban women from teaching positions--but not from preaching, prophesying, evangelizing or prophesying. The "usurp authority" part is not a problem, because as long as you aren't acting on your own authority, you aren't out of line with that part of the scripture. It's the "silence" part of the passage that is problematic.

I have difficulty taking anyone seriously if they don't first apply their own interpretations and line of logic consistently.

And, as you've been told over & over - go back & re-read this thread for my textual response to the ol' "complete silence" argument. Context & grammar, context & grammar - & this has been explained over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over - & OVER on this thread.


And, we're still waiting for an adequate textual explanation of I Timothy 2.11-14:___________?.....And probably still will be in eternity !

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by RJR

The prohibition was in TEACHING and EXERCISING AUTHORITY over the man. Silence was used in conjunction with teaching in 1 Tim 2. Why, it is impossible to teach without exercising authority.

Right, but it doesn't mention preaching--or any other type of "noise." So why are you inferring preaching into the scripture?

You may have a problem with that, but most certainly the scripture does not.

I don't have a problem with anything scripture says. I do want to be clear on what it actually says, though.

1Ti 2:11  Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

The silence was in the church, as already demonstrated silence was in regards to teaching. Notice this chapter, 1 Cor 14, is in regards to the abuse of tongues, and Paul demonstrates that it would be better to teach with 5 words than 10,000 words in an unknown tongue.

1Co 14:19..Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

He also uses the word silence in regards to tongues, before he uses the term directed towards women. Let me demonstrate.

1Co 14:28..  ..But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Was this Paul saying that a man could not utter a word? No! As a matter of fact he follows this injunction of silence with let him speakThe prohibition was if there was no interpreter for the man to keep silence, in regards to teaching or edifying or speaking to the church. However he could speak to himself and God. It is with this formula in mind we can also discern the proper application of silence directed toward the women. Is it absolute silence, as in not a sound? NO! She may pray, prophesy, praise, but the silence is in teaching, period. You cannot teach without exercising authority.

I AGREE with you that it doesn't mean literal silence, but why are you calling teaching and preaching the same thing? They have different definitions in the Greek and are also distinct from one another in the 5-fold ministry. Paul didn't say a woman can't preach--anymore than he said she can't prophesy, sing, pray, speak in tongues, etc.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by rdp

And, as you've been told over & over - go back & re-read this thread for my textual response to the ol' "complete silence" argument. Context & grammar, context & grammar - & this has been explained over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over - & OVER on this thread.


And, we're still waiting for an adequate textual explanation of I Timothy 2.11-14:___________?.....And probably still will be in eternity !

I'm not going to read through hundreds of posts that aren't going to answer my specific questions. If you don't want to discuss the topic with me, that's your prerogative.

And I haven't been told anything "over and over." I've barely participated in this thread.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Sasha

Some speak of the '5 fold ministry', meaning a verse that mentions apostles, teachers, prophets...

Those same people will speak about all of them in the same light in regard to qualifications as in an office. The Bible doesn't mention such qualifications, however.

Apostles are 'those who are sent'. It's not referring to only males but a generic term for messengers, so to speak. Some apostles preached, some performed miracles, but all were sent.

There are many women Paul speaks of as being fellow laborers. We can only assume what he means by that and we might all be correct about some of them, but Paul mentions one particular woman that even the smartest Biblical scholars admit might have been an apostle.

Junia.

Junia is referred to as being highly regarded among the apostles. She was also imprisoned with Paul. Unless you think they imprisoned her for her cooking, you have to admit her sharing the gospel to others with Paul might have placed her there along with him and others.

I find it odd that when it comes to men in the Bible, we have no problem believing what we want about what they did in the Biblical times even when Bible doesn't specifically state such, but when it comes to women, we want absolutes. Barnabus is noted as a fellow apostle yet there are no verses stating he preached or did miracles as Paul did. There are many men Paul mentions and we believe he mentions them not because they were excellent waiters or great taxi drivers but because they were people who aided him in his ministry and worked beside him to bring the gospel to the world as he knew it.

Whether Junia preached or not isn't the point I'm making, especially since there isn't a single person here who can even agree on what the definition really is. I just find it interesting that if Paul thought women had to be silent and not teach, how those women could have been working along side of him, not merely cooking his meals or ironing his robe.

Ahhh yes, good ol' Junia !


Apparently you have not read this thread in its entirety (the very thing you charged me with) - or you would know that Junia has been addressed in-depth.


Did you not read renowned exegetes Drs. Daniel Wallace & Mike Burer's exceedingly meticulous syntax-exegesis regarding Junia's identity & role?


But, hey, since I'm a fair fella' - here ya' go again:


http://talmidimyeshua.org/docs/WasJuniaApostle.pdf

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Pliny, this is a poor argument. The fact that scripture doesn't record something doesn't mean it didn't happen. Universal negative....

We don't even have all the things that Jesus did recorded in scripture.

John 21:25 "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

This is an argument from silence. You assume Luke preached when that has never been hinted at. Please offer some substance. It is a fact that Luke was a companion of Paul. It is a fact that Luke is never hinted at as being a preacher. John 21 is referencing a time before the Paul and Luke travels and is pertinent to the disciples not Luke or Paul.

If you want to make a positive assertion that Luke preached then offer proof. Otherwise, the assumption must be that he didn't. That is simply deductive reasoning. Based upon your logic Peter could be said to be the first Pope because the scripture never says he wasn't. Therefore, if you want to turn Luke into a bishop or preacher provide positive proof of your assertion. Until such a time as that it must be assumed that he was not since there is zero evidence to support the claim - deductive reasoning.

All preachers may be men but not all men are preachers therefore provide evidence to support Luke was a preacher.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Why can she pray, prophesy and praise in church if she is told to be silent, and why not preach, since Paul didn't forbid that? You guys are adding preaching to the mix, but the passage doesn't mention it. And, in your view, can women teach classes such as Sunday School classes?

Teaching & Preaching are used interchangeably in Scripture. Or, are you suggesting that when someone is "teaching" they are not "preaching" ?


Shall I repost (for about the 50th time) the lexical definition of "teach" in I Tim. 2.12 - (only to be completely ignored of course)?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Sasha

Literal, yes or no?

"Literal"-specific context & grammar - yes or no?

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by rdp

Ahhh yes, good ol' Junia !


Apparently you have not read this thread in its entirety (the very thing you charged me with) - or you would know that Junia has been addressed in-depth.


Did you not read renowned exegetes Drs. Daniel Wallace & Mike Burer's exceedingly meticulous syntax-exegesis regarding Junia's identity & role?


But, hey, since I'm a fair fella' - here ya' go again:


http://talmidimyeshua.org/docs/WasJuniaApostle.pdf

Actually, I read about a dozen or so. So you found one that agrees with you? Big deal. I read far more that don't. I'm not arguing over which scholar is more accurate, I just find it interesting that a woman is mentioned at all if she wasn't important enough. Certainly being a mere servant isn't that noteworthy, is it?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I realize that Sister Alvear is the main "prey" on this thread, but I would love to have my question answered as well.

No S. Alvear is not a "prey". That is repulsive. However, she has made many unfounded assertions and has told saints that their pastors need a trip to Calvary. Do I need to post the entire quote again? She has made other remarks as well. It is one thing for a "saint" to make such comments. It is quite another for a prominent person to make those same comments. Like it or not people in leadership roles are held to a higher standard. As a missionaries wife she should uphold the same standard of ethic as every other ministerial family is supposed to uphold. Disagreeing is one thing but telling people their pastor is cowardly and needs a trip to Calvary is unethical in the highest.

[RJR]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I AGREE with you that it doesn't mean literal silence, but why are you calling teaching and preaching the same thing? They have different definitions in the Greek and are also distinct from one another in the 5-fold ministry. Paul didn't say a woman can't preach--anymore than he said she can't prophesy, sing, pray, speak in tongues, etc.

I am not so sure the early church had a clear line of demarcation between the two. Teaching can clearly become preaching and vice versa.

Notice the interchangeableness of the terms in these parallel gospels.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Col 1:28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

Act 5:42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

Would you say that the ministry referred to in Eph 4:11 was not preachers?