End Time Army of Women Preachers Psalms 68:11

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by rdp

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)?

Are you suggesting that teachers are also preachers?

Teaching isn't preaching, although I do believe preaching is teaching.

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by rdp

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

You are the one screaming out that verse, not me. Is it literal or not?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Sasha

Might not be recorded but silence doesn't offer a good argument either way. However, Paul never mentions mere church goers as co-laborers. He specifies how they differ in the words he chooses to use in describing them. There has to be something said for that, IMO.

Deductive reasoning lets us know that Luke was not a preacher. To make that assertion please offer positive evidence. This is nothing more than an argument from silence.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Sasha

I think it drives you crazy that I won't obey what you think the Bible says and stay quiet. LOL!

How about this? If you don't like talking to women, perhaps this forum isn't a good place for you. There are men's forums where women aren't allowed, you know.

ROTFLMHO!! "What I think the Bible says" ??


No, you & many others refuse to obey what the Bible says - period. It's called stubbornness & defiance to clear Scripture .


"What I 'think' the Bible says" !? Knee-slapping hilarity.

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Deductive reasoning lets us know that Luke was not a preacher. To make that assertion please offer positive evidence. This is nothing more than an argument from silence.

I'm not arguing Luke. You are the one who brought him up.

[MissBrattified]

I guess I can walk through the passage, although I thought that particular request was pointed at Sister Alvear. I'm at a disadvantage from the scholars since I only have my Bible and a Strong's concordance to guide me.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

Let the woman learn in quietness with all obedience.

I believe this refers to an attitude of obedience and subjection, not literal silence. No one likes a loud, boisterous, obnoxious woman who asks foolish questions. For that matter, no one cares for a man like that, either.


But I suffer not a woman to teach,

But I permit not a woman to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them, [or] deliver didactic discourses, instill doctrine, explain or expound a thing

In my opinion, THIS is the only truly problematic portion of this entire passage. I don't understand why Paul would hone in on teaching--but not preaching, prophesying, praying, singing, testifying, etc. However, that is precisely what he did. Did Paul mean that HE didn't permit women to teach or that NO ONE should permit women to teach? Also, he goes out of his way to basically state that this is his opinion when he says "I permit not...." He didn't say "God permits not" or even "the church permits not." Whether it's accurate or not, this does leave room for the understanding of this passage to be Paul's personal preference rather than a church-wide, timeless mandate.

nor to usurp authority over the man,

nor to act of oneself, dominate, act on one's own authority, govern, or exercise dominion over the man

Back to verse 11...same feeling here. This is about acting within boundaries and under authority. If there are no elders, no husbands, no deacons and no men who object and a woman is asked to speak, then she is not "usurping authority"; she is still acting out of submission. Acting of oneself would be walking up to the platform, taking the mic, and speaking without permission. It would be standing up in the middle of a sermon, interrupting and taking over. That's being insubordinate--and out of order.


but to be in silence.

but to be in quietness. (Strong's says: description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others)

I believe this does indicate what a Christian woman's attitude is to be, but this doesn't require literal silence, and it doesn't require that a woman never speak to the church.

For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

This points to the different ways in which Adam and Eve were enticed to sin. Eve was deceived and sinned; Adam sinned, knowing full well what he was doing. I think this points to a woman's innocence, somewhat, and her ability to be easily "beguiled." I understand Paul's point here to say that men are less easily deceived and therefore in a better position to teach clear doctrine and answer questions.

[RJR]

Originally Posted by Sasha

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?

Absolutely those who served were noteworthy. Those who waited tables in Acts 6 was mentioned by name, honest, full the Holy Ghost and wisdom, and these were chosen so that the Apostles could give themselves to prayer and the ministry of the word.

Women in Luke 8 were mentioned by name who ministered (same word for deacon) of their substance. IF deacon here means preach, they were preaching their substance to Jesus, which would be ridiculous. They were serving him by ministering of their substance so he could minister to the people.

Luk 8:3 And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.
Luk 8:4 And when much people were gathered together, and were come to him out of every city, he spake by a parable:

[rdp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

By "context", I assume you mean by looking at the bigger picture of the passage, which is addressing the qualifications for leadership. If you're going to be that specific, then please tell me how a single man can fulfill the requirements of this passage?

And this is exactly why we do not want to waste our time with you - all you do is exactly what every other woman has done on here (& precisely what you just did).


Keep asking the same question about single men in light of I Tim. 3.1 to somehow (???) discredit the clear ramifications of the text. We have already explained that the passages are simply addressing the normal practices of the ministry - & does not in any way mean that single men cannot be overseer's. Or, are you telling us that the Apostle Paul was disqualified from being an overseer ?


You are only clouding the issue all the while completely ignoring the specific grammar of I Timothy 2.11-14. So, I am once again asking you to explain your interpretation of I Timothy 2.11-14? In fact, I think that no matter how many times you explain your view - I'll just keep asking you to give an explanation - sound familiar ?

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Obviously a woman can demonstrate fidelity and be faithful to her spouse, which would fulfill a more loosely interpreted application of the principle behind the mandate.

Yea' - it may fulfill a "more loosely interpreted application" (which basically means the "women-preacher's" interpretation ) - but it certainly will not fill the requirements of the specific text itself .


What part of the following is giving you trouble?




4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?);



How in the world a woman can fulfill this role is absolutely mind-boggling - & should not even be open for debate ?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

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.

I see, so we're to go back & rehash the lexical data, exegesis, syntax, context, post links for corroboration, post sources, etc. - all because you're too lazy to go back & reread the thread.


Now I see clearly !

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Sasha

I'm not arguing Luke. You are the one who brought him up.

I guess you forgot your own question...

Originally Posted by Sasha

Perhaps having a dialogue with you would be easier without inuendoes and mocking smiley faces. It's hard to know what you are really saying when all I read is sarcasm, disgust, and you placing yourself on a pedestal because you claim to be a preacher.

How about coming down to my level, just a lowly woman, perhaps not worthy of being in your presence?

Just a simple answer. Who were those men colaboring with Paul but were not preaching?

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...65#post1302265