End Time Army of Women Preachers Psalms 68:11

[Roxanne Murphy]

Originally Posted by Sasha

If you want to run your church or household that way, that's fine, but this in an internet forum, and neither you nor any other man or woman here has any authority over me in any way, I don't care how many degrees are on your wall, how many churches you have preached in, how old you are, or how many verses you can quote.

If this forum ever decided to operate like a Muslim mosque, I'd be the first one outta here.

AMEN!

[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?

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Proof once again that you don't know what you are talking about. Fallacy after fallacy after fallacy.

Persecution is not the standard of truth. Heretics were persecuted as well. Therefore, since persecution seems to be your standard of truth heretics, like Gnostics, were preachers of truth. Ludicrous to be sure.

FTR Gnostics taught Christ did not have a true human nature. He only appeared to have a human nature...

Are you asserting that Saul was throwing false Christian women in prison?

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by Pliny

That is apparent...

Does it matter to you?

[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.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Sasha

I don't think she omitted it but looked it up under the NAS version. I looked it up under the KJV and that word is used for 'preach' only 6 times in the NT. Strangely enough, 'preach' isn't the transliterated word King James used for Paul's writings in the verse you quote above. Sis. Alvear didn't omit 'preach'. King James did. You should have been born 500 years ago so you could have been there to correct him.

Actually, you use a fallacious approach - the KJV translators chose to render the same verb translated as "speak" 6 times in the NT elsewhere (something I've been telling y'all for weeks on end now ) - not "only" 6 times...see how easy that was?


Next, "King James" did not "omit" anything - He simply ordered the work to be done - more evidence that you don't know what you're talking about regarding textual-criticisms .


Last, you & your female buddies (go figure ) are the revisionists when it comes to translations. Y'all should have been born 2,000 yrs. ago - y'all could have "corrected" Paul's usage of "man" & "woman" in I Tim. 2 .


Next?

[RJR]

Originally Posted by Sasha

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.

Luk 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luk 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.Luk 4:20..  ..And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
Luk 4:20 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

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

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Mat 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water

Luk 20:42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,


I see what you mean by Jesus was not quoting scripture while preaching.

[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.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Sasha

You are the one who said women are not to teach, not that women are not to teach adults. Adding to what Paul said? Remember, YOU are the one screaming in big letters over and over that Paul said women are not to teach or preach, period!


LOL - No, I did not say anything regarding women not teaching adult men from the Scriptures - the Apostle Paul did ! Might oughta' drop your feminist agenda & accept the Word of God for a change! LOL.


Here, lemme' help you out one more time. The following email is from renown exegete-textual-critic Dr. Daniel Wallace:


"Gune and aner are words which mean 'adult female' and 'adult male' in their unmarked meanings. Only if there are sufficient contextual clues that husband and wife are in view do the words mean 'wife' and 'husband.'...The definite article or 'idios' (one's own) or a possessive pronoun is required to show that husband and wife are in the text. None of these things occur in 1 Tim 2. The article occurs in 1 Cor 11, but only because it is syntactically required by the construction. Both passages are clearly talking about the Christian community in worship, which would of course involve single adults and married couples. Take a look at other passages that are clearly speaking about husband and wife--e.g., Eph 5, 1 Peter 3--and you'll see that they use these signals to note that husband and wife are in view."



If you reject his syntactical analysis - please offer exegetical reasons which overthrow his diacritical apparatus. Otherwise - you're merely pontificating in order to feign the high ground of victory .



Moving right along........


Are you saying the God would have a woman teach a child but not an adult? Are you serious? What in the world was God thinking when He made women judges over His people???

No, I did not say it - God & the Apostle Paul did ! You can ignorantly scorn the exegesis of the text until doomsday - but it will still mean the same thing when you're finished with your smoke in mirrors. If you don't even realize the difference between the Greek nouns translated as adult men & women - & children - no wonder you believe in "women-preachers" !


Next?