Can women talk about Jesus and the gospel?

Romans 8 said:

Women were made to be subordinate.

Click to expand...

Which is why God appointed Deborah to be judge of all Israel, I suppose.
Women were not created to be subordinate, but to be companions for men.

Romans 8 said:

Men were made to be leaders. Women are more susceptible to deceit.

Click to expand...

No.
I know men who are incapable of leading. And to say that women are more prone to deceit, implies that we were made that way - that God made us with a flaw.

Romans 8 said:

Another interesting verse is Isaiah 3:12 talks of weak effeminate rulers, or it's literal meaning that the women were calling the shots.

Click to expand...

Isaiah 3:12 is a proof text which is often quoted to "prove" a point.
In fact, a king was ruling the country at the time. A king who had a harem, and possibly many wives, and was letting them influence him. Ahab was also influenced by a woman - because he had disobeyed God's law and married someone from outside Israel; someone who worshipped other gods and tried to impose idol worship on Israel. The fault was with the men who were weak and disobedient. When GOD calls and raises up a woman to do something, the outcome is different.
If people - both men and women - don't remain loyal and obedient to God, they can be led astray by anyone.

NathChristian said:

Hi guys
1 Timothy 2:11-15 says women should be quiet.

Does it mean that women can't write books about christ or women can't have a youtube channel about bible teachings?

Click to expand...

Bible shows that women also spoke of Jesus, like for example when they told about the empty tomb. Speaking is not therefore forbidden. I think Paul’s point was more about that women should not rule men:

…and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness,..
1 Timothy 2:12

And if we are disciples of Jesus, I think Jesus should be the king who rules, not any of us.

Daniel C said:

@Abrarxos. Oh so you can translate the original better than the authors of the KJV can you? Because what you say and what they say is different. I'm going to put my trust in the tried and tested 500 year old version and not you.

What you say about Peters message is false. He was not referring to womens status in society but them as a people as that part of the letter he was writing was addressing marriage and gender.

Click to expand...

It's not a matter of "better", but it is a matter of what the Greek of the New Testament said. The King James Bible says this, and the other versions said this and that, and yet, the Greek said something else. On top of that, nearly every New Testament translation of today followed the traditional interpretations of earlier versions which were published centuries before the evidence from papyrus and inscriptions revealed to us the meanings of many NT words previously misunderstood or unknown by medieval translators.
For example, Matthew 11:12 caused problems for translators and puzzled readers for centuries. Without getting text-critical, as early as the 1970s the discovery of papyri and inscriptions revealed that the scripture Matt. 11:12 had nothing to do with heaven suffering violence or is forcefully advancing. Here is the KJV and in comparison with the more accurate interpretation of the Greek NT:

Matthew 11:12 (KJV):
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

A more accurate translation:
From the time of John the Baptiser until now, Heaven's Realm is being used or even robbed by men who have no legal right to it. These men block those who do have a legal right to it from enjoying their inheritance.

With the ongoing archaeological finds and the significant number of Greek inscriptions discovered, it brings to light an unadulterated reading of the Bible providing us with more clarity. I'm sure you would agree that this is a fruitful step forward and a step away from faulty traditions spawned from mistranslations.

1213 said:

…and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness,..
1 Timothy 2:12

Click to expand...

Note the wording here. He uses the word "I" to indicate that he is speaking on his own authority, giving his own opinion on the matter. There is no indication here that he is in any way speaking to the entire Church. It is well to remember that, when we read the epistles, we are actually reading other peoples mail and that we are unaware of the full context.

ViaCrucis said:

1 Corinthians 11 St. Paul talks about women preaching (prophesying) in church. In Romans 16 Paul mentions a female apostle named Junia. In the Acts of the Apostles we have a woman named Priscilla, who along with her husband, taught Apollos.

The issue being discussed in 1 Timothy isn't about women not talking, teaching, etc; it's about a particular issue happening. Paul uses the word αὐθεντεῖν (authentein) which has the meaning of something like "usurp" or to act autocratically. The issue isn't women teaching or speaking in the context of the Church; the issue seems to be that certain women were acting on their own authority over and against others in the Church. Such a problem would not be a woman-only problem, it would be just as problematic for men to usurp authority and act on their own.

This passage has frequently been used in modern times to try and make women into second class Christians; where historically women have had a voice in the Church. As we see in Scripture itself, as well as in the early history of the Church with women such as St. Thekla or St. Felicity. The idea that women have no role in the Church except to be quiet as a mouse and offer no input, and do nothing whatsoever is not a biblical idea, it isn't a traditional Christian idea, it's a purely modern idea--an innovation that is contrary to the biblical and traditional practice of Christianity.

-CryptoLUtheran

Click to expand...

Indeed women had an important role in the church up until the 4th century, where Christians started to read the entire bible in the light of the pastoral letters. A common criticism made by Roman authors was that Christianity was a religion for women.

Overbearing

It is not my place to tell a woman what she can do without provocation from the Holy Spirit or a request for my opinion.

However, in respect to my worship and the philosophy of our home, we won't attend a facility where a woman is responsible for the spiritual direction of the populace as a whole. Or one where its bylaws and ethos would permit its occurrence at a future date. If it happened we'd leave.

I am polite to those who operate in this position through their denomination. Incivility is not acceptable.

Strong in Him said:

Which is why God appointed Deborah to be judge of all Israel, I suppose.
Women were not created to be subordinate, but to be companions for men.

No.
I know men who are incapable of leading. And to say that women are more prone to deceit, implies that we were made that way - that God made us with a flaw.

Isaiah 3:12 is a proof text which is often quoted to "prove" a point.
In fact, a king was ruling the country at the time. A king who had a harem, and possibly many wives, and was letting them influence him. Ahab was also influenced by a woman - because he had disobeyed God's law and married someone from outside Israel; someone who worshipped other gods and tried to impose idol worship on Israel. The fault was with the men who were weak and disobedient. When GOD calls and raises up a woman to do something, the outcome is different.
If people - both men and women - don't remain loyal and obedient to God, they can be led astray by anyone.

Click to expand...

Thank you for demonstrating how to make a point without outright attack. Some of us, (including myself) should pay attention.

I haven't been a part of this thread for a while so I'm not sure the context of which is was taken, it might sound harsh in light of today's feminist programming but I assure you that I write without malice

I do appreciate the fact that you didn't take the upper hand at guilt tripping like the chameleon ^^ in this very thread.

Bless you!

Sparagmos said:

The authoritarian structure you long for (and in which you would be granted authority whether or not you are mature, wise, and moral enough to handle it, simply because of your gender) has caused great harm. My father was abusive and my mother did not intervene to protect herself or her children because he was the “head of the house.” She sought advice from others in the church who instructed her to submit to his authority. Women and children have been raped and abused because of the arcane idea of headship and submission which arbitrarily places bullies, pedophiles, and immature people in positions of power over others.

Click to expand...

That's unfortunate, in a situation of abuse a headship might be dropped on it's head.

If a husband is a natural leader and the wife is a natural follower, then they will fall into those roles naturally, and there is no need to command that structure.

Click to expand...

I've made this point several times between the two threads, and so we're in agreement? They don't necessarily need to be natural at this, but they can work at it if need be.

You say you accept the authority of your pastor, but he is likely in that role because he has proven himself to be a good, moral leader. Your pastor doesn’t live with you and hold authority over every part of your life.

Click to expand...

Not moral leader. The pastor is a spiritual leader. And the man of the house also serves as the spiritual leader. This is why the whole family can be saved solely through the father of the household.[/QUOTE]

Romans 8 said:

This is why the whole family can be saved solely through the father of the household.

Click to expand...

No. Each person is saved through his or her own relationship with God through Christ; a father or husband cannot either make that happen or prevent it from happening.

Paidiske said:

No. Each person is saved through his or her own relationship with God through Christ; a father or husband cannot either make that happen or prevent it from happening.

Click to expand...

You're assuming again. I said nothing on the point of prevention. In a family scenario, the children are under the parents in their salvation. The wife can be on her own if the husband isn't a Christian, but if he is, then the husband can be responsible for the family including the wife.

Romans 8 said:

You're assuming again. I said nothing on the point of prevention. In a family scenario, the children are under the parents in their salvation. The wife can be on her own if the husband isn't a Christian, but if he is, then the husband can be responsible for the family including the wife.

Click to expand...

You're arguing that a wife who is not a Christian can be saved because her husband is?

I completely disagree; please back up your claim with Scripture.

Paidiske said:

No. Each person is saved through his or her own relationship with God through Christ; a father or husband cannot either make that happen or prevent it from happening.

Click to expand...

1Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

It may be that either the wife or the husband can do this. But I have seen when pastors go to heal in Jesus name, they always go to the father first, if he is present.

So the verb there is hagiazo; it has a range of possible meanings, but does not include that the unbelieving spouse is saved. It has more to do with cultic purity, and it is likely that Paul is saying that having an unbelieving spouse is not incompatible with personal holiness (not an unclean thing).

Paidiske said:

So the verb there is hagiazo; it has a range of possible meanings, but does not include that the unbelieving spouse is saved. It is likely that Paul is saying that having an unbelieving spouse is not incompatible with personal holiness (not an unclean thing).

Click to expand...

Ok so you went from never having heard this before, to forming an opinion within like 2 minutes. Is this how you would suggest one does their research?

I know the verse well, I just haven't heard anyone claim that an unbelieving wife is saved because of her husband before. And I double-checked the the Greek of the verse you cited to support your position and saw that indeed, the underlying verb doesn't support that interpretation.

Paidiske said:

I know the verse well, I just haven't heard anyone claim that an unbelieving wife is saved because of her husband before. And I double-checked the the Greek of the verse you cited to support your position and saw that indeed, the underlying verb doesn't support that interpretation.

Click to expand...

Ok good. But I have heard this concept by Pastors involved with healing and deliverance (for those that believe in that) and this is what they claim is possible.

I don't think that position is very Scripturally or theologically robust. If I were you I'd ask them for the Scriptural basis of their position.

Paidiske said:

I don't think that position is very Scripturally or theologically robust. If I were you I'd ask them for the Scriptural basis of their position.

Click to expand...

I will dig deeper and also check the interpretation. Thank you!