A Prophetess?

Lionroot said:

That seems rather arbitrary. Clearly there is a difference between male and female, or there is not. Which is it?

Perhaps the Gal quote is about being joint heirs, and not so much about undoing the roles God has established elsewhere.

Rev 5:5
And one of the elders said to me, "Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals."

Click to expand...

He clearly has no qualms about anointing a woman as a leader and prophetess, so I cannot say that He would never do it again or that He is against it...up to you if you want to believe or not; I've stated my belief; You asked and I answered. Can't give you anymore than that...you can't convince me otherwise.

nt/removed.

72. A man said to him, "Tell my brothers to divide my father's possessions with me."
He said to the person, "Mister, who made me a divider?"
He turned to his disciples and said to them, "I'm not a divider, am I?"

tturt said:

There were numerous prophetess in the Bible such as the four daughters of Philip (Acts 21:8-9) which means that they had to speak.

I Tim 2 - Scripture states "But I suffer..." so it was Paul's opinion but yet he endorsed Priscilla's teaching Acts 18:26 and Rom 16:3

Women confused Paul --- 1Co 7:30 “And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;”

Click to expand...

Why would Paul endorse Priscilla to teach men, when he clearly states in 1 Timothy 2:12, that he doesn't permit a woman to teach men ?

Priscilla worked with her husband but Phoebe, a deacon, didn't (Rom 16;1) for example.

Pro 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go .." For example, women are involved in training up children and when the males get grown then they can't teach them any more according to some. So this would be based on a biological age or intellectual level - which they reached aided by women.

Then there's the group that interprets I Tim 2:12 to mean that women should never teach males - no matter what age they are. So they are ignoring other Scriptures such as Pro 22;6.

There's no reason to base an entire church system on I Tim 2:12 when there are Biblical examples that women taught and prophesied - which I'm sure everyone realizes they can go together but aren't the same thing.

Churches today don't function according to what the first churches did in almost any area. Just a couple of examples: They fed the widows. How many churches do that? They may contribute to an organization. We don't want to take our time and energy to do that so we let the government handle it. Also, the believers sold what they had and contributed the proceeds to the church. Most believers don't even pay their tithes (last stats I saw was 7%) much less sell everything for the gospel's sake. (I haven't sold everything). 3- Everyone contributed when they got together for services. Today others may make the announcements and the welcome but usually every word comes from a pastor or a pastoral team. I'm not knocking pastors.

So there's no reason to take one scripture about women as the standard for churches and ignore the others including those that pertain to numerous other areas.

Is a prophet a "teacher?"

Eph 4:11 says "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;" Though all believers should prophecy according to Scripture. There's are difference in the two.

We're not following the model of the early church.

Whether or not women were used in the early church or not, women are now going to be used more and more because (Acts 2:17) "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:" Women are speaking in the church because Yeshua uses men and women for His purposes.

tturt said:

Eph 4:11 says "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;" Though all believers should prophecy according to Scripture. There's are difference in the two.

We're not following the model of the early church.

Whether or not women were used in the early church or not, women are now going to be used more and more because (Acts 2:17) "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:" Women are speaking in the church because Yeshua uses men and women for His purposes.

Click to expand...

Yes, indeed.
Women have ALWAYS prophesized.
They are the essence of Intuition.

What is at question is whether they are the logical and Rational starting place to explain WHY their own predictions may or will come true.

Teachers need to explain how the behavior of a society now is exactly WHY the predictions into the future just might be right.
Teachers are necessary to explain how the dreams of old men and visions of young men can be crushed or fulfilled.

When Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream," he was TEACHING civil rights.

From what I've seen, Corinth women were pretty loud and disrupted the church. They wore really vibrant clothing that was distracting, and they would always disrupt the church service claiming to have visions from God. So Paul wrote a correction letter. The original Greek may be different than the translation, but I know no Greek. Its the only explanation I could think of. Or Paul used some weird figure of speech. But there is my two cents.

Lionroot said:

Paul must have been wrong when he wrote:

2Ti 3:16
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Click to expand...

Paul didn't have the Bible back then, he had the Old Testament. On top of that, it was men who got together and gathered what letters they could find from the apostles and decided which ones would be canon, "the Bible". We can note this easily by looking at the "book" of 3 John, which is really just a short letter John was writing to someone else. It adds no significant moral understanding, and it's very clear that it's a short letter from John to Gaius. 3 John wasn't written as a "Thus saith the Lord, remember these moral teachings;" it's a letter, but I guarantee there has been people who have stood on 3 John and defended their biblical position from it. That said, I think way too many Americans (and probably other people around the world alike) are far too eager to assume that they know "The Truth," even though they have almost no understanding of the context of these letters that were written by the apostles near 2000 years ago. These letters were often written to specific churches for specific reasons. That has to be taken in mind, as does the cultural mindsets of the day that may have affected the apostles. Look at how much Peter struggled eating with Gentiles. The Jews had that much of a mindset about not associating with Gentiles, and this was after Jesus had already ascended. If 90% of the population of the world would have gotten ignored if God had not woken up the apostles to get the apostles and early Christians to accept us non-Jews, then that goes to show that there may have been a lot of cultural mindsets that had not been dealt with yet that would need to be changed at some future time. If I'm not mistaken, women were still basically treated like property back then. This may be part of the reason why Paul had no issue talking about them keeping a minority role.

BUT, elsewhere in the Bible, like someone else already noted from Joel and another person I believe noted from Acts (with the evangelist's prophesying daughters), women are shown as prophecying or leading. And don't forget, in the beginning, God told men and women to rule:

"26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” Gen 1:26

Also, that men gained an unholy rulership over women in the Fall, as part of the consequence of the Fall:

"16 To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.” Gen. 3:16

But we aren't called to be under the curses of the Fall any more. We are called to come out from them and to live fully in Christ.

Also, don't forget the circular reasoning of women not being seen in power as much in the Bible because of the fact that they lived in cultures where they were kept out of power to begin with and so one assumes women should still not be in power because they are not seen in power in the Bible. How does one get around that?

Imo, we to apply deep thinking when we are working on interpreting the Bible. Even the parables probably made a lot more sense to people who understood sheep and harvest times and etc. It was written first and foremost to the audience of the time, and we need to understand that time and what the audience was going through to better understand what the words we are reading might mean. Also, we need to use "common sense", apply our ability to ask the question "does this interpretation seems like it makes logical/scientific sense?", when we read the Bible. Some people believe that God is against jewelry and make-up, when other passages in the Bible show God adorning Israel with "jewerly" as if it's a blessing. We can't just jump to conclusions, because if our interpretation of what God believes seems like it's useless or immoral in it's own right, then our interpretation may very well be useless or immoral.

As far as women goes, we have passages in the Bible to back up women being leaders. And for logical sense, there is no significant scientific data that shows that women can't handle being leaders. That said, I choose to side with the side that both has the Bible and everyday evidence to back it up.

Girder of Loins said:

From what I've seen, Corinth women were pretty loud and disrupted the church. They wore really vibrant clothing that was distracting, and they would always disrupt the church service claiming to have visions from God. So Paul wrote a correction letter. The original Greek may be different than the translation, but I know no Greek. Its the only explanation I could think of. Or Paul used some weird figure of speech. But there is my two cents.

Click to expand...

Did you read Isa 3?

do you see that the establishment of christian sexual prudence also implies opposition to the women who will assert they have the independent right to use their own bodies anyway they, themselves, determine?

how dare Isaiah complain of their dress code or suggest that their social behavior was seductive?

when the early christian men proposed to the men that it is socialy destructive to permit the establishment of a social whoredom the women opposed that teaching, in general, as does the feminist movement today.

Imagine in a day when the christian men were being martyrded that women came into the congregation to insist abortion was OK because it was their body.

And consider that St Paul had to face the opposition of the single mothers of today, who have 1/2 of ALL the births in America every day.
What was their legitmate right to speak when the christians were raising the subject of sexual promiscuity as an evil, while they themselves were beibg thrown to the lions outside the walls of the room where they had gathered to speak among themselves.

I think you're overselling to the point that there isn't any grounds for the things you are saying.

Try toning it back on the surrealism and drama and try saying something relevant. You lost it at the moment of "christian sexual prudence implies we must fight against equal rights for women."

Lionroot said:

A new employee that works with me it's sharing her faith with me. Without exploring other specific theologies, Isn't there a fundamental problem with a prophetess leading men?

Click to expand...

Yes, when the ' prophetess ' is adding to scriptures.