Women in Mininstry: A Debate

[undead1]

Today at 12:16 AM seebs said this in Post #77 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=684186#post684186)

I'd just like to point out that this is totally unnecessary. Outspoken mentioned, in another thread, that it is completely obvious from the Bible that women are allowed in the ministry, and always have been, and that anyone who teaches otherwise just hasn't really studied the Bible. I'm glad that's all settled, then.

In the time of Deborah the prophetess, the emasculated, ungodly and ignorant males who lived in that era "voluntarily" went to consult with Deborah. And Apollos may have consulted Priscilla on some matters, such as facts about the life of Christ, on which he was ignorant. But, with due respect, those matters are to be ascribed to choices made by the male to inquire of a woman. These things do not come under "ministry". It could be extended to a man voluntarily attending a college to learn greek. That would come under the category of "man seeking knowledge from woman" - not ministry.

But the choice of a male to inquire of a female about matters of which he is ignorant and the female isn't, is not the issue that is at stake here.

The issue is whether a woman can undertake, of her own initiative or volition, to promote herself into the role of being a teacher over a congregation of men (however large) about matters formed from the woman's own cognition.

Whether it be a wife lecturing her husband (Peter) or a woman lecturing a church (Paul), there is not an iota of evidence or authority or justification for this course of conduct by women, anywhere in the bible. And it is this course of conduct by women which the apostles clearly prohibit.

 

[ScottEmerson]

And you are simply re-stating your case without answering any of the real arguments. Simply saying it over and over again will not help you win your case.

(BTW, since you are reading Timothy so literally, about a woman not teaching a man, where do you get your caveat of men seeking knowledge from women? Is that from the Bible or is that simply yours?)

 

[undead1]

Today at 04:01 PM ScottEmerson said this in Post #82 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=685090#post685090)

And you are simply re-stating your case without answering any of the real arguments. Simply saying it over and over again will not help you win your case.

The case needed to be restated to take into account various acts of women in the bible which those in favo(u)r of women's ministry use over and over again to justify their position.

(BTW, since you are reading Timothy so literally, about a woman not teaching a man, where do you get your caveat of men seeking knowledge from women? Is that from the Bible or is that simply yours?) [/B]

That is understood empirically from many instances in the bible in which women were witnesses, but not men, and so men had to enquire of women to know what had been witnessed to them.

 

[blondie122189]

Of course women should be ministers. In your god's eyes aren't we all equal? If so, the we most certainly should be able to hold the same jobs.

 

[undead1]

Today at 08:15 PM blondie122189 said this in Post #84 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=685382#post685382)

Of course women should be ministers. In your god's eyes aren't we all equal? If so, the we most certainly should be able to hold the same jobs.

Unfortunately for your argument, God does not perceive men and women as being of equal ability, even though they may be of equal value.

Women are more inclined to be deceived by false teaching than men. Thus, as Paul points out, Eve was deceived in the garden of Eden, while Adam simply disobeyed. In every false religion, whether it be wicca, feminism, or cults like Raelianism, women are perceived to amongst the foremost of those deceived:

Ti 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Today at 01:49 PM undead said this in Post #83

The case needed to be restated to take into account various acts of women in the bible which those in favo(u)r of women's ministry use over and over again to justify their position.

But in doing so, you haven't addressed anything specifically nor have you used Scripture to back your position up, only given "cop-out" answers.

That is understood empirically from many instances in the bible in which women were witnesses, but not men, and so men had to enquire of women to know what had been witnessed to them.

So somehow Priscilla had witnessed something that Aquilla had not? Does this statement refer to the HOly Spirit speaking to a person - if a woman is a recipient of a message from God, can she not share that with men?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Today at 03:57 PM undead said this in Post #85

Unfortunately for your argument, God does not perceive men and women as being of equal ability, even though they may be of equal value.

Women are more inclined to be deceived by false teaching than men. Thus, as Paul points out, Eve was deceived in the garden of Eden, while Adam simply disobeyed. In every false religion, whether it be wicca, feminism, or cults like Raelianism, women are perceived to amongst the foremost of those deceived:

Ti 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts.

You're ripping another verse out of context here! (Although I am failing to be surprised now...) Your verse does not say that all women are silly, nor are they all led away with lusts. There are indeed silly men out there, but this is in no way a universal text.

And I still don't know where your misogynistic viewpoint that states that women are more inclined to be deceived by false teachings comes from. How often are we going to take those verses in Timothy out of context to justify the slamming of women?

 

[seebs]

I have to say, that is a prize-winning lack of context and overgeneralization. If there were a theological State Fair, it could be a blue ribbon.

 

[undead1]

Today at 09:02 PM ScottEmerson said this in Post #87 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=685487#post685487)

You're ripping another verse out of context here! (Although I am failing to be surprised now...) Your verse does not say that all women are silly, nor are they all led away with lusts. There are indeed silly men out there, but this is in no way a universal text.

Women who aren't silly know their place in life.

And I still don't know where your misogynistic viewpoint that states that women are more inclined to be deceived by false teachings comes from. How often are we going to take those verses in Timothy out of context to justify the slamming of women? [/B]

That comes from another verse:

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

 

[cougan]

Yesterday at 10:40 PM ScottEmerson said this in Post #78

Again, no one has addressed that this is singular, where the passages before are plural. This is obviously one woman that was causing problems. I don't know why anyone hasn't addressed that. (I think I know why!)




The woman.



The specific woman.



THe specific woman that Paul is talking about.



Otherwise the entire world will crumble at the feet of these "feminists," right?  



THen you have either not listened to the words of Anne Graham Lotz or Beth Moore (among others) or you were just too hard-hearted to listen. 

Scott why do keep claiming no one has touched this arguement when I have already done so. Notice below what I wrote in a past post between the lines.

[LINE]

Here is where you try and do you little dance and try add your own little twist to these verses because you have to. If these verses 11-15 are talking about women in general and not a specific women then your whole arguement crumbles. Verses 8-15 are discussing the different roles of men and women in the church. Your arguement is almost laughable yet very sad at the same time. You claim that that because the word "women" in vrs 11 and 12 is singular that somehow is stateing that ONE PATICULAR WOMEN in that church was being refered to. This view of yours is so filled with errors.

<B>First</B> of all there is nothing in the context here that would justify the topic being changed from women to a paticular women.
<B>2nd</B> If a paticuar women was in mind it seems to me she would of been named.
<B>3rd</B> lets take a look at a few verses where "a women" is singular and lets see if it has in mind that its only talking about ONE PATICULAR WOMEN.

Matthew 5:28 "But I say to you that whoever looks at <B>a woman</B> (<B>singular</B>) to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

What women? Which women?

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch <B>a woman(singular).</B>

Touch what women? Which women?

1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for <B>a
woman (singular)</B> to pray to God with her head uncovered?

What women? Which women?

1 Corinthians 11:6 For if <B>a woman(singular)</B> is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for <B>a woman (singular)</B> to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

What women? Which women?

All of these are in the singular and they do not have a specific women in mind but it applies to all women just like it does in 1 tim 2:11-12.

<B>4th</B> The bible confirms without a doubt that this is not talking about a partiuclar women. First lets look at the text under question.

11 Let <B>a woman</B> learn in silence with all submission.
&nbsp;12 And I do not permit <B>a woman</B> to teach or to have authority
over a man, but to be in silence.
&nbsp;13 For <B>Adam was formed first</B>, then Eve.
&nbsp;14 And <B>Adam was not deceived</B>, but the woman being
deceived, fell into transgression.
&nbsp;15 Nevertheless <B>she</B> will be saved in childbearing <B>if they</B>
continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

In vrs 11 what women? Any women. vrs 12 What women? Any women. Now verse 13 gives us an idea that it is not speaking about just one women. Does it really make sense that if this was just one women that he would say I want this one women to learn in silence and not to teach or have authorty of man. HOW COME PAUL? Because Adam was formed first then EVE AND Adam was not deceived but the women was.... This is some explanation for why the ONE little lady could not teach have authorty over a man now isnt it. Your view on this is just does'nt work. Paul goes back to the Adam and Eve and points out that Man was made first and that Eve was the first to sin. Do you not remember what God told the women in Gen.

Genesis 3:16 Unto <B>the woman</B> he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and <B>he shall rule over thee.</B>

But probably the biggest blow to your whole arguement is the fact that the following verses support and agree with the verses in 1Tim.

1cor 14:34 Let your <B>women keep silent in the churches</B>, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as thelaw also says.
&nbsp;35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their
own husbands at home; for it is shameful for <B>women to speak
in church.</B>
[LINE]

You can see in the above examples where women was used in the singluar yet it refered to any or all women.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

Here is where we switch to Paul using plural to singular. Does Paul here mention a paticular women? I don't belive he does. Again the word woman here can mean any kind of women weather she is married or single. It is a great twist to scripture to try and say that&nbsp;Paul in now only addressing a partucular women.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Again, which women what women? Paul with in the context talking about the women role vrs the mans is her again refering to all women. Man in this vrs is singualar as well. Even though you have not brought it out&nbsp;in order to stay consistant you would have to say this one women is not to usurp authority over this one man. Even though no one is named or in the fact that he has been talking about men and women collectively does'nt keep you from trying to apply your view to these verses.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.



What I find interesting is verse 15. You claim that that Paul is talking about a specific women and in vrs 15 "she" is singular. What of great interest is the conditon statement made in this verse. Notice SHE shall be saved in childbearing, IF THEY (plural) continue in faith ....

Now we see Paul started out refering to the women as plural then is started talking about the women in the singular and in the vrs 15 the she the singular reference is then switch back to they which is plural. They is refereing back to this singluar women which leaves no doubt that the singular women is women in general it all of them.

 

[undead1]

Today at 08:59 PM ScottEmerson said this in Post #86 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=685483#post685483)

But in doing so, you haven't addressed anything specifically nor have you used Scripture to back your position up, only given "cop-out" answers.

I don't understand the point you are making.

So somehow Priscilla had witnessed something that Aquilla had not?

Sorry, this was Apollos enquiring of Priscilla & Aquila:

Act 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, [and] mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

Act 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

Act 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto [them], and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

Does this statement refer to the HOly Spirit speaking to a person - if a woman is a recipient of a message from God, can she not share that with men?

Yes, there were some true female prophetesses recorded down the ages, usually sent in times of widespread church corruption, but their ministry was never exercised in the ecclesia, nor did it need to be.

 

[cougan]

Here are the verses that show what qualifies one to be a bishop/elder and or a deacon.

titus 1:5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders (always a plurality and not just one)&nbsp;in every city as I commanded you --

6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.

7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,

8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled,

9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.
1 Timothy 3:1 This <I>is </I>a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;

3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous;

4 one who rules his own house well, having <I>his </I>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?);

6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the <I>same </I>condemnation as the devil.

7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8 Likewise deacons <I>must be </I>reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money,

9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience.

10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being <I>found </I>blameless.

11 Likewise <I>their </I>wives <I>must be </I>reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.

12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling <I>their </I>children and their own houses well.

There is absoultly nothing in these verses that show a women can hold the office of a bishop or a deacon in this offical sense. Becoming an elder is a great responsibility. It is up to them to watch over the flock and be examples to them. They must be able to teach and be able to defend against false doctrine. They must rule their household well. It restresses this by adding in vrs 11 that their wives must also be reverent and faitful in all things. This does not in anyway say that a women can be an edler or a deacon but just stateing what their wifes must be like for them to hold this office. It should be easy enough for you to see that it is the men that are to be elders and deacons and not just any man but those that qualify.

You bark alot that I don't answer your arguements but from what&nbsp; I can tell I have answered all of your arguements in one way or another.

If Jesus had wanted Gentiles to serve in a leadership role over Jews, then why were all the apostles Jews? This is a fair enough question, and can be answered using the same reasoning as your question.

HMM. well lets see I guess that would be because when the apostles were chossen by Jesus that the message was only for the Jews. It was'nt until around 7 years after the cross in acts 10 and 11 when we gentiles found out that we to could have the message preached to us and we could be saved as well.

So if there is one, you will&nbsp;concede?&nbsp; Here are five well-known commentaries that concur with my point of view.

&lt;SPAN lang=EN-US&gt;The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy (Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990)&lt;/SPAN&gt;

&lt;SPAN&gt;The Oxford Bible Commentary, edited by John Barton and John Muddiman (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)&lt;/SPAN&gt;

&lt;SPAN lang=EN-US&gt;Newsom, Carol A. and Sharon H. Ringe, Women's Bible Commentary: Expanded Edition with Apocrypha (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998). &lt;/SPAN&gt;

&lt;SPAN lang=EN-US&gt;Hermeneia: 1 Corinthians, by Hans Conzelmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975)&nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;

&lt;SPAN lang=EN-US&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN lang=EN-US&gt;First Corinthians (a volume in the series Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), by Richard B. Hays (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1997)&lt;/SPAN&gt;

I wasnt refering to current commentaries I know there are those of the liberal mindset that will write down those things the world want to hear. By the way I have never even heard of these that you mentioned. I really don't care what the commentaries say much anyways. I would rather see what the bible says about the matter. Because commentaries are written by man and they are helpful at times to see what their takes is on something but we should always go by the bible first. As far as the early church fathers you yourself have stated that they teach many things that are contraditory to what the word says so we cant take what they say as scripture either. If I wanted to I could name off a great deal of actually well know commentaries that agree that the man is to be the spirtual leader of the home and the spirtual leader in the church and that the women are&nbsp;not to have postion of leadership over the men. A women can do many great things for the service of God but she simply can not be a decon or an elder or posess authority over the man. I don't know what else I can really add to this thread on this topic because I have answered all your arugements and shown clearly the bibical view. Unless you actually bring up a worthy arguement I dont really have anything else to add. You obviously are going to belive what you want to belive no matter what kind of scripture I put before you. I dont want to contiue rehashing the same arguements over and over again.

If you feel I have not touched one of your arguements repost it and I will or I will point you to the post where I did.

God Bless,

Cougan

 

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday at 08:34 AM undead said this in Post #75 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=684134#post684134)

Nice try Old Sheperd. But completely misconceived.


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


A woman is not permitted a teaching role over men (period).
A woman is command to be silent or quiet in the presence of men (period).
A woman is command not to have authority over men. The position of teaching clearly infers an authority, for the teacher always has authority over his pupil.

The upshot of the matter, is that it is the responsibility of all men to put this teaching into practice, by simply walking out of the presence of any woman who presumes to teach or lecture him about the bible.

Which is what I have always done. On the rare occasions I have heard a woman preaching, I can confidently assert that I learnt nothing and was edified not at all.

This is the mantra of the "the man is the head of the woman" crowd. The entire Bible is interpreted to conform to the misinterpretaton of this one verse. Ignore every other verse in the Bible. Ignore the many times God spoke in the O.T., the verses have already been posted here, and said that HE is not a respecter of persons. Ignore Paul saying "IN Christ there is NO male or female!" because you have your one proof text.

"On the rare occasions I have heard a woman preaching, I can confidently assert that I learnt nothing and was edified not at all." You have already told us why you were not edified NOT because the woman did not teach but because you did NOT listen. OTOH I have seen and heard several men preach and I have gotten up and walked out because of the false teachings and heresy, even in my own denomination.

Just being a man does NOT make them right and just being a woman does NOT make them wrong.

 

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday at 09:09 AM cougan said this in Post #76 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=684176#post684176)

Old shepard heres you another one.

Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott

authent-eô , to have full power or authority over, tinos I Ep.Ti.2.12; pros tina BGU1208.37 (i B. C.): c. inf., Lyd.Mag.3.42.

Yes let's take a look at LSJ but lets us bear in mind LSJ is Classical Greek NOT Koiné. Here is a related word and a link to my source. And OBTW I notice you have ignored my references.

• 
  authenthV[The part -entês is of uncertain deriv.] [contr. for authoentês ]
  • I. one who does anything with his own hand, an actual murderer, Hdt., Eur., etc.:--more loosely, one of a murderer's family, id=Eur.
  • 2. an absolute master, autocrat, id=Eur.
  • II. as adj., authentês phonos, authentai thanatoi murder by one of the same family, Aesch.
    
    http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0058:entry=#5521
  Here are some words which appear in the N.T. which have a similar construction as "authenteoo" Note the definitions. As I said the prefix "auth", a contraction of "auto", means self.
  • 
    2 Co 8:3 For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves <830>;
    2 Co 8:17 For indeed he accepted the exhortation; but being more forward, of his own accord <830> he went unto you.
    
    830 auqairetoV authairetos ow-thah’-ee-ret-os
    from 846 and the same as 140;; adj
    AV - willing of (one’s) self 2; 2
    1) voluntary, of free choice, of one’s own accord
    
    T i t 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled <829>, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
    
    2 Pe 2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled <829>, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
    
    829 auqadhV authades ow-thad’-ace
    from 846 and the base of 2237; TDNT - 1:508,87; adj
    AV - self-willed 2; 2
    1) self-pleasing, self-willed, arrogant

  I told you already I haveing trouble with my computer. I can't access all my data at this time. The idea of the word is for the women not to take possesion of authorty or have authority over the man. That goes hand and hand with 1 cor 14 for the women to be silent in the church.

  Yes Cougan just keep repeating your position over and over and over again and ignoring everything that has been posted. In this respect you are no different than any cult or heretical group, e.g. JW, LDS, WWCG, WAY,etc. They have their handful of proof texts as well and ignore everything which contradicts them, just as you are doing.
  

  If Jesus had wanted women to serve in a leadership role over a man than why were all the apostles men? Why when Judas was replaced was it 2 men that were choosen? Why are all those serving in a leadership role in the bible men?

  Duh-uh! Even Jesus could only do so much against the conventions of his time. Have you been paying attention? How much credibility would Jesus have had if he and the disciples traveled with a woman who was not a wife or close relative? Gen 3 1:26, woman created in the EXACT IMAGE of God ring any bells? And there is no BUT in that verse!
  

  Why did Paul tell the men to pray everywhere but then tell the women to dress modestly and to not teach or have authority over the man?

  You are still ignoring eveything posted and repeating the same thing over and over again. Are women prohibited from praying by this verse? Vain repetition does NOT make anything right!
  • 
    Mt 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

  I think that you are ignoring the reason Paul gives. It was because man was formed first and it was the women who sinned first. And no that does not make Adams sin an less than Eves.

  How did sin and death enter the world, according to Paul? because the woman sinned or because Adam sinned. Plug that verse into your formula!
  

  If women were to be elders and deacons then why oh why are the qualifications not written for them but instead states that the elder and deacon must be the HUSBAND of one wife.

  Oh why oh why do you continue to ignore the fact that Paul used the exact same word "diakonon", in the masculine, to describe sister Phoebe. Regardless of how modern so-called Christians misinterpret it, e.g. "Oh it only means servant", Paul used the SAME word. If he meant in 1 Tim that a "diakonon" must be a man he could not use the same word in Rom 1, of a woman, without contradicting himself. And since the phrase "let the "diakonon" be the husband of one wife." CANNOT mean only a man the exact phrase "let the elders be the husband of one wife" also CANNOT mean men only!
  

  There simply is not enough for you guys to stand on in bible to show that women can funtion as a leader over the man. However I have brougt out the passases that and made the anologies that show women are to be silent and not to take a postion of authority over the men in the church.

  Brought out your misinterpretation of a two proof texts and ignored dozens of verses which contradict you.
  

  The men are suppose to be the spirtual leaders.

  The HUSBAND is to be the spiritual leader of the WIFE! All men are not the head of ALL women! Go back and read Genesis. Also what about the "law" Paul made reference to?
  • 
    Gen 3:16 ¶ Unto the woman (sing.) he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy (sing.) desire (women are NOT to desire ALL men!) shall be to thy husband (husband sing. NOT all men!) , and he (sing. NOT they) shall rule over thee.

  You guys are trying conform the times and apply to the bible. The word of God does not change and we should go by what it says and not by the custom of the time.

  Whoa, who you guys? I have NOT used any reference to modern times, norms, etc. I have strictly referred to the Bible and language studies. And you have ignored virtually everything I have posted.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Today at 04:44 PM cougan said this in Post #90

And I answered all of these in post #45. You did not provide a rebuttal to it. As I showed, your cases were quite weak when examined under the lens of context.&nbsp;

You can see in the above examples where women was used in the singluar yet it refered to any or all women.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

Here is where we switch to Paul using plural to singular. Does Paul here mention a paticular women? I don't belive he does.

Yet, what you have ignored is not that the one verse is singular. It is that he specifically changes from plural to singluar. Your method cannot answer why Paul does this.

Again the word woman here can mean any kind of women weather she is married or single. It is a great twist to scripture to try and say that&nbsp;Paul in now only addressing a partucular women.

It is not a twist at all, since it is right there in plain language. He goes from addressing all men, to all women, to one woman. It is there, plain and simple. I found out that such a use of language was called a "chaism" in Greek literature. It is used often.&nbsp;&nbsp;

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

What I find interesting is verse 15. You claim that that Paul is talking about a specific women and in vrs 15 "she" is singular. What of great interest is the conditon statement made in this verse. Notice SHE shall be saved in childbearing, IF THEY (plural) continue in faith ....

So you've noticed the change! Good - you are on your way. Paul concludes the chaism. He is returning to all women. Verse 15b is talking about all women who are to learn in faith, charity, and holiness. It returns to the idea of the plural in the verses before he takes a detour talking about a specific woman.

Now we see Paul started out refering to the women as plural then is started talking about the women in the singular and in the vrs 15 the she the singular reference is then switch back to they which is plural. They is refereing back to this singluar women which leaves no doubt that the singular women is women in general it all of them.

You understand that there is a difference. Here is the question for you: Have you found anywhere in the BIble where the&nbsp;universal singular and universal plural interchange so closely together. I think that the people doing the verses did a disservice. The "they shall continue" should begin a different verse to keep the cases straight.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Today at 04:57 PM undead said this in Post #91

I don't understand the point you are making.

It makes sense to me. You are not making any new cases based on Scripture nor addressing any of my points.

Sorry, this was Apollos enquiring of Priscilla &amp; Aquila:

Act 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, [and] mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

Act 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

Act 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto [them], and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

&nbsp;Sorry - my question was "So Priscilla witnessed something that Apollos had not?"

This raises the question - what if more than one person go to a woman for help? What if 20 go? 100? 1,000?

Yes, there were some true female prophetesses recorded down the ages, usually sent in times of widespread church corruption, but their ministry was never exercised in the ecclesia, nor did it need to be.

&nbsp;

Great statement. Go into is some more and provide some sources for it.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Today at 05:43 PM cougan said this in Post #92

Here are the verses that show what qualifies one to be a bishop/elder and or a deacon.

titus 1:5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders (always a plurality and not just one)&nbsp;in every city as I commanded you --

6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.

7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,

8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled,

9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.
1 Timothy 3:1 This <I>is </I>a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;

3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous;

4 one who rules his own house well, having <I>his </I>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?);

6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the <I>same </I>condemnation as the devil.

7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8 Likewise deacons <I>must be </I>reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money,

9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience.

10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being <I>found </I>blameless.

11 Likewise <I>their </I>wives <I>must be </I>reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.

12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling <I>their </I>children and their own houses well.

Verse 11 is the one of mention. There is no Greek word "their." In other words, we can read this as "Likewise, women, must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things." Many commentators believe that these are the requirements of a female deacon. After all, by your own admission, there was a woman deacon recorded in the Bible -Phoebe.

There is absoultly nothing in these verses that show a women can hold the office of a bishop or a deacon in this offical sense.

There is&nbsp;nothing that exludes them.

Becoming an elder is a great responsibility. It is up to them to watch over the flock and be examples to them. They must be able to teach and be able to defend against false doctrine. They must rule their household well. It restresses this by adding in vrs 11 that their wives must also be reverent and faitful in all things. This does not in anyway say that a women can be an edler or a deacon but just stateing what their wifes must be like for them to hold this office. It should be easy enough for you to see that it is the men that are to be elders and deacons and not just any man but those that qualify.

For this interpretation, you have to place words in verse 11 which are simply not there.

HMM. well lets see I guess that would be because when the apostles were chossen by Jesus that the message was only for the Jews. It was'nt until around 7 years after the cross in acts 10 and 11 when we gentiles found out that we to could have the message preached to us and we could be saved as well.

But couldn't we, using your logic, state that Gentiles should be learning, while the Jews are teaching? And Jesus never said that the Gentiles are excluded from salvation at all. The message was first to the Jews, but GEntiles were never excluded. That's a strange understanding there, to be honest.

I wasnt refering to current commentaries I know there are those of the liberal mindset that will write down those things the world want to hear. By the way I have never even heard of these that you mentioned. I really don't care what the commentaries say much anyways.

Okay - to recap...

You said... "

The word of God does not change and we should go by what it says and not by the custom of the time. I am curious can you produce 1 well know commentary that even holds the view you are trying to proclaim. Everyone I have looked at take the view that I hold. Instead of listing all if them I want you to produce just one. I'm sure theres at least one out there or maybe more. I would just like to see how they are and what they say about the subject. I will anxiously await for your commentary references.

So then I show you five commentaries.

I would rather see what the bible says about the matter.

I answer your question, and then you back out. Does this mean I won that point?

Because commentaries are written by man and they are helpful at times to see what their takes is on something but we should always go by the bible first.

ANd I've shown what the bible says first, and there are commentaries done by scholars that concur. BTW, The Oxford Bible Commentary is one of the foremost commentaries that has ever been released. It is quite indepth and is in no way a liberal commentary. (Although, that is a handy rebuttal - anything that goes against what you think is somehow liberal."

As far as the early church fathers you yourself have stated that they teach many things that are contraditory to what the word says so we cant take what they say as scripture either.

So you take whta the church fathers say whenever you want them? Is this how you rebut this? Either way, it is a historical fact that women were deacons and elders of the early church. These are historical facts, not theological arguments made by the fathers.&nbsp;

If I wanted to I could name off a great deal of actually well know commentaries that agree that the man is to be the spirtual leader of the home and the spirtual leader in the church and that the women are&nbsp;not to have postion of leadership over the men.

Yet you challenged me to find just one. I found 5, and I could find a whole lot more.

A women can do many great things for the service of God but she simply can not be a decon or an elder or posess authority over the man. I don't know what else I can really add to this thread on this topic because I have answered all your arugements and shown clearly the bibical view.

But you haven't! See post 45 for more arguments unanswered. More questions from a previous post:

Where did Priscilla teach Apollos?


You said a woman could teach one man but not a church. So what is the difference between a woman teaching a man and a woman teaching two men? or 50? What is your Scriptural basis here?


You never responded to my protasis argument.


You dropped the crucial Genesis "helper suitable" argument.

You'vew ignored that there is no mention of a male Junias anywhere.

These will do for now.

&nbsp;

 

[undead1]

Yesterday at 03:42 AM ScottEmerson said this in Post #96 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=686256#post686256)

It makes sense to me. You are not making any new cases based on Scripture nor addressing any of my points.

Timeout on that one.

&nbsp;Sorry - my question was "So Priscilla witnessed something that Apollos had not?"

Yes. Priscilla had witnessed the baptism of Christ, but Apollos was only cognizant of the baptism of John (which did not carry the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This raises the question - what if more than one person go to a woman for help? What if 20 go? 100? 1,000?

Then you begin to wonder if the male species has not ritually castrated itself, like the devotees Cybele cult (which is actually a fair reflection of my opinion of many men - not physically, but spiritually).

Great statement. Go into is some more and provide some sources for it.

Here are a few links:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02782a.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/journals/oc/pc-sca2.htm

Mainly Catholic women. Guess those liberated protestant women don't measure up to God's standard!

(I am not referring to the Popess Joan!
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08407a.htm)

 

[undead1]

2nd March 2003 at 11:55 PM OldShepherd said this in Post #93 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=685833#post685833)

This is the mantra of the "the man is the head of the woman" crowd. The entire Bible is interpreted to conform to the misinterpretaton of this one verse. Ignore every other verse in the Bible. Ignore the many times God spoke in the O.T., the verses have already been posted here, and said that HE is not a respecter of persons. Ignore Paul saying "IN Christ there is NO male or female!" because you have your one proof text.

"IN Christ there is NO male or female!" does not mean that anyone is at liberty to ignore the differences between man and woman. Paul makes frequent reference to the law (cf 1 Cor 14) in his urge for women to be in subjection, and the law was not modified one iota by Christ's advent.

It means one in spirit, one in Christ. But a person in Christ will always remember the position to which Christ has assigned him/her and be content with it.

"

On the rare occasions I have heard a woman preaching, I can confidently assert that I learnt nothing and was edified not at all." You have already told us why you were not edified NOT because the woman did not teach but because you did NOT listen. OTOH I have seen and heard several men preach and I have gotten up and walked out because of the false teachings and heresy, even in my own denomination.

I've been around long enough to know an impudent women when I see one. And I don't see much else these days.

And what denomination is that? (if I may be so bold as to ask?)

Just being a man does NOT make them right and just being a woman does NOT make them wrong.

It makes them wrong when they presume to lecture me, without me having asked for their opinion on the subject first.

As Paul said:

1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.


Just as no man presumes to lecture Christ, so it behoves no woman to lecture a man.

 

[OldShepherd]

Today at 09:30 AM undead said this in Post #99 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=688233#post688233)

"IN Christ there is NO male or female!" does not mean that anyone is at liberty to ignore the differences between man and woman. Paul makes frequent reference to the law (cf 1 Cor 14) in his urge for women to be in subjection, and the law was not modified one iota by Christ's advent.

BUT which law was he specifically referring to in 1 Cor 14? I posted it before maybe even twice BUT because it does not support "the man is the head of the woman" good-ol'-boys club it was ignored.

It means one in spirit, one in Christ. But a person in Christ will always remember the position to which Christ has assigned him/her and be content with it.

Excuse where is the BUT in Gal 3:28. I can't find it.

I've been around long enough to know an impudent women when I see one. And I don't see much else these days.

Would that be a woman who believes that she is created in the exact image of God and has the same rights as any man?

And what denomination is that? (if I may be so bold as to ask?)

A big one.

It makes them wrong when they presume to lecture me, without me having asked for their opinion on the subject first.

But it is alright for a man to do that? I have seen a lot of preachers preaching about things I did not particularly care to hear. Does that count?

As Paul said:

1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

Which would be better translated as, "the head of the wife [is] the husband" I am the spiritual head of my wife, not every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the church. Nobody, but nobody, better tell my wife how she should, dress, act, talk, etc. Do you think every man in the church is the head of your wife?

Just as no man presumes to lecture Christ, so it behoves no woman to lecture a man.

I wasn't talking about that. But is it alright for one man to presume to lecture another man, in the church? And will he get punched in the nose or what? For example, "Hey UnDead I don't like your hair, get a haircut!"