THE WOMEN OF THE CHURCH

[CS1]

This is total nonsense. "Isolated verses"? Do you mean to tell us that when a specific subject is under consideration, Christians are not supposed to bring all the relevant passages together to understand the whole matter?

God is the one who has given those verses. They are not meant to make women "less than a man" but to make women DIFFERENT from men. Contrary to all the transgender nonsense that is taking the West by storm.

Women have very honorable ministries which they can focus on if they so wish. But the first order of business is to obey God, and not blame Paul for what he wrote by divine inspiration.

women can teach, preach

 

[Vindicator]

that's ok

I had some

What you've had so far, Sophie, are insults. Zero to be proud of yourself over.

 

[Nehemiah6]

women can teach, preach

According to you. But NOT according to God.

 

[Laura798]

This is total nonsense. "Isolated verses"? Do you mean to tell us that when a specific subject is under consideration, Christians are not supposed to bring all the relevant passages together to understand the whole matter?

God is the one who has given those verses. They are not meant to make women "less than a man" but to make women DIFFERENT from men. Contrary to all the transgender nonsense that is taking the West by storm.

Women have very honorable ministries which they can focus on if they so wish. But the first order of business is to obey God, and not blame Paul for what he wrote by divine inspiration.

Transgenderism? What on earth?

We must look at ALL of scripture--men of the so called 'church' who want to subjugate women ALWAYS isolate verses.

 

[CS1]

According to you. But NOT according to God.[/QUOTE


no, in the word of God we see women: teaching and Prophesying, Praying and used in the gifts of the Holy Spirit In both old and new Women have been used by God as Prophets and the spokesmen for God

Mary the mother of Jesus
Elizabeth the mother of John The Baptist and many more

The following women often get overlooked, but even though we do not have long stories about them, their leadership still is recorded in the Bible. There is Anna, who was a prophet (Luke 2:36) along with the four daughters of Philip who also prophesied (Acts 21:9).

A “prophet” in the biblical sense, is a truth-teller delivering God’s message to the world — in other words, a preacher. More descriptively, a preacher who can pack a punch.


There is also Phoebe, who was a deacon (Romans 16:1), and Junia, who the Bible describes, not only as an apostle, but an outstanding one (Romans 16:7).


Right there according to the word of God NOT CS1, Bible which is God's word. I said women CAN PREACH AND TEACH AS THE WORD OF GOD SHOWS us.

 

[Laura798]

Nah. It's a weak argument IMO. Paul uses the expression "the law" over one hundred times in his epistles, but never in reference to secular Roman Law. For Paul, νόμος equalled the Jewish law of the Old Testament in general, which included the Ten Commandments (Romans 13:8, 2:20, 7:7), and then more specifically of the law of Moses (Romans 7:4, Galatians 4:4).


This would be interesting if you could provide a specific quote identifying something as a written law applicable to the Jews at the time of Christ. Where are you getting this from exactly?

it says 'law'--but this law is nowhere found in scripture--they were meeting in the synagogues. So it can only refer to two laws: 1) the law of the land as Clarke says in his commentary--he was born at the end of the 1700's so I don't think he was in any way a feminist--he was giving us 'just the facts'--plain and simple, with no rhetoric. 2) or synagogue laws which are not listed in scripture.

Paul felt it necessary to issue his corrective because in early Christian congregations, following Jewish practice, it was permissible and customary to interrupt the preacher to ask questions. In first-century synagogues, a sermon followed the reading of Scripture. This exposition of Scripture was more a lesson than a sermon, and congregants were encouraged to ask questions. In fact, the asking of questions was so central to the rabbinic teaching method that often the preacher-teacher began his sermon by just seating himself and waiting until someone from the audience asked a question. There is a whole category of Jewish literature called xxx xxxxx (ye lam DE nu ra BE nu, May our teacher instruct us). It is similar to what we now call “Questions and Answers.” Today public speakers often employ a Question-and-Answer period, especially as a means of clarification at the end of a lecture. In first-century Jewish society this approach was usually the main method of instruction.

From Paul’s injunction we learn that at public religious gatherings of early Christians, women sat with men in the same hall, perhaps even next to their husbands or fathers. Paul’s command itself implies a mixed audience: there would have been nothing indecorous about a woman asking a question in a group composed entirely of women.

https://www.cbeinternational.org/re...lace-women-first-century-synagogues-they-were

 

[CS1]

ALSO:
Priscilla, along with her husband, is someone Paul names as a “co-worker” in Christ, and in Acts 18, Priscilla teaches Apollos, a “learned man, with a thorough knowledge of scripture.”

Despite his considerable expertise, Priscilla is able to explain “the way of God more adequately” to him, and he expresses no dismay at her gender.

In many of the passages where she is mentioned, Priscilla’s name is listed before her husband’s, which is noteworthy in a culture that usually placed husband’s names first, suggesting Priscilla, rather than Aquila, was the leader of this particular couple. So far the women in scripture are defying that “complementarian” business by a landslide, and I’m only just getting started.

 

[CS1]

ALL Women saved and full of the Holy Spirit have anointing testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ Which TESTIFYING IS ALSO A FORM OF PREACHING.

 

[Vindicator]

1) the law of the land as Clarke says in his commentary--he was born at the end of the 1700's so I don't think he was in any way a feminist--he was giving us 'just the facts'--plain and simple, with no rhetoric.

Doesn't matter to me what he is. It wouldn't disqualify his theology if to were well founded and logical, but it's not, IMO. No evidence that Paul ever cited Roman law to establish doctrine. He used Jewish Law.

2) or synagogue laws which are not listed in scripture.

No evidence as of yet. Again, I am not averse to the notion. It would carry weight if you could prove it through something. But for Paul to base his teaching on specifically om what the Law said, this assumes his readers understood what he was referring to, and given that in all other cases where he referred to Law he was referencing Jewish Law, we should assume no different here, IMO.

Paul felt it necessary to issue his corrective because in early Christian congregations, following Jewish practice, it was permissible and customary to interrupt the preacher to ask questions. In first-century synagogues, a sermon followed the reading of Scripture. This exposition of Scripture was more a lesson than a sermon, and congregants were encouraged to ask questions. In fact, the asking of questions was so central to the rabbinic teaching method that often the preacher-teacher began his sermon by just seating himself and waiting until someone from the audience asked a question. There is a whole category of Jewish literature called xxx xxxxx (ye lam DE nu ra BE nu, May our teacher instruct us). It is similar to what we now call “Questions and Answers.” Today public speakers often employ a Question-and-Answer period, especially as a means of clarification at the end of a lecture. In first-century Jewish society this approach was usually the main method of instruction.

From Paul’s injunction we learn that at public religious gatherings of early Christians, women sat with men in the same hall, perhaps even next to their husbands or fathers. Paul’s command itself implies a mixed audience: there would have been nothing indecorous about a woman asking a question in a group composed entirely of women.

https://www.cbeinternational.org/re...lace-women-first-century-synagogues-they-were

This is an ecxellent little piece, and would that churches conducted themselves this way today. But there isn't anything here that effects the discussion for me. The question still remains as to what Law Paul was referring to, and despite what my brother has argued for, the Lord's words to Eve were a judicial decree, and enforced in Jewish marriages from that point forward, as is clear from Jewish culture and custom.

 

[John146]

I'll leave this here,

Acts 18:2
And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them,

Acts 18:18
After this, Paul stayed many days longer and then took leave of the brothers and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow.



Acts 18:24-26
24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

I know it well, notice Aquila was there and I imagine doing the correction. And if Priscilla spoke, she had her husband with her as a witness. Plus, notice they took him aside, not publicly.

 

[Laura798]

This would be interesting if you could provide a specific quote identifying something as a written law applicable to the Jews at the time of Christ. Where are you getting this from exactly?

You said my argument is weak, but the Romans had laws as did the synagogues--you quoted Gen 3:16, but that was 2500 years before the law was even given, so that can't be the law Paul is referring to either.

 

[Magenta]

Women are NOT allowed to... own or even read the Holy Bible.

Wow

Are you going to ask Robo to ban all the women here?

 

[John146]

I know it well, notice Aquila was there and I imagine doing the correction. And if Priscilla spoke, she had her husband with her as a witness. Plus, notice they took him aside, not publicly.

I'll even add that this story was not within the assembly of believers.

 

[Vindicator]

ALSO:
Priscilla, along with her husband, is someone Paul names as a “co-worker” in Christ, and in Acts 18, Priscilla teaches Apollos, a “learned man, with a thorough knowledge of scripture.”

Despite his considerable expertise, Priscilla is able to explain “the way of God more adequately” to him, and he expresses no dismay at her gender.

In many of the passages where she is mentioned, Priscilla’s name is listed before her husband’s, which is noteworthy in a culture that usually placed husband’s names first, suggesting Priscilla, rather than Aquila, was the leader of this particular couple. So far the women in scripture are defying that “complementarian” business by a landslide, and I’m only just getting started.

This is very good. Never noticed this passage before. It doesn't say only he was teaching Apollos, but that they were. This would not be violating the scriptural command, for they were speaking as one voice unto him (which implies under the husband's headship and approval), and that's a different thing than the wife doing all the talking.

Excellent : )

24 Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. 27 And when he desired to cross to Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him; and when he arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace; 28 for he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.

 

[Vindicator]

Wow

Comforting, is it not?

Now I know why the Spirit had me jump all over that business. Talk about subjugation... it borders on cult mind-control.

 

[Laura798]

Doesn't matter to me what he is. It wouldn't disqualify his theology if to were well founded and logical, but it's not, IMO. No evidence that Paul ever cited Roman law to establish doctrine. He used Jewish Law.


No evidence as of yet. Again, I am not averse to the notion. It would carry weight if you could prove it through something. But for Paul to base his teaching on specifically om what the Law said, this assumes his readers understood what he was referring to, and given that in all other cases where he referred to Law he was referencing Jewish Law, we should assume no different here, IMO.



This is an ecxellent little piece, and would that churches conducted themselves this way today. But there isn't anything here that effects the discussion for me. The question still remains as to what Law Paul was referring to, and despite what my brother has argued for, the Lord's words to Eve were a judicial decree, and enforced in Jewish marriages from that point forward, as is clear from Jewish culture and custom.

Women being silent isn't doctrine--again it is about orderliness in worship. We are country governed by pagans, but we nearly without exception keep the laws of the land. You said the reader would know what Paul was referring to--I guess since neither of us actually know the answer, then we need to take it in the spirit and context which it was given. To summarize, "Please don't ask questions and interrupt during the assembly--that's not how we do it here--wait until you get home and ask your husband then." and I'll add --husbands feel free to ask your wives when you get home too... (;

 

[Nehemiah6]

Right there according to the word of God NOT CS1, Bible which is God's word. I said women CAN PREACH AND TEACH AS THE WORD OF GOD SHOWS us.

Since God never contradicts Himself, you are simply imagining things. So once again, you are reminded of what is actually in Scripture:
1 TIMOTHY 2: THE ROLE OF WOMEN ACCORDING TO GOD (NOT CS1)
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer [allow] not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
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.

 

[Vindicator]

You said my argument is weak

No, no. I said his argument was weak.

you quoted Gen 3:16, but that was 2500 years before the law was even given, so that can't be the law Paul is referring to either.

Yes, but God was giving laws from the outset. His first law was right here:

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

 

[Magenta]

Comforting, is it not?

Now I know why the Spirit had me jump all over that business. Talk about subjugation... it borders on cult mind-control.

I agree. Not reading or even owning a Bible seems more than a little extreme.

Extreme and against the Word of God. He must have forgotten
that there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus.

The wee elephant used to hold a different position.

 

[SophieT]

What you've had so far, Sophie, are insults. Zero to be proud of yourself over.

why do you feel you need to keep vindicating yourself? you are wrong