Women will be saved through Childbearing, if

The passage could be translated that women who teach are not to upsurge authority over the man. I have taken four teacher training classes at the Bible college. Sunday school does not upsurp authority over the pastor of the church if they are male or female. They are to Teach the literal Bible then when people are older they go into the sanctuary and the pastor teachs the meaning of the stories they learned in Bible School. This is why teachers are below the pastors in the Church.

The issue here has to do with doctrine: "‘These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me. They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.’” (Matthew 15:8,9)

Elders in the Church need to have served God for at least 40 years. So if they were born into the church and lived the Christian life they they have to be at least 40. People simply do not qualify if they do not meet this requirement. "Wisdom is found with the elderly, and understanding comes with long life." (Job12:12) This is the definition of the word: בִּֽישִׁישִׁ֥ים. There are two Sheens & three Yods in the word for elder. Einstein summed this up when he said: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough".

Perhaps talking about a "scarlet thread" complicates the issue. The point is that Mary is a descendant of Eve. So in a literal and physical way Jesus was born into the world though Mary.

brothers or sisters
adelphos or adelphas

here's an informative article on the subject:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/adelphos.html

let's not pretend to be Greek scholars just because we can copy-paste from a concordance. because we're not.
but it's obvious that 'brothers and sisters' is three words, a masculine one, a conjunction, and a feminine one, and replacing a single masculine word that's literally 'brothers' with these 3 words is an interpretive choice made by the politics of egalitarianism, not a literal translation. that fact, which i attested, you confirmed. thanks.

The word is "usurp", and it's a poor selection for authentein when paired with "authority" because the word for authority is not in the Greek.

Where in Scripture do you find the requirement that elders be at least 40 years old? Further, why are nuances of the Hebrew language relevant when the NT, in which the directions for church governance, was written in Greek?

Women fellowshipping with men was forbidden before the reformation .They were not allowed to participate in the ceremonies. The government of God had been restored to the period of Judges .No outward representative. It sets the stage

Woman is saved from not ruling over a male,, by childbirth(children) . She can teach the gospel ruling over them .Not the husbands. If they want to teach them they should do it at home. lording it over each other was forbidden .

nice verses but not applicable to what I said

I do see that you think they are

you are trying to prove 'prophets' are over their pastors

nonsense

well, you are responsible then for going over the head of Jesus as well

I know you won't understand and I am fine with that considering your involvement with Kabbalah

actually, getting right down to it, there is no mention of 'pastor' as a role in the NT church...I think has already been shown in this or another thread...anyway it's not a secret. it just is not there


authority in the NT church is handled by 'elders'...those who have proven themselves to be faithful, practicing godly morality and living a life that indicates maturity in the Lord


I don't particularly have any problem with someone being a pastor unless they imagine themselves THE authority

*In the church setting*. Women cannot have authority over men in spiritual matters. Beth Moore is in rebellion against God. Deborah was not.

Your statement in bold simply isn't in the Scriptures... anywhere. Please don't quote 1 Timothy 2:12 at me; that's not what it says.

Not in the sense of the things the modern church expects from someone with such a title. But the word/role itself is certainly in Ephesians 4:11, alternately translated as 'shepherds'

Many churches today expect a 'shepherd/pastor' to be a preacher, a teacher, an evangelist, to visit the sick and elderly, to function as an organizer, a counselor, a master-of-ceremonies, and often also a janitor, grounds keeper and general handyman to boot. A bit like the role a priest plays in the RCC in every way over all the parishioners and serving them in every way, too.
I don't believe this is quite what the NT describes as how the church should function, personally.

Where is that in Scripture?

This entire section is nonsensical and only vaguely related to the words of Scripture. Please take a class in basic English so you learn how to construct complete and coherent sentences. Then, read what the Bible actually says about men and women.

“And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.”

Thats precisely what I’m going to quote. That’s precisely what it says in plain language.

Furthermore, if you judge the fruits of women’s ordination there isn’t a single Christian church that has gone down that road without falling into either deep moral heresy, doctrinal heresy, or both.

Prophets as those who declare the gospel.They are sent out two by two to represent the whole of mankind. (the two will be one in the new order.) They the husband and wife make up the Pastors. The Shepard and Shepardess, a help meet to strength each other. working as one just as God has designed the witness of two or three .Three the other requirement

1 Timothy 3:4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

Its one reason I think Hillary should not been able to be elected .The Clintons had there allotted time. One per couple.

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Its all right in the Bible. Compare the spiritual unseen understansing hidden from the those who have no faith to the same unseen understanding called faith to faith . Don't be ashamed of the gospel rightly divide it

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. Romans1:16-17

A good place to start is when God gave over the unbelieving Jew to do what they should not of. Place a King as a abomination of desolation standing in the Holy unseen place of God's glory .A sign of rebellion. They that have no faith had become Jealous of the surrounding Pagan nations of the world as those who had no circular reasoning as a perfect law but rather chased after the philosophies of men .

That period of time was used as a parable, the signified tongue of God in regard to the things not seen according to the instructions (2 Corinthians 4:18) we are given for rightly dividing teaching how to walk by faith, mixing it in what we see or hear ..

2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure (Parable) for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.Hebrew 9:8-10

Therefore restoring the government of faith to faith, the eternal to the eternal.

If I were one thinking to fake and present the image as one who is a "Greek scholar", I wouldn't post links to articles , and excerpt from said resource, materials that are credited to others that would appear to be quite knowledgeable about Greek language in Biblical times.
Pretending would entail copying and pasting from a Greek concordance, changing a few words around in that pasted copy, and omitting its source. So that when I posted it it would appear it is my personal knowledge sharing in a thread because I failed to credit the actual source of it.
And then if I really wanted to show out when wearing that plagiarist pretender hat, I'd dare criticize someone who responded to my post with cutting remarks about their understanding of the Greek. I may even pretend on a deeper level and claim I've studied Biblical Greek so as to know better than they do what I'm talking about. And then maybe as an added bit of icing to that huge slice of fake, criticize that person for resorting to a Greek concordance in order to rebut my prior post.

Thank God I am not like that.

And further, thank God when I post and credit resource links, I read them fully before thinking to share them so as to support whatever point I hope to make in any thread here.

From your link. Thank you so much for posting that by the way.
"....
Although it is easy to see that political correctness is behind all this, some academics who have made it their business to defend such translations have tried to justify them with sophisticated linguistic arguments that need to be taken seriously. Some have practically claimed that the original text itself does not use male-oriented language. In this article I will respond to them, and I will argue that there is no adequate justification for gender-neutral renderings of the word adelphos.

Actually, there is no decent linguistic argument for "brother or sister" or "sibling" as a translation for the singular adelphos. The word clearly means "brother," not "sibling," because there is no attestation for a gender-neutral usage of the word. An individual female is never referred to as an adelphos in Greek; she is referred to with the word adelphē "sister," and if a writer wishes to be inclusive he must use a compound expression such as adelphos kai adelphē "bother and sister" (see, for example, the usage of the singular forms in the Greek New Testament at Matthew 12:50, Mark 3:35, 1 Corinthians 7:15, and James 2:15). So the rendering "brother or sister" for adelphos in such places as Matthew 18:15 is contrary to Greek usage, and linguistically unsound. When Bible versions like the TNIV use such gender-inclusive expressions in place of "brother" for the masculine adelphos they are simply covering up the male-oriented usage with a paraphrastic rendering."

Nevertheless, there is some evidence from ancient sources that the masculine plural forms of the noun could in some contexts have a gender-neutral sense. In the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Lexicon (2nd ed., 1979) the evidence is stated thus:

".....
Now the question becomes, what sort of contextual clues are necessary for the gender-neutral sense? In particular, we want to know if the vocative adelphoi (used for direct address) in the epistles of the New Testament would have been understood in this neutral sense. We may assume that women were present at the church meetings where these epistles were to be read, and we might naturally suppose that the writers meant to address the entire congregation, both men and women, when they wrote to the congregations. We also note that in some places women are directly addressed in the epistles. On this basis, some have argued that "brothers and sisters" is the ordinary meaning of adelphoi in the epistles. Ian Howard Marshall, who was one of the translation committee members for the gender-inclusive TNIV Bible, has made an argument along these lines in a recent article:




For Reference: The Book of 1st Corinthians chapter 7 (Excerpt)"...


[excerpt, yes, another one: "....Similarly, Mark Strauss writes, "In many contexts, however, the author is clearly addressing both men and women. An example of this is Philippians 4:1-2 where Paul, after addressing the Philippian congregation as adelphoi (v. 1), encourages two women to live in harmony with each other (v. 2)." [6]

But there is a problem with this argument. The problem is, the writers of the epistles ordinarily seem to be "thinking primarily of the men," as Marshall allows, and so his statement that the epistles are "addressed directly to mixed audiences" is rather problematic. [7] If the writer is thinking primarily of the men when he addresses the congregation, then he is not really addressing the men and the women equally. Yet Marshall proceeds to build his argument concerning the meaning of adelphoi squarely on the idea that men and women are addressed equally, as equals, in the epistles of the New Testament. It is largely on the basis of this idea that a gender-neutral sense for adelphoi is posited by him and by Strauss. The whole argument collapses under the simple recognition that the apostles directed their attention primarily to the men, and used language which reflected this orientation. There is no intent to "exclude women," but the habits of speech reflect a male orientation.

Sometimes it is important to recognize that the writer is focusing on males when he addresses the congregation. For example, in 1 Corinthians 14:39 Paul says, "Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy," but in verses 34-35 he says "women should keep silent in the churches" and "it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." Clearly, the vocative adelphoi in verse 39 must not be gender-inclusive. It makes no sense for Paul to be telling the sisters to "be eager to prophesy" in church after he has prohibited them from speaking. But if someone is reading a gender-neutralized Bible version which always gives an "inclusive" rendering for adelphoi, he will certainly be thrown off track at this point, because the translation gives a false impression of the "inclusivity" of the discourse.

Due to post limits this reply is in two parts.
Reply part two link post #297

Reply part 2

Strauss's argument is especially weak, because he offers as evidence Philippians 4:2 (where Paul beseeches Euodia and Syntyche to be of the same mind) while failing to notice that here the two women are not addressed directly—their names are in the accusative case, not the vocative. In the next sentence Paul does use the vocative when he directly addresses a man, however (the "true yokefellow" or Syzygus). [8] So Philippians 4:1-2 seems to be yet another example of how Paul tends to address men directly and women indirectly in his epistles, and it will not serve Strauss's purpose.


Marshall points to 1 Cor 7.8-16 which, according to him, "directly addresses both men and women." Yet it should be pointed out that up to verse 16 in this chapter there is no direct address, and in verse 16 the direct address is in the form of a rhetorical apostrophe, singular in number ("O wife ... O man"), not a vocative plural ("you wives ... you husbands") addressed directly to the men and women of the congregation. And further on in the chapter we see the usual habit of addressing men directly and women indirectly—"if you marry, you have not sinned, and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned." (Verse 28. The man is addressed with second-person forms of the verbs, and the woman is referred to in the third person.) There is no escaping the fact that this feature of discourse is habitual in Paul's letters and throughout the Bible. We also note that Marshall and Strauss in their arguments are practically claiming that "brothers and sisters" is the default meaning of adelphoi in the epistles, and that the masculine sense is not to be recognized except in contexts where it is clearly required. But this turns the normal pattern of usage on its head. The linguistic evidence shows that the opposite was true: it was the gender-neutral sense that required a contextual clue.

To his credit, Marshall at least seems to recognize the fact that linguistic evidence stands in the way of his conclusion. He tries to minimize the importance of the linguistic evidence from the Septuagint by saying that the usage of adelphoi found there does not reflect the "new situation created by the birth of the church." He maintains that the peculiar social context of the New Testament indicates a default gender-neutral sense for adelphoi because "there is a new situation in the Christian church in which women are given a new position, and this helps to explain the development of a different usage appropriate to that situation." This supposed egalitarian state of affairs in the early Church "provides a context in which the language of Christian discourse was being shaped." Although the society was still male-dominated, "it was in process of being changed." The neutralized adelphoi makes sense because it "corresponds with the direction of the redemptive trajectory in Scripture that sees male and female as 'all one in Christ Jesus,'" he says. [9] These statements are very remarkable if they are seriously offered as philological data. In effect, Marshall is saying that despite the evidence, adelphoi must have been a gender-neutral word in such an egalitarian context as the early Church, and as used by such egalitarian persons as Paul and the other apostles.


As pertains to the criticism in your linked article, they appear to be quite well versed, however, what the author fails to realize is that Paul decreed there is no gender separation in the Ekklesia. Nor is there racial or cultural. Because , as he stated, we are all one in Christ Jesus.
When we are all one, and there is no male nor female, we may presume that Paul's writings , at first in Hebrew and then transcribed to the Greek, being he was a learned Jew?, would then reflect that unity when he sought to address the whole of the congregation that would include both male and female.

And as the article linked informs, gender neutral language for adelphoi is common and appropriate at times. Therefore, if we proceed on the understanding that Paul considered the body of faithful to whom he addressed his epistles to be united as one, with no gender segregation among them in matters of learning God's word, the appropriate context of adelphoi would be appropriate and understood as such.

In the matter of the article authors observation of the Epistle of 1st Corinthians chapter 14, women being quiet in church, "...Clearly, the vocative adelphoi in verse 39 must not be gender-inclusive. It makes no sense for Paul to be telling the sisters to "be eager to prophesy" in church after he has prohibited them from speaking." The author I believe fails to take into account the context behind that admonition.

Women and men were indeed separated in temple and this so as to insure strict attention to the teachings going on. Which is why the admonition that women should remain quiet in church, but what the article author fails to include is the wisdom that lay behind that admonition , as he did not include that from chapter 14. "If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. "

When men and women were separated into two parts in one building, a woman who would seek understanding from her husband would need stand and shout so as to gain either his or the rabbi's attention. This of course would, should many women begin their own queries after the first sister began, cause quite a stir during the sermon and as such discord as it would most certainly lead to a debate.

This latter part of the chapter being omitted in the critique of Paul's use of adelphoi can cause confusion as to full understanding in context, after the author admitted there were occasions wherein the gender neutral use of adelphoi is witnessed and appropriate in writings. And most importantly, did note that this gender neutral predilection did appear to be a pattern of usage by Paul in his letters.

And why not?
It would be consistent with Paul proclaiming there is neither male nor female....(The Book of Galatians chapter 3:28) because we are all one in Christ Jesus. It would stand to reason therefore that Paul would have that noted pattern of usage of adelphoi as gender neutral in application and to that end; the oneness of the Ekklesia. And, "...29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. "

One=εἱς (heis)
Strong: G1520, G3391

GK: G1651

numeral one, Mt. 10:29, freq.; only, Mk. 12:6; one virtually by union, Mt. 19:5, 6; Jn. 10:30; one and the same, Lk. 12:52; Rom. 3:30; one in respect of office and standing, 1 Cor. 3:8; equivalent to τις, a certain one, Mt. 8:19; 16:14; a, an, Mt. 21:19; Jas. 4:13; εἱς ἕκαστος, each one, every one, Lk. 4:40; Acts 2:3; εἱς τὸν ἕνα, one another, 1 Thess. 5:11; εἱς καὶ εἱς, the one- and the other, Mt. 20:21; εἱς καθ’ εἱς and ὁδὲ καθ’ εἱς, one by one, one after another, in succession, Mk. 14:19; Jn. 8:9; as an ordinal, first, Mt. 28:1


Great article. Thanks for posting it.

You will believe as you wish. That you separate the Ekklesia due to gender and disqualify a woman from the office of Deacon, preacher, Shepherd, and contrary to the actual facts of the matter, is between you and God. He who knows, there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

To address in particular the part of your reply that I put in bold.
The order of gifts in that passage does not decree order of importance of said gifts. Nor does it imply that which is superior to that gift that follows in the order of gifts. You fail to take into account what we are told in the Saint Apostle Paul's letter to the church in Galatia.
The Book of Galatians chapter 3.
And that is that there is no division in the Ekklesia, church. When there is no division in the church body, no male, no female, no Greek, no Jew, because we are all one in Christ Jesus, then it stands that there is no order of superior office in the decree of gifts God grants unto the Ekklesia that are serving according to the promise as one.

Furthermore and lastly, that both men and women prophesied, and were Shepherds (pastors) and Deacons, is further proof of that oneness and omission of hierarchy, as did exist in the temple prior to Christ. When all served as one, then all gifts given by God for service are given in the spirit of the oneness God decreed for and as the body of the Ekklesia that doth serve.

If we are to speak in terms of Baseball as you did, this would mean 7 knocked it out of the park with their reply. Whereas you, new to the word, are just first up at bat. That's not a bad thing.

doesn't matter what anyone expects

what matters, is actually God actually calling an individual, filling them with His Spirit and putting the gift inside them He wishes them to have

schools of theology send out reams of unqualified people, according to God's standards, who teach unbiblical premises and follow worldly advice on how to grow their church

so we now have practicing homosexuals playing at being saved, porn watching elders, musicians who do not believe in God but can play or sing well, etc and of course I don't mean every church or every person but the overall state of things is bad and getting worse

I actually grew up in a church, where I was saved, that functioned with elders and some guest speakers now and then

but the elders were the backbone of the church and they still function the same way.

the 'modern' church is not an improvement