Women forced to keep silence in Church

[Arrabon]

17 hours ago, Riverwalker said:

I am sorry God is the truth, and His word is the truth.

 

@Riverwalker my brother

Your assuming I meant that 'history" is a replacement for God's truth, which isn't the case at all, and not my meaning in the least.

History and what takes place about a certain topic, can make all the difference in finding out if that topic has been dealt with properly down through the ages, or in this case, over 2000 years.

The word of God didn't just automatically "POP OUT" onto the pages. Every word in scripture has it's own History. It's own TRUE MEANING.

The history of certain things about the United states and it's founders are constantly under attack, with people trying to change the truth, and change history, many times for their own "Devious agenda.

The same is true about the bible  and it's meaning. And also about the church.

In over 2000 years things can change a lot for all kinds of reasons, sometimes changes by people with great power and wealth, enough to threaten and cause death if people don't surrender to their will, again because they have an agenda, and not a good one for the people they control.

If your one of those people who have been told that God watches over the bible so it can't be changed, then you need to read Deuteronomy 4:2, "Do not add to what I have written, and do not subtract from what I have written, but keep the word of the Lord I have given you.

Revelation 22:18-19, "I WARN YOU EVERYONE; if anyone adds anything to My word, God will add plagues to them."

So, by God saying this, means God is saying man has the ability to change God's word, and man has changed Gods word and twisted it's meaning, over and over, and those who follow these changes to word or meaning blindly like sheep to slaughter, and do not study the word for the truth, and don't question everything, like the Bereans did  in the book of acts, that they hear and see, will follow the heresy and false teachings of bible lies and doctrine, until they are utterly and completely  destroyed at the end.

God bless you all as you search for God's truth.

My name is Arrabon

 

 

[Uber Genius]

Love the topic! 

1 Cor 11:5 has attire for women who are "praying and prophecying," which seems a little difficult given the supposed prohibition just 3 chapters later.

Secondly, we have Priscilla "explaining" to Apollos Christian doctrine in Acts 18. Luke uses the exact same word to describe how Peter "explained," his new ministry call to the gentiles. It is hard to misrepresent this verb as not teaching, although my favorite Greek textual scholar, Dan Wallace, certainly gives it the college try in his work on this subject. 

Further I find the attempts to explain away God's use of women leading men found in the OT, to be contrived and ad hoc.

I currently land with women playing every role. 

Paul's discussion with Timothy seems be the biggest problem as it is not directed at a particular church and does seem to be in context and an accurate text.

1 Tim 2:9-15. 

1 - I do not permit women or assume authority over a man.

2 - Women will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and holiness with propriety.

If we want to accept the first one verbatim then it seems exegetically speaking, we are committed to claiming the following:

FOR MEN SALVATION IS BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH NOT AS A RESULT OF WORKS THAT NO MAN SHOULD BOAST!

And 

FOR WOMEN SALVATION IS THROUGH CHILDBEARING AND MAINTENANCE OF FAITH, LOVE, AND HOLINESS

Now who would like to defend that view of soteriology? 

[Waggles]

1Tim 2:14  and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 
15  Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. 

My understanding of verse 15 is not that women obtain salvation through childbearing but rather that women as members of the Apostolic church are blessed and will be saved from the many medical and health dangers of childbearing and birthing.

Women dying from giving birth or suffering "complications" would have been a real danger, as it can still be even today. 

[Arrabon]

53 minutes ago, Uber Genius said:

Now who would like to defend that view of soteriology? 

Well, if this is you own view of salvation (Soteriology), I think you may have way more than enough defending to do on your own, and may not get much help.

Edited February 5, 2021 by Arrabon

[Paul James]

5 hours ago, Starise said:

I'm curious @Paul James what has led you to this study? Are you involved in some sort of situation right now? 

I give little to no credit to anything the RCC has done. Saying they made female references to male references does not surprise me.

I looks to me as if some have tried VERY HARD to explain what apparently the rest of us have all missed. Even after lots of cross referenced study.

The Bible clearly indicates we had women in different ministries. No argument there.

Women have a place the same as men. I don't see the possibility we can ignore this in the Bible. We can't "explain away" all of those references. 

I believe God gives us all a ministry of some kind. No ministry is above another. They are merely in different places doing different things.

Let's look at the head leadership position in the local church. There's a lot more to it than standing behind a pulpit a few times a week and giving a message. Probably not an ideal position for a woman with children or even a single woman. Not to mention I am pretty sure it isn't Biblical. If you could prove it IS Biblical I still would not attend a church with a female pastor, mainly because I don't think they possess the varied set of skills necessary to lead a congregation. Yes they would be good a few things at the expense of others. I think you need a man for that job. Men are the leaders of their families and I think we need to hear from other men who are seeking spiritual leadership of both themselves and their families. Ministering to mom only won't cut it. Most churches have both men's and women's ministries.The women are not left out of any healthy church.

Because I am a graduate of a Bible college with a M.Div, I sometimes get pdf files of different theological theses emailed to me.  The one about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was one of them.   It is a very well researched M.A. thesis in the order of the Corinthian church.   The author has gone very deeply into the issue and presented a convincing argument and conclusion that the prohibition of women ministering in churches is the result of Second Century meddling with the Greek manuscripts available to the Western Latin church.

I am totally convinced that those churches that prohibit women speaking and ministering in church are totally wrong, and have taken a non-Biblical stance through verses re-inserted out of context and edited verses to make it appear that Paul taught it when he did nothing of the sort.

I am a member of a Methodist/Presbyterian Union church and three of our visiting ministers are women, and they are well qualified and respected among the cluster of Union churches in our region.   In my previous Presbyterian church we had a female minister for a number of years, and she did a great job and was a blessing to our church.  The reason why she left us was that she went and did a doctorate in theology.

[David1701]

17 hours ago, Paul James said:

The problem is that it is a historical fact that some of Greek Manuscripts were edited and redacted to suit the preference of the commentators in the Second Century.   So, we have to approach the Scripture prayerfully, seeking the leading of the Holy Spirit in how it should be interpreted.   This is important when we read a passage of Scripture and something about it doesn't seem to fit right.   Seeing that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 doesn't seem to fit the context has made some Bible scholars look more deeply into the text, and compared different Greek manuscripts.  What they found was that the two verses would have fitted better in a different place which made them clearer.

A serious Bible scholar would have instantly been alerted to the contradiction between 1 Corinthians 11 where Paul supported prophecy from females, and 1 Corinthians 14 where he appears to prohibit females from speaking in church.  The scholar would know that the Holy Spirit never contradicts Himself, so, one reference is from the Holy Spirit and the other doesn't, and so further investigation is required to sort out the contradiction.

What???  A "scholar" (at least a Holy Spirit led one) would not be so unbelieving as to assume that 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Cor. 14 contradicted each other; rather, he would harmonise the passages, understanding that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 does not contradict 1 Cor. 11 but complements it, adding information.

Your assumption of a contradiction is based on unbelief.

Let me ask you something here, because I have a suspicion: do you believe that God has preserved his word; or, do you believe that, in textual criticism, the Bible should be treated like any secular book of antiquity?

[Uber Genius]

24 minutes ago, Arrabon said:

Well, if this is you own view of salvation (Soteriology), I think you may have way more than enough defending to do on your own, and may not get much help.

? Que?

What clues in the text suggest that I don't hold that view? 

The principle, in theory, was to illustrate a hermeneutical principle known as perspicuity.

INTERPRET THE UNCLEAR PASSAGES IN SCRIPTURE IN LIGHT OF THE CLEAR PASSAGES ON THE SAME SUBJECT.

I think that it isn't absurd on its face to defend Paul's definition of how women are saved found in Timothy next to the passages on women speaking in the church.

Both are amazingly unclear and in direct contradiction to clearer references in the Epistles by Paul.

[Starise]

23 minutes ago, Paul James said:

Because I am a graduate of a Bible college with a M.Div, I sometimes get pdf files of different theological theses emailed to me.  The one about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was one of them.   It is a very well researched M.A. thesis in the order of the Corinthian church.   The author has gone very deeply into the issue and presented a convincing argument and conclusion that the prohibition of women ministering in churches is the result of Second Century meddling with the Greek manuscripts available to the Western Latin church.

I am totally convinced that those churches that prohibit women speaking and ministering in church are totally wrong, and have taken a non-Biblical stance through verses re-inserted out of context and edited verses to make it appear that Paul taught it when he did nothing of the sort.

I am a member of a Methodist/Presbyterian Union church and three of our visiting ministers are women, and they are well qualified and respected among the cluster of Union churches in our region.   In my previous Presbyterian church we had a female minister for a number of years, and she did a great job and was a blessing to our church.  The reason why she left us was that she went and did a doctorate in theology.

Thank you for giving some background @Paul James. My comments further on it would likely seem very biased to you and maybe they are.  It seems in churches where the Pauline view is held things work well. Nothing ever appeared to be imbalanced in any way.

In the end, it's probably one of those points of contention that will never be settled unless those in favor of can substantiate beyond one or two sources. We would have to go back to those Greek texts and compare. The Bible says to let the older women urge the younger women and to teach what is good. That word teach coming from the Greek would be helpful. Titus 2:3-5

3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

When selecting elders women are not mentioned here-

Appointing Elders Who Love What Is Good

5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint[a] elders in every town, as I directed you. 6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7 Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8 Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

Rebuking Those Who Fail to Do Good

10 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.”[c] 13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good. 

 

[Paul James]

4 minutes ago, David1701 said:

What???  A "scholar" (at least a Holy Spirit led one) would not be so unbelieving as to assume that 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Cor. 14 contradicted each other; rather, he would harmonise the passages, understanding that 1 Cor. 14:34-35 does not contradict 1 Cor. 11 but complements it, adding information.

Your assumption of a contradiction is based on unbelief.

Let me ask you something here, because I have a suspicion: do you believe that God has preserved his word; or, do you believe that, in textual criticism, the Bible should be treated like any secular book of antiquity?

Out of the 25,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, some have the reference at 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and others have it after verse 40, which makes better sense, because it is linked to decency and order in the church rather than a blanket prohibition on women speaking in church.   When the reference is after verse 40, it then appears that when prophecies are given, married women should not be loudly questioning them, but keeping silence and then asking their husbands to explain the prophecies at home.

Textual criticism, along with Redaction and Historical criticism are merely tools for better understanding of the Scriptures, along with exegesis and hermeneutics.  The word "criticism" in this context is not the "put down" kind that holier than thou pelicans in the church do to those who don't come up to their unrealistic standards.   It is more of examination and confirmation that the text that we are depending on is authentic and free from meddling by those with their own theological or cultural bias.

It is like using the internet.  The internet itself is amoral.  It can be used for good, or evil.  One person can use it to inform and bless others as led by the Holy Spirit, and another can use it to view porn.   In the same way, a person can drive a motor vehicle to do the weekly shopping, or be a getaway driver in an armed robbery.

I'm not afraid of textual criticism.  The only ones who should be afraid of it are those whose sacred cow doctrinal positions might be threatened by the truth in the same way that a person with cancer symptoms afraid to go to the doctor in case the doctor tells him that he actually has cancer. 

[Waggles]

30 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Let me ask you something here, because I have a suspicion: do you believe that God has preserved his word; or, do you believe that, in textual criticism, the Bible should be treated like any secular book of antiquity?

Points to which I wrote of in earlier posts.

I have a copy of Harper's Bible Dictionary 1952 (British Edition 1954) in which this modern scholarship attributes, for example, Genesis as being derived from Mesopotamian creation myths. Moses rewriting the Gilgamesh epic concerning the Flood and so on. 

This Bible dictionary is riddled throughout by unbelief and does not uphold the 66 Books of the Bible as inspired by God. 

Too much theology leads to unbelief and worldly wisdom. 

Acts 4:13  Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.

I have a small paperback by some theologian named Unger from the Dallas Theological College who wrote that Pentecostal pastors who only had the Holy Spirit to ordain and teach them, could not possibly be true worthwhile pastors to lead the flock, as they did not have a theology degree from a reputable theological college. They were guilty of being unlearned.

Thank God that Smith Wigglesworth and John Lake did not have their Masters Degrees in Divinity or they would never have accomplished the great Pentecostal revivals of their times. 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Waggles