Originally Posted by Sister Alvear (Post 856526)

. Romans 16:12 Salute Trephine and Tryphosa, who labor in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which labored much in the Lord. Trephine, and Tryphosa, women, and who labored much in the Lord. These are all women; yet the same apostle that wrote I Corinthians 14:34 said in I Corinthians 16:16, that ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboreth. (Be in subjection, RV) to everyone that helpeth with us and laboreth.

"I urge you to be subject to such M-E-N and to every fellow worker and laborer." [I Cor. 16:16, RSV]. Looks like you left part of the verse out Sis. Alvear. The context of this particular passage was "MEN"...not women. My wife is a laborer in the Lord, but she doesn't get up & instruct men in the church. She would be going against clear Scripture if she did....& she won't do something in flagrant violation to the Scriptures like that. Are you proposing that everyone who "labors in the Lord" is now a "preacher" in the sense of the 5-fold ministry? Respectfully [& I'm sincerely mean that], this is grabbing at straws.

So it behoves us to rightly divide the scriptures...while you might not want a woman to be your pastor there are millions yea millions that women have ministered to over the years.... especially on the mission field.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey (Post 856541)

Look if you want to be cocky and dismissive about it, your speech and debate vocabulary and throw-ins of the word "context" do nothing to show us how smart you are.

Don't attack me [i.e., "show us how smart you are"] if you haven't done your homework. I simply do not place a premium on ignorance. And Ad Hominem scorn does not address the issues at hand.

I was making a specific point about your hair splitting between preaching and sermonizing. Think it back over and maybe you'll catch that.

Already addressed this, go back & see response.

This Argumentum ad Populum rebuttal to everything is frankly old.

Perhaps that's because it's a tested & true logical fallacy. Ever thought of that? You just blindly commit it again below.

My point was, and still is, if the majority of scholars that have examined these subjects, as well as the traditional and historical understanding conflict with your opinions, perhaps you should check your tone, and approach this with a little more humility than trying to come on here and shove your forceful opinion down every throat on AFF.

I see, & you're just a little darling aren't you? Seems to me like you can dish it out, but........ Where in the world do you get that "majority of scholars...conflict w/ my opinion"????????????? I know tons of scholars & hardly any of them are in agreement w/ the "women preacher" doctrine. I could name them here, but will let them speak for themselves.

I'm happy to interact with you despite a varying opinion like that. Cocky people just make me want to argue, and it detracts from real discussion.

I agree, but don't attack me based off of your muddied perceptions & think I'm just take it. This really has nothing to do w/ the topic at hand.

Also, please elaborate further on your criticism of Norris' "sloppy scholarship." Be specific if you can. You like to type long responses, so you shouldn't mind that request :)

Why is Priscilla mentioned before Aquilla? What was their role? What about Nymphas?

C'mon man, I've addressed this already. This is just plain silly. If you look at every time their names are mentioned in the Bible, it's split right down the middle who's name is mentioned first. So much for that theory. Besides, how in the world does one name appearing before another invalidate the clear teaching of I Tim. 2 & I Cor. 14????? Swatting at shadows.

My comments about 1 Cor 14 -- you dismiss it so quickly that it's hard to take you serious. Assertions? The evidence many scholars cite are not mere assertions. The topic of women being silent does not fit anywhere in the topic outline or scope of the Corinthian letter. I think it's a theory to consider. Even with it there, it must be reconciled with 1 Cor 11, where praying and prophesying are directed toward women.

Have you ever heard of the difference between "Destructive Criticisms" & "Constructive Criticisms"? You're employing the former as opposed to the latter. You really should read Daniel Wallace's remarks on the passage in Lee Strobel's, "The Case for the Real Chrsit". Wallace is a textual/Greek genius & he says that there's no doubt that the passage is authentically Pauline. He bases his assertion from other scholars. I'm well familiar w/ the argument here & it enjoys little attention from serious scholars. The passages are genuine.

Prophecy is NOT sermonizing from the Scriptures as in modern vernacular, but it's a spontaneous revealing of God's future plans & the hidden realm. But it's N-O-T expositing from the Scriptures to a gender mixed congregation of believers. How many times have I demostrated this from Scripture here? Go back & read my previous posts & get back to me.

Nevertheless, what of Norris' suggestion that Text is dealing with husband and wives, as it says explicitly?

Say what???? Where does the actual text of I Tim. 2:11-15 "say explicitly" that it dealing w/ "husband & wife"????? Do you & Norris just make things up as you go along????

Then there is the idea that Paul is citing a Corinthian question. Others suggest that the overall issue of disorderly prophesy and tongues is related to women that called out to their husbands in a disorderly way and took Paul's egalitarian "there is no male nor female" all the way until there was a violation of social order -- where there was no distinction of genders at their gatherings. But I'm anxious to hear a discussion on 1 Tim 2 further.

Your assertion here that Paul was "egalitarian" is unreal. Paul is attacked over & over because of his complimentarian posture by liberals.

I've already addressed I Tim. 2 ad nauseum in this thread & do not have time right now. Perhaps I could send you a copy of my book regarding these matters, where I deal w/ the Greek & EVERY argument regarding women preacher's.

I try to reconcile that with those who helped lead the church in the NT that were, in fact, women.

Where's your Scriptural example of a woman preacher in an ecclessiological context:__________? It doesn't exist, doesn't this bother you at all????

If you wish to berate my intelligence, have at it. It only shows your own lacking. But if you wish to use your knowledge on this subject, and as you understand it, to interact on the points, then please do. But get off your dismissive 3-argument rebuttal. Because an argument is popular does not mean it's right, but it certainly lends much more credibility in the process of debate.

More ad hominem attacks from your perception level. I'm not berating your intelligence, but some of this stuff is just absurd. Your last statement is entirely off base. If this were the case, then the Jews were accurate in ther charges against the Christ....right? After all, they were in the "Majority"????? You really need to rethink your positon.

As far as your Greek pal, I won't research him. I don't care to. I just found it funny that you tried to use him as your trump card "expert," when in fact, there are hundreds of scholars that have written positions on this subject that would be in disagreement.

Originally Posted by Bowas (Post 856573)

Sad indeed the "Apostolic" movement tries so hard to wrest what the Apostles clearly taught about the God ordained order for the church.
I guess we too, are following the ways of the the Church "world" and allowing it's thoughts and views to encroach in our churches. Sad.
I know, many will continue to "defend" their position and the role of the woman in the church will continue to encroach into the arena God set up as men of God become less manly and continue to allow the reversal of the roles God has set up.