Originally Posted by Jeffrey (Post 856782)

A couple days is always a couple hours for you :) ha

I wasn't attacking, I'm responding to what are just arrogant personal insults yourself. Read what you write. Take a breath and read it again, and you tell me how you'd perceive it in someone else's shoes. If it's a personal attack by me pointing it out, then I guess the score is even.

Not really interested in discussing these appeals outside of Scripture...which have nothing to do w/ the literal text itself.

You haven't adequately dealt with your unbiblical distinction between "sermonizing" and preaching. I think this is a huge vulnerability for your argument.

And you have not answered my question to you regarding these matters. So, let's try it again. Are you suggesting that a sermon [in contemporary vernacular] is not to be considered preaching? Pls. don't say yes!

Because it's found it all the manuscripts we have available, I don't think one can say it's not there. But from a literary and linguistic standpoint, it certainly is suspect as being Pauline.

Contrare' Monfrare. The passage appears in most [if not all] Greek manuscripts , which numbers over 5,000. Try again. The passage is entirely Pauline as seen in his treatment of the same subject in I Tim. 2, where he also mentions women being in "silence" in the church setting. You're the one suggesting that this is anti-typical of Paul, but the literal text will not support your hypothesis that it "CERTAINLY" is suspect. Not at all, when you dig a little deeper.

Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned 7 times in the NT, the most mentioned ministry partners to Paul. Of the 7 times, Priscilla is mentioned first 5 times-- hardly split down the middle.

Will go back & look at this, as I simply quoted from memory above, but could've been mistaken. Regardless, how in the world does this invalidate Paul's clear teaching's in I Tim. 2 & I Cor. 14? Talk about swatting at shadows! Does this mean that everytime I refer to a woman's name 1st, she's now a "preacher"?




Interesting also that instead of just addressing the head honcho, they are always mentioned together. They were leaders of a house church where they both teached others about Jesus.

Wow, what an unbiblical assertion! Pls. provide the passage that explicitly states what you say here [i.e., "they both teached" in a house "church"]:______________? So, according to your theology, Priscilla was violating Paul's teaching in I Tim. 2 & I Cor. 14 eh'?

If you can't provide a passage that affirms this emphatical statement, then it's merely an excercise in eisegesis. Besides, if Sis. & Bro. Smith are allowing the church to meet in their house, does this mean that she's a "preacher"? I guess we just make things up as we go along?

This was before platforms, pulpits, microphone and big king-sized chairs where the elite men of God sit above the low-lifes.

Could care less about "king-sized" chairs. But, you apparently do not honor the God-called ministry that labors night & day for the kingdom, who is constantly on call, & under attack by satan. Besides, Ezra read the law from a platform of some sort, as well as a pulpit if memory serbes me right. Not hardly "before platforms"!

2 Tim needs to be understood in its fuller context first, before we can understand the verse specifically. For example, who was Hymenaeus? What primary problem is Paul addressing? Is "peacefulness" or 'silence" the right translation? 2:8 makes us feel like there was some very angry disputes, and malicious bickering going on. Were they arguing over upper-class women parading their wealth at worship? Were they dressing like the priestesses of Artemis?

Presumably you mean I Tim. 2, not 2 Tim.? The entire epistle of I Tim. was addressed "so that you may know how to behave yourself in the house of God, which IS THE CHURCH...." And from this setting he commands, "I do not allow a woman to teach, or to have authority over a man. She is to remain silent." Who in their right mind would read this & say, "O' God must believe in women preacher's"? Absolutely NO ONE w/ an honest heart!

Joel's prophecy of the last days includes both men and women. Is women in this chapter really the same word for "wife?" And how does that change the meaning of the Text? And Paul's "I do not permit" -- is it in the aorist tense or present tense, or even future indicative? Is this a temporary discouraging of women teaching or a timeless principle for the church? Does it relate to the current situation or something for the whole church? As one theologian puts it:
An already established universal rule on women not teaching would already be understood by Timothy. Paul would not be writing in the present active indicative mood.

Nice try, but not hardly. An already esablished rule on women dressing midestly would've also been established, so now I suppose that we should also drop his teachings on modesty also???? Try again! And whether aorist, present, perfect, or future tense matters not, the force of the Scripture still stands for the "church". You're simply raising smoke screens.

Was all of this concerning a local problem of false teachers? What evidence do we have that Paul's commendation of Priscilla teaching being just to young women? That certainly isn't even implied.

Wrong again friend. Paul was the one who admonished that the "Older women teach the younger women". I suppose that Priscilla was exempt from his clear teachings?

There are many instances of Paul praising women who teach the truth (such as Priscilla), see Acts 18:2,18,26; 1 Cor. 16:19; and Romans 16:3; Phoebe, a "diakonon" servant/minister in Romans 16:1, Junia in Romans 16:7, "outstanding among the apostles" Nympha, and "her house church"-- the only leader mentioned by name in Laodicea, Col. 4:15. Also Euodia and Syntyche who "contended at my side in the cause of the gospel" verbally wrestling with unbelievers, Phil. 4:1-3. He hails many other women as co-workers in Christ Jesus. If Paul had issued a blanket edict against all women teaching everywhere Paul would have reprimanded these women instead of praising them!

And which one of these were teachers/preachers in a church setting:__________? Biblical example pls.! You're describing women who were helpers, just as the text says about Phoebe. It's not at all clear if Junia was a man or woman, but the name is a 3rd declension masculine noun heavily tipping the scales in favor of a man. Sorry Charlie, try again! Besides, I deal w/ every one these "examples" in my book, dealing w/ the Greek as well.

What does the word prophesy mean in Paul's usages? It does not exclusively refer to foretelling of events. Granted, prophesy is certainly not teaching, but on the matter of preaching, I don't see a difference here. Both are inspired utterances intended and given to the church for its edification.

You ignore the primary definition of prophecy here, inporting your theology, not the actual text. Prophecy is ALWAYS done spontaneously in the Bible, it's NOT a sermon from the Scriptures, as attempted to pass in contemporary ecclessiology. Pls. show where anyone "prophesied," taking a Scriptural text in the Bible:_________? I'm sure I know your response here, but will just wait before I address it.

You are always "amazed" at everything I say. Everything you say is a homerun, and everyone else is a strike out. Now THAT'S amazing to me! Yes, Paul was very egalitarian.

"the head of the woman is man." Yea', reeeeeeeeeal "egalitarian"?

I challenge you to consider a class on the Pauline epistles. No other NT figure said that there was no more class distinctions between Jews or Greeks or men and women. Paul's working and dealing with women is unprecedented.

Gal. 3:28 is in salvifical context & does no violence to his plain teaching in I Tim. 2 & I Cor. 14. You're meshing contexts, which is poor hermeneutics.

I think 1 Tim 2 needs to be discussed and I can understand the passion on the issue. I'm not certain enough to make a position on this. Fact is, is this really a problem in North America? The congregations of women pastors are 80% women -- in other words, men aren't flocking there. But neither does this exclude women from being sent as Apostles and missionaries and into their neighborhoods, to tell people about our Master Jesus.

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear (Post 856867)

another rendering says:

v11 The *Lord gave a message
and a large number of women passed on the good news.

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear (Post 856883)

Voices from History

The radical change that happened during Constantine’s reign when Christianity became the official religion of Rome meant that Roman culture and pagan concepts would be mixed with pure Christianity. Thus they would try to ban the use of women through their pagan ideas once again.
Secular history supports the fact that women were preachers. Oregenes talks about it in his writing that the women went to far away areas carrying the gospel.
CHRYSOSTOM of the fourth century wrote "the women of those days were more spirited than lions, sharing with the Apostles their labors for the Gospel’s sake. In this way they traveled with them and performed small ministries such as supplying the material needs of their brethren, as well as, participating in missionary work" (See Chrysostom & Theodore).
IRENAEUS, acknowledged the Gifts of the Spirits were liberally bestowed on all ranks of the faithful on women as on elders, on boys as well as on bishops.
DOWELL, in Dissections of Irenaeus says, “the gift of the spirit of prophecy was given to them besides the Apostles: and that not only in the first, second, but in the third century even to the time of Constantine men had these gifts; yea, and women too."
TERTULLIAN, one of the oldest historians was quoted in an article, The Indian Standard (a Presbyterian magazine in India): AIn the Catacombs are found representations of women clergy and they are shown presiding at the Lord’s Supper...."
TERTULLIAN, was in intolerant of women, but he acknowledged that "Holy Priscilla had preached the
Gospel." Tertullian disliked Christian women doing visitation work saying, "What heathen will suffer his wife to go about from one street to another to the houses of strangers, to the meanest hovels, indeed, to visit the heathen? What heathen will allow her to steal away to the dungeon to kiss the chain of the martyr?"
Tertullian went as far as to deny the authenticity of a baptism performed by a woman. This seems to prove that the practice of baptism performed by women was happening in his day. But this early church father came to recognize that even a woman, if she “spoke with the Spirit” had more authority in then that of the greatest bishop. He represented an empty office compared to a woman who represented the Spirit.

Originally Posted by rdp (Post 857981)

Tertullian was around 200 A.D. & is called the "father of the trinity". Hardly an exemplarary witness!

Originally Posted by jfrog (Post 858059)

prax seems to believe he was oneness, maybe not all is as it appears! ;)