Women aren't second-class Baptists, Charles Stanley says

They do. They're called Amish. They don't allow jewelry, makeup, cut hair, require cape dresses and aprons, and even though Paul commanded that women be allowed to pray aloud and preach the word of the Lord in church if they were veiled, they require their women to be veiled and then keep them silent in obedience to Paul's opponents at Corinth. As for the marrying rapists thing, the Amish are NT Christians. And they have no women missionaries among the Old Order--no missionaries at all.

 

1. This passage on "silence" was about tongues.

2. Nope. It is an absolute statement. Women cannot teach OR excercise authority over a man within the home or church.

3. If there was any doubt as to the gender of the person qualified to be an overseer, Paul ended it by saying that he must be a one-woman kind of man, rule his house well, etc. A woman can't be a one-woman kind of man, ever. Except maybe Rosie O'Donnell.

4. Apostle is just a "sent one", a missionary. Junia was a male anyway. The early evidence is that Junia was a male. Nice try.

 

Tauf said

1)Junia was a man.
2)President of the church at Cenchrea. It does not say that at all. It says "a servant". In other words she was an active part of the congregation. She was probably wealthy and loved the Lord and respected her pastor.
Phoebe was a deaconess, which means servant. She did not hold any office of Deacon because she was not qualified to do so.
3)Prisca under her husbands authority and with her husband became friends of Apollos. What they did was nothing more than just witness to him. He was already a learned man, but they just witness to him the Gospel of Christ.
4)When did Paul recommend any women for a preacher. Chapter and verse please.

 

The Greek word for Junia is feminine. There is no mention of the Greek word as being masculine in any Greek texts. The church fathers understood that Junia was a woman. To say that Junia is a man is to undermine the authority of the text and read something else into the Scriptures.

 

Why is Priscilla's name always mentioned before her husband in accordance with the practice of the day?

 

So do you mean women working in the church is evil?

I also did not say that I thought a woman should be pastor of the church. I said working under the leadership of a male pastor. </font>[/QUOTE]Thankful,

You didn't say just "working" in the church. You said,

Mark Osgatharp

 

It is if it involves a leadership position over a man. </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly, Gunther!

Diane

 

Of the six times Aquilla and his wife Priscilla are mentioned, 3 times she is first, 3 times Aquilla is first.

 

The Greek word for Junia is feminine.</font>[/QUOTE]This is patently dishonest. The greek for Junia is not feminine. The name is SO rare, that the exact gender isn't known using only the greek.

The earliest record we have about him is that he was a bishop.

Many years later, a fella thought Junia was a woman. He was wrong though. Nice work building entire doctrines on eisegesis.

 

Iounian is, indeed, feminine. Check out Thayer's Bible Dictionary.

The name appears 3 times in Greek literature. All female. No male. The name Junia was a fairly common name in Latin; Junias was not.

Which is, where?

According to Dr. Leonard Swidler, "No commentator on the Text until Aegidus of Rome (1245-1316) took the name to be masculine." Origen, John Chrysostrom, Jerome all show that she was a woman.

Terrible try. I've done the research, which strongly points in my direction.

 

Do a search guys. A few months ago we had a lengthy discussion Junia and it was found to be both male and female. If you search the archives you could save a lot of repeated info.

I'm off to visitation or I'd do it.
Diane

 

Oh how the fundies like to turn on thier own. One thing that I have seen out of that crowd, it that as soon as they interpret scripture a bit differently than their brethern its disowning time!

They could stand for Stanley to get divorced, and for his church to give a piddling amount to the CP but this disagreement with the BFM 2000 is going to cost him.

 

Well, this is pitiful.

What's next? Priests allowed to marry?

The Ecumenical One World Church is Evolving Right Before our Eyes.

Even so, Come, Lord Jesus.

 

1)Junia was a man.
2)President of the church at Cenchrea. It does not say that at all. It says "a servant". In other words she was an active part of the congregation. She was probably wealthy and loved the Lord and respected her pastor.
Phoebe was a deaconess, which means servant. She did not hold any office of Deacon because she was not qualified to do so.
3)Prisca under her husbands authority and with her husband became friends of Apollos. What they did was nothing more than just witness to him. He was already a learned man, but they just witness to him the Gospel of Christ.
4)When did Paul recommend any women for a preacher. Chapter and verse please. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Hi; Please allow me to join this very interesting subject. I read one person’s comment that if it had not been for the work of a certain woman, her church would have failed. The insinuation perhaps in the thoughts of readers that the end result is justified in disobeying God.

I believe God’s word is so exact that it is never ok to deviate from it. In fact, I think that is what brings about a casual reading of the scriptures. Let me quickly add, that I think it is a casual reading of the scriptures that has brought about the interpetation of women’s place in the church ---- always a little lower than men.

No person can know all the scriptures, but if you find there is any verse that contradictions your perfered opinion; then your opinion should be put on hold until the contradiction is eliminated.

It was mentioned that the woman, Pheobe, was a servant of the church at Cenchrea (Rom.16:1). Did you know the same word “servant” which is translated from “diakonos” is also translated “minister”: Mt.20:26; Mark 10:43; Rom. 13:4; 15:8; Gal. 2:17; Eph 3:7; 6:21; Col. 1:7, 23, 25; 4:7; I Th. 3:2; I Tim.4:6. So does the word mean a worker if it is a woman and a minister if it is a man? Does the word change its meaning based on gender? A study of other scripture is in order.

There is the word “prophecy” spelled with a “c” and prophesy spelled with an “s”. The word prophecy with a “c” is a noun in the Greek and means to foretell the future as given from God for the purpose of telling His people. The recepient of the prophecy relays the divine message. The word prophesy spelled with an “s” is a verb in the Greek and means to forth-tell. To preach, to explain divine things. It takes more work to forth-tell (explain and teach). That’s why it is a verb.

Perhaps it can be easier to understand the difference in those two words by using two words in our English. “Dressing” to go inside a turkey is a noun. But “dressing” to get ready to go eat that turkey is a verb. That’s the difference in prophecy and prophesy. These two words overlap a little, sometimes. But the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by George Ricker Berry says prophecy with a “c” is secondary and incidental.

Now, you know where I’m going don’t you? Anna, the prophetess in the temple when they brought in the baby Jesus ---- did she foretell or did she forth-tell? It says upon seeing Jesus, she spoke of Jesus to all those who looked for the redemption. She didn’t get a divine prophecy of the future. She was teaching concerning the Messiah based upon seeing Jesus in the temple. Then there were the four daughters of Philip who did prophesy, spelled with an “s”. You remember disciples at Tyre told Paul under the unfluence of the Spirit that he should not go to Jerusalem. That sounds like prophecy with a “c”. Then Agabus, a prophet, took Paul’s girdle and bound his hands and feet and said through the Holy Ghost that that was to be in his future in Jerusalem. And they begged Paul not to go. Both before and after Paul went to the home of Philip he received prophecy with a “c”. But when he gets to the home of the four daughters of Philip who did prophesy with an “s”, it doesn’t tell anything that they told him about his future. Why? Because they did not foretell the future. They were fore-tellers. Preachers, teachers, explaining divine things.
There is plenty more scripture indicating that women preached and pastored churches. Acts 2: 18 “...in the last days ...your daughters shall prophesy (with an “s”)” The last days began with the New Testament era. If it began 2,00 yrs. ago, what is it today if it is not the last days? Paul indicated there were women who labored with him and Clement in the gospel. (Philippians 4:3) I asked a preacher one time what kind of labor did those women do that Paul and Clement also did in the gospel. And he said, they followed along with those single men and cooked and washed their clothes. Ha! Ha! Right!!!!! He doesn’t know women nor has he thought about the appearance of evil, if he thinks that. Another time a preacher wrote in a monthly paper on Philippians 4:3 about the “fellow-labourers” with Paul and Clement in the gospel. He forgot that the fellow-labourers Paul was talking about were women. Another --- Ha! Ha!

Now, what do we do with the scriptures that seem (please emphasize the word - seem) to teach that a woman is to keep her lips zipped once she enters an assembly of believers. If those scriptures can not be reconciled with the above, then the truth has not been arrived at, yet.

Speaking of Priscilla and Aquila --- you know they had worship services in their home. She must have had a hard time figuring out when she was allowed to speak and when she wasn’t. Don’t you think? People dropping in with questions. Finishing up the visit with prayer. Was that a worship or was it not? (Anytime two are gathered together in my name there am I also.) It is obvious by the way her name is linked with her husband’s in teaching Apollo that her husband was in agreement that she be allowed to teach. For the man is the head of the woman. The woman is (from her head to her toes) the body of the marriage. The man (from his head to his toes) is the head.They two are one. The body must obey the head.

I Cor. 11:5 “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth (spelled with an “s”) with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head, for that is even all one as if she were shaved. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn; but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.”
This is teaching that if the woman is teaching without the agreement of her husband, she dishonoreth her husband. Shave her physical head. She will be so embarrassed, she will cover her physical head and it will remind her that she is the body and the body must not be naked but must be covered. It is not “seemly that a woman pray to God uncovered.” (And it’s not talking about a scarf, either.)

If a woman is not allowed to pray or prophesy (with an "s") if her head is uncovered (not agreed or allowed by her husband) --- what is the flip side of that? If her head is covered, she is allowed to pray and prophesy (teach) in church.

I Cor. 14: 34 “Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” Please notice the word is “silence” not “silent”. I saw a movie one time of a court room scene with a huge banner across the facing wall which said, “ S I L E N C E”. It didn’t mean speech was forbidden. It meant disruption was not allowed. Those women of I Cor. 14: 34 were told to stop disrupting the church for they were still under obedience as given in the law. Since I have never had anyone explain in literature or orally what it means for the women to still be under obedience as stated in the law, I will make a feeble attempt.

The first five books of the bible are called the law. Numbers 30, the fourth book in the law, (the whole chapter) explains the obedience the women were under then and I Cor. 14 says she is still under. If she has made a vow to serve God in some way, she must get permission from her father if she is not married or her husband if she is. If they refuse, she is not allowed to follow through with her vow of serving the church.

Once last thing, and I’ll give you a rest. How many times have you men, elders and pastors, ever received a letter with the salutation, “Dear elect lady and her children,”? I doubt any man minister has ever been addressed as “lady”. In the second letter of John, he is writing not only to this lady; but he is writing to her children. This has to have been a woman pastor and her congregation. All scripture is divine. II John is scripture. So he was not writing to some obscure woman who had lot of kids. He was address and teaching “her children” as well as the “lady”.
I hope I have not bored you with this length post.

 

1)Junia was a man.
2)President of the church at Cenchrea. It does not say that at all. It says "a servant". In other words she was an active part of the congregation. She was probably wealthy and loved the Lord and respected her pastor.
Phoebe was a deaconess, which means servant. She did not hold any office of Deacon because she was not qualified to do so.
3)Prisca under her husbands authority and with her husband became friends of Apollos. What they did was nothing more than just witness to him. He was already a learned man, but they just witness to him the Gospel of Christ.
4)When did Paul recommend any women for a preacher. Chapter and verse please. </font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]Jailminister:

1. Fine, then Priscilla was a man. I'd hate to think what names you're calling Junia's husband Andronicus by changing her into a man. John Chrysostum knew she was a she. Early scribes, knowing this was a woman, sometimes slipped up and spelled her name Julia.

2. She held the office of deacon because she was called a deacon. Many believe she was president of the congregation because she was called a protasis.

3. Yes, she expounded Scripture to him.

4. Since that was openly twisting my words, I'll back up I said, which is that he commended such women (as in Phil. 4), and authorized their preaching explicitly in 1 Cor. 11.

 

Amen!

I, for a short time, was also caught up in the false charasmatic doctrine. They base what they believe on experience and then twist the Scripture to fit their false doctrine.

 

Stanley a fundamentalists? You've got to be kidding.

 

Gee Jailminister, I notice that no one has answered your question. It seems that all this liberal interpretation cannot stand up to this portion of Scripture.

Every pastor I have ever sat under, or ever will set under, has been the husband of one wife.

Isn't is just simpler to obey the plan teaching of Scripture rather that trying to find away around it.

God save our churches from political correctness.