WOMEN PREACHERS

Yes, but by using the name 'feminist' you align yourself in the stereotypical camp of the radicals, intentional or otherwise. And I have gone into the dangers of that association at some length already in this thread.

Knowing the Lord is jealous of those who are called by His name, and since you have nothing in common with the ungodly women who are known by that name, I don't understand.

But it's not necessary that I understand, is it? God Bless, Scarlett. I wish you every good thing.

 

Paul certainly gave a lot of ammunition to people today to believe he was a woman hater. But the fact is the letters to the Corinthians were exactly that, to them, for their problems in organizing their church. It was never intended to be a blueprint of ALL churches to exclude women from ministry or leadership positions in the church. I rebuke anyone who suggests women are anything less than equal to men in the church!

 

I Paul meant what he said as a blanket statement for all time in all situations, yes I'd rebuke him. But HE didn't. They were letters to the Corinthians!

There is interesting consideration of Paul in many Christian schools of Theology regarding his motives and interpretations of his "thorn in his side."

He was married at least at one time, though he wasn't later, as evidenced by his membership in the Order of the Saducees. Of course, in those days, one could get divorced by simply saying, "I divorce thee." Maybe he just had it in for women. I don't know, But maybe I'm a heretic for even considering the human side of anyone who was chosen for publication in the Holy Bible by a King of England.

 

Paul was not a Saducee, Paull was a Pharisee. He even proclaimed it in one of his epistles.

 

The only valid rebuke you might attempt would be based firmly on clear teachings by the Word of God. Anything else is a vain attempt to speak for God because someone disagreed with you as if God is beholden to you for His opinions.

God inspired Paul... not you. Paul performed signs to verify that calling- You haven't. Paul met Christ physically- You haven't. Paul received visions from God- You haven't.

In short, God authorized Paul to transmit doctrine to the church and rebuke false teachings- both specifically and by principle.

The question is, Where do you think your authority to rebuke others outside of the teachings of scripture comes from?

 

Look, I could easily do without any of Paul's books having been included in the Bible. Call me a heretic. But just because the Bible doesn't address something, or even if it did specifically for the Corinthians, nowhere else does it suggest that "for now and forevermore, women can't preach!"

It does tell me to love. It doesn't tell me not to eat rocks. Come on, the bible is not the complete source of God's wishes.

 

You are a heretic.

 

And actually, it's in 1st Timothy, who pastored at Ephesus.

Do we have a troll in Super Baptist ?

 

Evidence that Paul did not meet Jesus, and was unaware of most of the miracles associated with him, is presented in this letter written to a Christian acquaintance.

“The...Pauline letters...are so completely silent concerning the events that were later recorded in the gospels as to suggest that these events were not known to Paul, who, however, could not have been ignorant of them if they had really occurred.

“These letters have no allusion to the parents of Jesus, let alone to the virgin birth. They never refer to a place of birth (for example, by calling him 'of Nazareth'). They give no indication of the time or place of his earthly existence. They do not refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution. They mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas, nor Peter's denial of his master. (They do, of course, mention Peter, but do not imply that he, any more than Paul himself, had known Jesus while he had been alive.)

“These letters also fail to mention any miracles Jesus is supposed to have worked, a particularly striking omission, since, according to the gospels, he worked so many...

“Another striking feature of Paul's letters is that one could never gather from them that Jesus had been an ethical teacher... on only one occasion does he appeal to the authority of Jesus to support an ethical teaching which the gospels also represent Jesus as having delivered.”--G.A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (pp. 22-23).

Paul was writing about Jesus twenty or more years before the synoptic authors' gospel stories were written. If Paul knew Jesus was

born of a virgin,
baptized by John
called his "son" by the Lord
transfigured on the mountain

and

walked on water
stilled storms
converted water to wine
fed nine thousand people on handfuls of bread
cured the deaf and blind
drove demons into a herd of pigs
raised a man from the dead

and was

betrayed by Judas
denied by Peter
abandoned by his disciples

and

left an empty tomb behind for Mary to find,

then why in the world would Paul not have written down this information somewhere, if not in his letters to the churches and certain individuals, if he had known about them? Are these events not among the most astonishing for mankind since the beginning of time?

Apologists say that we should forgive Paul for not describing these events in his letters to individual churches and in some cases to individuals, because we should assume that they already knew about them. Even if that were true, what about the rest of the world? What about those people in Israel who had not yet heard the about the many wondrous events listed above? Rather than rely on the propagation of what you believe are the oral stories of the many events described above, don't you think that Paul would have written other letters, or even his own "gospels", for those people, and for you and me, if he had really known about these events, if indeed they had even occurred? Don't you think he would want to put down in more permanent form--on paper--a record of the most remarkable events since the dawn of time? Why would he let mankind wait twenty years for Mark, Matthew, and Luke to do this?

A five-round debate on the silence of Paul was conducted on the between me and the pseudonymous J P Holding on the Theology Web. In defending against claims that Paul would have wished to put the miracle stories in writing if he had known about them, Holding asserts that the oral propagation of stories in that time was a highly structured, well –disciplined art which ensured that accuracy was maintained, and thus there was no need for a written record. I will let readers consult the debate on the Theology Web if they're interested in seeing what my response there was. I would, however, like to add one more thing to support my argument. I forget who wrote the words below.

In those times, as now, it is generally expected that stories which propagate only orally will be changed to suit the needs of the story-teller's audience, as well as to further the aims and agenda of the story-teller. Wherever and whenever verbal accuracy was highly valued and expected, it was within the context of the existence and reliance upon the ultimate authority—the written text. Thus, without the written proof-text, orally transmitted stories were assumed to be unreliable.

Note added March 25, 2004:

I'm as firm a believer as anyone that Paul didn't know about the historical
Jesus, and therefore that the gospel stories were not extant in the time of
Paul, but would have been if they were true. However, the true-believer has a
comparatively easy way to explain why Paul made so few references to the
historical Jesus, in my opinion. They will say that the people of that time were
steeped in the gospel stories--they were stories deeply ingrained in the minds of
everyone. Thus, Paul may have focused on comparatively minor issues relating
to Jesus and Christianity, knowing that he could take for granted that his
listeners and readers already were well familiar with the Jesus stories. It might
have been then as it was in discussing the Lincoln assassination to an
audience in 1885; twenty years after the fact, no one would need to be reminded that
Lincoln was president, led the Union Army to victory in a great war, or even
indeed that that was a great war, and was assassinated by an actor. Everyone
already knew those important facts backward and forward, and so the speaker
might concentrate on more mundane, less important issues. That's how it might
have been, they will say, and that argument is not as easy to counter as
skeptics would like to believe.

Also, perhaps Paul DID write and speak at great length about the historical
Jesus, but those speeches and writings were lost.


This was originally on the web at:
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/What_Did_Paul_Know.htm


Admittedly, Pauline and Petrine branches of Christianity are equally guilty of their discrimination against women in a modern day when women are just as educated and have just as important a soul.

It is embarrassing that any Christian stands behind these outdated arguments.

Please, do you not eat pork, shellfish?

Things change, the church must. And the Word of God lives!

 

Bro Curtis, I am a born again Christian that is saved by grace and follows the teachings of Christ. I don't assign "infallibility" to anyone whose writings are included in the Holy Bible. They were humans, lest we forget. Otherwise anyone could claim to have been inspired by God and we would just have to believe them.

This is why we have a Living Word, called the Holy Spirit.

I'm sure if Jesus said the same thing you'd call him a troll too.

 

WOW!! I think Paul held women in high regard...we see Lydia (the Seller of Purple) as one of the founders of the church at Philippi..we see Paul acknowledge dn even commend Timothy's Mother & Grandmother for what they taught Timothy. So to say that Paul discreditted women is 1) blasphemous and 2) shows a lack of understanding of the scriptures.

Now on the subject of women preachers as it pertains to the church at Corinth. We must understadn that Corinth was a city heavily influenced by false idol worship and one of the biggest was the goddess diana. the temples to diana were full of splendor and sexual sin those who ruled were priestess and I believe Paul was trying to keep the Christians at Corinth who were out of this old worldly idol worship from letting it influence the Church. I believe the Bible has established the man as the leader of the Home (Adam), the Government (past leaders, judges, Kings, etc.) and the Church (the 12 disciples were men, the early Church leaders were men, etc.) so I think that while God id use women it was in direct support of a weak male leader not in place of a weak male leader.

Does this mean that women are inferior? NO Does this mean that women can not be leaders under the umbrella of the Church? NO Does this mean that women can not be the Pastor of a Church? YES I think God throughout the OT & NT establishes this not only by word but also by example. Should women be silent in the Church? NO Their influence is profoundly important and a man who says that women must sit in the pew and be quiet is a False Teacher....period!

 

Also, correction, Paul was apparently a member of the San Hedron, requiring marriage of its members. Apparently, he was later divorced, who knows?

 

I ascribe to the infallibility of the One who inspired them. Yes, others have claimed to have spoken with God and have added their words to the Bible but God validated those in the Bible through the miracles that they performed. So let the fruitcakes from New York, Utah, or Hollywood have their visions but God is the one who has allowed the scriptures to stay intact as they are and to be written as they are...period!!

Paul was most certainly after Christ's earthly walk and ministry whether you want to give him credit or not does little to change the subject. He most certainly was called by God and chosen to take the Gospel to the Gentiles.

I pity anyones 'assurance of salvation' that comes from a Bible with some many errors and falsifications. It must be hard to maintain that salvation. By the way, it says By Grace Through Faith...sort of important that faith part becasue Grace is poured out to all saved and unsaved it is faith in God and what God says that makes us saved. Grace without faith is just grace...a gift that is not accepted is just that an unaccepted gift and so you must have faith...without faith it is impossible to please God and let me add understand God.

 

Thank you for your pity. But even without Paul I find I am saved by faith and the grace of God, as was Abraham in the Old Testement. Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, salvation never changed, only our understanding of it. Our understanding continues to change. We have a Living Word.

 

My pity was not aimed at you Brother but you are right our way of salvation nevere changes and our understanding of God should as we grow in His word and truth and are convicted of the Holy Spirit.

PS. Sent you an email reply

 

That's interesting. You claim to be a Christian which requires one repent from self to Christ and possess an attitude of submission and obedience to God... God gives you writings that HE says you need to become mature and complete.... and now you sovereignly declare that you "could easily do without" some of those books.

You appear to be worshipping an idol of your own mind's creation and not the God of the Bible.

Actually, it says they cannot pastor, teach, be a deacon, nor usurp authority over men. It teaches in numerous places that women are to submit to men.

Christ lived in a very patriarchal society. Women had few rights and little value. He valued them and honored them... but He never over turned the order of their submission to men though He had sufficient occasion to do so.

It is YOU that is arguing from silence. If you are going to claim that God is OKing a change... then you have to cite very specific and clear instructions from Him. Your opinion based on "guidance" you are receiving from some "spirit" is not sufficient to overturn scripture.

Love isn't giving people everything their flesh desires. That is in fact a very unloving thing to do.

If God says that men are supposed to take the spiritual lead then the most hateful thing you can do is to incite or encourage women to rebel against God's order. Since He has said so... you are not loving them at all but rather setting them up for chastisement or else to be deceived completely so that they go to hell.

Sorry, but the TRUTH of God's Word is loving even when it corrects.

I wouldn't suggest that it did or that you do something claiming biblical authority that does not come from the Bible.

The Bible tells us the spiritual roles of men and women... so I am simply suggesting that we submit to what God said.

It is the only objective basis for determing God's will.


That is one of the incongruencies in your line of reasoning. You cite that people disagree about what the Bible says due to their opinions (subjectivity) then promote as the solution that we discard the objective part (the Bible) so that all we have is subjective opinion.

You are throwing out the wrong part. Our goal should be to drop our subjective opinions and presuppositions then honestly, prayerfully, submissively seek the truth through God's Word.

 

Of course that "evidence" directly contradicts Paul's own testimony... as one born out of time.

Non sequitur. Silence (even if the argument was true which it is not) does not make a case for ignorance.

At a bear minimum, we know that Luke was Paul's companion, Acts 16 and 20, and that Luke wrote his gospel during Paul's life as well as Acts.

Paul knew at a very minimum every detail the details that Luke recorded at the beginning of Acts... and more than likely all of his gospel letter.

Further, Gal 4:4 calls Jesus "made of a woman"... virgin born.

The explanation of baptism in Romans 6 indicates (if not proves) that Paul was aware of Christ's baptism. As well as Galatians 3:27 and Colossians 2:12.

Romans 1:4. A simple word study shows that Paul repeatedly calls Jesus God's Son.

Since that was a unique title and Paul was fully aware of the implications of saying that a man shared essence with God the Father, it is completely unreasonable to assume that a "Pharisee of the Pharisees" would take assume such a thing on the word of mere men.

Paul certainly knew of Christ's glory as He met Him on the road to Damascus.

Luke records the transfiguration... indicating that his companion Paul would have likewise known about it.

1 Cor 11.

Perhaps because God commissioned the gospels to someone else. If Paul had done so you would have questioned how we could depend on a Bible written by only one man.

You seem to be a person with an agenda to find reasons not to believe the Bible.

What is truly amazing is that you take silence and conjure up the phantom notion that Paul didn't know these details about Christ's life... even though he was discipled by people who would have known and spent significant time in conference with the Disciples themselves such as Peter.... who certainly would have known everything you question.

God gave us more than one writer of scripture. Some with direct knowledge of events... simple men for the most part... and then Paul and Luke, highly educated men.

God can be trusted to know what He is doing... in spite of your doubts and questioning.

Paul ministered very little in Israel. Very frequently, you show indications of not knowing the scriptures. You bring suspicion upon yourself as perhaps someone who is not what they claim.

No. Why would we? The NT was written in a relatively short period... but it was not written all at once nor by one person. Further, Paul was not the person necessarily in the best position to be used by God to record the events of Christ's life.

Matthew was a direct witness. Mark seems to have written his gospel directly from the teachings of Peter. John was a direct witness. And Luke interviewed many direct witnesses.

If that is truly a question for you then your faith is in vain. You are preaching a different Christ.

Indications are that Paul wrote what he was inspired to write... not what he wanted to write.

Because that was their calling, not his.

Again, you seem to be one with an agenda to conform God to your image rather than being conformed to His. I don't say that lightly nor hatefully. It is simply a rebuke to one who claims to be a brother yet denies the very Christ who bought him.

 

Paul was an apostle and all apostles had to have companied with Jesus before His crucifixion and seen Him after His resurrection. Acts 1

Paul may have been one of the Pharisees that followed Jesus around looking for a way to trap Him.

And he must have seen Jesus after the resurrection, for He does write in one of his epistles, 'Paul, an apostle...'