Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
good post, #174.
yes, this is about husband and wife in the church. as said, if the context was G2338, thelus, a Female, then yes it's all women. but thank God for Good teaches who are lead by the Holy Ghost.
Keep up the good work.
@ Hidden In Him
PS I posted in that topic, look at post #27
Don't feel like the Lone Ranger on topics with many post, it's hard sometime to go back and read them all, I know what you mean.Same to you!
Oh! LoL. I didn't read through that entire thread before posting. It was like nine pages already, so I figured I'd better just wing it : )
Yeah. I went round and round with one of our members here back in June. He kept quoting the verses as they are translated in one of the English translations (KJV I think) to support his argument, and I was like, "No, you are assuming that translation is correct, but look at the context."
You might find my initial post interesting (see Post #174), as well as the previous posts by @OzSpen. He takes a similar view about women in ministry.
Looking for advice: Can women be pastors
Erasmus adjusted the text in many places to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate, or as quoted in the Church Fathers; consequently, although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text, it differs in nearly two thousand readings from the standard form of that text-type, as represented by the "Majority Text" of Hodges and Farstad (Wallace 1989). The edition was a sell-out commercial success and was reprinted in 1519, with most—though not all—the typographical errors corrected (Textus Receptus).
All the external evidence suggests that there is no proof that the Byzantine text was in existence in the first three centuries. It is not found in the extant Greek manuscripts, nor in the early versions, nor in the early church fathers. And this is a threefold cord not easily broken. To be sure, isolated Byzantine readings have been found, but not the Byzantine texttype. Though some Byzantine readings existed early, the texttype apparently did not (The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?)
The favouring of the late MSS from the 12th century onwards and only 6 MSS by Erasmas was a dangerous precedent, especially in light of the fact the TR has almost 2,000 translations/readings that are gathered from much earlier sources than the 16th century.
The age of a manuscript is simple ONE CRITERION out of many others required to determine the authenticity of a reading. See Burgon for details. However, because of Westcott & Hort, and their deliberate conspiracy to undermine the Authorized Version and the Received Text, age was made THE SOLE CRITERION.In a way the earliest reading might weaken our position rather than strengthen it, but only on the surface. I think either reading proves nothing.
The age of a manuscript is simple ONE CRITERION out of many others required to determine the authenticity of a reading. See Burgon for details. However, because of Westcott & Hort, and their deliberate conspiracy to undermine the Authorized Version and the Received Text, age was made THE SOLE CRITERION.
Thus you will find modern bible versions showing footnotes which say "The oldest manuscripts say such and such" or "The best manuscripts say such and such", and both those statements are blatant lies.
But not all textual scholars fell for this hoax. Among those who vigorously opposed W&H were Burgon and Scrivener, and it should be the duty of every Christian to read and study what they had to say about the untenable theory and Greek text of W&H. That would be enough for all Christians to continue using the Authorized Version (AV), also known as the King James Bible.
Today you will hear another lie, which is that textual critics after W&H do not follow W&H. But Nestle-Aland is simply warmed over W&H, and this truth should be known by all. When you search Bible Hub, you will see an entry which says Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]. This is telling you that W&H are still alive and well. *NA* stands for Nestle-Aland (the darling of the critics).
Thanks for the reply,
I came to this conclusion in a few ways. only by the Holy Ghost who taught me this truth. and he showed me many way to understand it.
one of the main ways was in the term G2338, thelus and the term G1135 γυνή gune (ǰ ï-nee') n.
both apply to a woman, but one apply to a married woman.
armed with that information just reading in context the scriptures are revealed.
as in
1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
if one just listen to the scripture, the Holy Ghost will point it out to you. here in 1 Corinthians 14:34 it's not speaking to women at all, but to their husbands. and the very next verse bring it out, "Let them ask their "HUSBAND" at home".
sometimes we might need to read and re-read verse again and compare them with other scriptures in other places.
Isaiah 28:10 "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
by finding one thing over here then I see it apply with something over there. then one can build on another scripture, this is how I understood that a woman could preach, teach and ... Pastor.
first thanks for the reply,Hi 101G, First for the discussion of these two texts G2338 is not used so it's kind of irrelevant. G1135 is what is used and the same word has been translated as woman, women or wife. The context of 1Cor. 14 is the public exercise of spiritual gifts and if you want to emphasize a married woman, then the restriction still applies but I don't think this means that it is okay for single women to teach either. Regarding 1 Tim. 2:11, you can't carry over the same line of thought either because it doesn't matter as it is also not specifying a married or unmarried woman. So my question is where and in what context do you see the scriptures saying it is okay for women to teach men in the church (public) setting?
Essential to keep looking up, right? (Hebrews 12.2), whatever believers' exact understanding of the details is.Consider it: when we read back through Church history, we find examples that pretty much every generation held expectations that they were the generation that would see the Lord's return.
first thanks for the reply,
second, you're not understanding the Spiritual "GIFTS".
see, it was not the apostles speaking in tongues on Pentecost, it was the Spirit in them. just as Teaching, Pastoring, or healing. it's not you the person, but he the Spirit in you.
now knowing this, is not the pastoral Gift, (the Spirit) is in the Spiritual gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 12:8? as well as the Gift to speatk in other tongues as happen on Pentecost, verse 10.
see Trekson, these functions of preaching, teaching, or pastoring is the GIFT of the Holy Spirit.
and addressing the "Wives" of 1Cor. 14, and 1 Tim. 2 verses single women is this... THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOW BETTER TO SPEAK OUT OF TURN IN THE EXCRISE OF THEIR SPIRITUAL GIFTS, their HUSBANDS should had taught them .... "AT HOME". see the apostle was addressing the husbands for they had failed in their duties of "TEACHING" their "WIVES" how to act in the hous of God.
oh yes, many didn't know, hence to waring to Timothy, scripture,
1 Timothy 3:14 "These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
1 Timothy 3:15 "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
this is why the apostle said,
1 Corinthians 14:31 "For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
1 Corinthians 14:32 "And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
1 Corinthians 14:33 "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
there is order to the Church of God, and all need to learn obedience.
see, the women with husband had no excuse, they should have been taught by their HUSBAND at home... 1 Timothy 2:11-15.
this is easy to see. LEARN at HOME before you come to church.
THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOW BETTER TO SPEAK OUT OF TURN IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR SPIRITUAL GIFTS, their HUSBANDS should have taught them .... "AT HOME". see the apostle was addressing the husbands for they had failed in their duties of "TEACHING" their "WIVES" how to act in the house of God.
I understand all this but you didn't answer my question..."So my question is where and in what context do you see the scriptures saying it is okay for women to teach men in the church (public) setting?"
I understand all this but you didn't answer my question..."So my question is where and in what context do you see the scriptures saying it is okay for women to teach men in the church (public) setting?"
I think it was @amadeus that alluded to this, Trekson, but the implication from scripture was that it was not completely forbidden by God for women to lead, but the Jewish tradition was that men generally assumed the role. Hence Deborah led Israel and was not shamed by God for doing so, yet it would have been better had a man done so. And since men were indeed doing so during New Testament times, there was no need for women to then.
The question is, is there a need for women to do so now? My personal opinion is that much of Christian leadership today is just plain awful. I would take a Spirit-filled, Spirit-led woman of God over half of the men we have teaching and supposedly "leading" today any day of the week. Unlike during New Testament times, I believe we are in desperate need of good leadership today, anywhere we can find it.
Except that a Spirit-filled and Spirit-led woman would REFUSE to preach and teach in the local assembly, neither would she dare assume the role of eldership or leadership.I would take a Spirit-filled, Spirit-led woman of God over half of the men we have teaching and supposedly "leading" today any day of the week.
Except that a Spirit-filled and Spirit-led woman would REFUSE to preach and teach in the local assembly, neither would she dare assume the role of eldership or leadership.
First thanks for your reply, I GAVE IT TO YOU BEFORE, BUT NO PROBLEM I MUST MAKE IT PLAIN.I understand all this but you didn't answer my question..."So my question is where and in what context do you see the scriptures saying it is okay for women to teach men in the church (public) setting?"
Except that a Spirit-filled and Spirit-led woman would REFUSE to preach and teach in the local assembly, neither would she dare assume the role of eldership or leadership.
She would be guided strictly by the Word of God ("that the Word of God be not blasphemed") and not the doctrines of men. She would focus her time and energy on teaching women to be better Christian wives and mothers, as the apostle Paul makes crystal clear.
TITUS 2
3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
1 PETER 3
1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible,even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
Deborah was rendering judgments (not leading Israel, which she urged Barak the wimp to do), just like judges sit on the bench in courts today rendering judgments.Then why did Deborah not refuse to assume leadership over Israel?
There is nothing to stop a Christian woman from becoming a judge in a court of law. But Scripture bars her from leadership within the church (assembly).