Woman position ( 1 Corinthians 14:34-37)

KennethC · Jul 18, 2015

Once again that is just a way to down play the fact that Junia was a female apostle, and all early manuscripts from the 1st century have her listed as a female apostle. It was not tell Origen in the late 2nd to early 3rd century that the change of her name to the masculine was done.

Papyrus P46 even has her name changed to Julia.

[h=3]"Apostle" in the New Testament[edit][/h]The term "apostle" connotes the highest level of leadership and authority in the early church.[SUP][1 Cor. 12:28][/SUP] [SUP][Eph. 2:20,3:5][/SUP] Initially, only the original disciples (meaning "students", "learners") of Jesus were called "apostles" (meaning "those sent forth with a mission).[SUP][13][/SUP] After Jesus' resurrection, the designation was given to missionaries involved in establishing churches and who saw the resurrected Christ before his ascension. This included more than "five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time" and then Paul himself.[SUP][1 Cor. 15:6][/SUP] After that, the appellation of apostle was extended to Christian disciples who had never seen Christ but who were pioneer missionaries, such as Apollos,[SUP][1 Cor. 4:6-9][/SUP] Epaphroditus,[SUP][Phil. 2:25][/SUP] Sylvanus and Timothy.[SUP][1 Thes. 1:1, cf. 2:6][/SUP] The description of "apostles" as one of the three higher spiritual gifts that Christians should desire[SUP][1 Cor. 12:28, cf. 31][/SUP] is evidence of continued accessibility to this ministry for qualified persons. They could aspire to become apostles, prophets, or teachers. Bilezikian writes that the term "apostle" was still used in this broad sense in the post-apostolic writing of the Didache.

The original meaning of a Deacon is one who is ordained as a minister, but this definition has been changed over time to adapt it to fit the theology of the churches now days who take away from the true word of God....

oldhermit · Jul 18, 2015

KennethC said:

Then you know that the term apostle simply means one sent out. There are many who are called ἀπόστολος in the NT but there is a marked difference between those who were appointed to this office by the Lord and those whom the Church ἐξαποστέλλω.

If you know the Greek the you should know that the term is not that vague in it application in the NT. There were women in the NT who were referred to as "ministers" - διάκονος but this term can identify any function of service that they may have rendered. To use this term to suggest that women served a preachers is entirely unwarranted and without NT support. There is no text anywhere in scripture (of which I am aware) where the terms preacher, shepherd, or overseer is ever applied to a woman's function within the Church. Paul refers to himself as a "minister of the gospel of Christ." That ministry is defined by the type of service Paul rendered - apostle, preacher, teacher, etc.... Anyone who served to perform any service no matter how lowly was called a διάκονος - a servant. This in no way implies an appointed leadership role.

oldhermit · Jul 18, 2015

KennethC said:

Once again that is just a way to down play the fact that Junia was a female apostle, and all early manuscripts from the 1st century have her listed as a female apostle. It was not tell Origen in the late 2nd to early 3rd century that the change of her name to the masculine was done.

Papyrus P46 even has her name changed to Julia.

"Apostle" in the New Testament[edit]

The term "apostle" connotes the highest level of leadership and authority in the early church.[SUP][1 Cor. 12:28][/SUP] [SUP][Eph. 2:20,3:5][/SUP] Initially, only the original disciples (meaning "students", "learners") of Jesus were called "apostles" (meaning "those sent forth with a mission).[SUP][13][/SUP] After Jesus' resurrection, the designation was given to missionaries involved in establishing churches and who saw the resurrected Christ before his ascension. This included more than "five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time" and then Paul himself.[SUP][1 Cor. 15:6][/SUP] After that, the appellation of apostle was extended to Christian disciples who had never seen Christ but who were pioneer missionaries, such as Apollos,[SUP][1 Cor. 4:6-9][/SUP] Epaphroditus,[SUP][Phil. 2:25][/SUP] Sylvanus and Timothy.[SUP][1 Thes. 1:1, cf. 2:6][/SUP] The description of "apostles" as one of the three higher spiritual gifts that Christians should desire[SUP][1 Cor. 12:28, cf. 31][/SUP] is evidence of continued accessibility to this ministry for qualified persons. They could aspire to become apostles, prophets, or teachers. Bilezikian writes that the term "apostle" was still used in this broad sense in the post-apostolic writing of the Didache.

The original meaning of a Deacon is one who is ordained as a minister, but this definition has been changed over time to adapt it to fit the theology of the churches now days who take away from the true word of God....

Rom 16:7 is not calling either Andronicus nor Junias apostles. All Paul is saying is that the had a good reputation with the apostles. In other words they were highly regarded by the apostles.

BarlyGurl · Jul 18, 2015

I really like the roles defined in this distinction....

Men and women are created by God and have EQUAL VALUE, but were created to perform separate and distinct ROLE/FUNCTIONS in under God's AUTHORITY which is given produce ORDER in mankind, bring blessing to us and pleasure to God.

I did have to discard some feminist attitudes... then discovered how FREEING it was!

KennethC · Jul 18, 2015

oldhermit said:

Once again like I said do an early church history study to go along with your scriptural study and you will see that the women such as Junia and Phoebe did serve as Apostle and minister. The early church study is not that hard at all to do and one can easily in that research see how it was mainly the Catholic church who tried to cover up the fact of women in the 1st centuries did serve in those roles.

You again also are trying to minimize a clear usage of a women in the bible as being called by these terms.
Do you really think that God in the OT times chose women to be in leadership roles would change that concept in the NT ???

I do know the Greek and continue to learn more each day, but I also do a clear history study of the early church also to get a full clear understanding of what is really being said. You can not understand some of the passages without knowing the Jewish history and church history as well, such as the passage of Jesus turning water into wine. Unless you know Jewish wedding customs back then you would not know the statement made by the master of the feast saying about the good wine is usually set out first is referring to fermented wine !!!

KennethC · Jul 18, 2015

oldhermit said:

Once again that was one of the misconceptions made by early scholars on this passage, but it has been disproven by early manuscripts of the 1st century church !!!

oldhermit · Jul 18, 2015

KennethC said:

I do not care what the early Church history believed or practiced. I am concerned only with what the biblical text tells us. This is the authority, not history. You also know full well you cannot prove the apostleship of Junia from Rom 16:7. Women did not serve as apostles, preachers, elders, nor were they ever appointed to the office of a deacon. They exorcized no authority in the NT record.

Phoebe is said to be a servant but we are not told in what specific capacity or function she served. To make the quantum leap and say that this means she was a preacher is completely unwarranted. In Acts six, we find the appointment of seven men who were set aside and appointed as deacons within the Church at Jerusalem. Their assigned and exclusive function of service was to see that food was equitably distributed to the widows within the Church at Jerusalem. This is not a leadership role, this is a servants role. Phoebe was called a deaconess but we are given no explicit information regarding what service she rendered beyond the fact that, "she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well." In 1Tim. 2, Paul outlines the qualifications for those who are to be selected by the elders as servants by specific appointment. Now, anyone who serves in ANY capacity the needs of the Church or one within the Church is called a deacon or a deaconess and is such without specific appointment to an assigned duty. This is Phoebe. A deacon is NOT the same function as a preacher. Ecumenicalism has abused these terms in English to the extent that we use them synonymously and unjustifiably so. Scripture does not use them in such a way.

Indeed God Chose women to leadership roles in the OT such as Deborah. She served as a judge as well as a prophetess. The appointment of any judge was nothing more than a judicial appointment not a priestly one. You see Deborah judging Israel for perhaps as long as 40 years but, what you do not see Deborah doing is directing worship in the temple or officiating at the altar. As a woman she would not have even been allowed beyond the courtyard of the women and even then as Paul confirms, the women under the Law were commanded to keep silent in the assembly. God does not violate his own law by appointing Deborah as a judge. There is absolutely no correlation between Deborah and the divine prohibition of 1Cor 14.

KennethC · Jul 18, 2015

oldhermit said:

I do not care what the early Church history believed or practiced. I am concerned only with what the biblical text tells us. This is the authority, not history. You also know full well you cannot prove the apostleship of Junia from Rom 16:7. Women did not serve as apostles, preachers, elders, nor were they ever appointed to the office of a deacon. They exorcized no authority in the NT record.

Phoebe is said to be a servant but we are not told in what specific capacity or function she served. To make the quantum leap and say that this means she was a preacher is completely unwarranted. In Acts six, we find the appointment of seven men who were set aside and appointed as deacons within the Church at Jerusalem. Their assigned and exclusive function of service was to see that food was equitably distributed to the widows within the Church at Jerusalem. This is not a leadership role, this is a servants role. Phoebe was called a deaconess but we are given no explicit information regarding what service she rendered beyond the fact that, "she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well." In 1Tim. 2, Paul outlines the qualifications for those who are to be selected by the elders as servants by specific appointment. Now, anyone who serves in ANY capacity the needs of the Church or one within the Church is called a deacon or a deaconess and is such without specific appointment to an assigned duty. This is Phoebe. A deacon is NOT the same function as a preacher. Ecumenicalism has abused these terms in English to the extent that we use them synonymously and unjustifiably so. Scripture does not use them in such a way.

Indeed God Chose women to leadership roles in the OT such as Deborah. She served as a judge as well as a prophetess. The appointment of any judge was nothing more than a judicial appointment not a priestly one. You see Deborah judging Israel for perhaps as long as 40 years but, what you do not see Deborah doing is directing worship in the temple or officiating at the altar. As a woman she would not have even been allowed beyond the courtyard of the women and even then as Paul confirms, the women under the Law were commanded to keep silent in the assembly. God does not violate his own law by appointing Deborah as a judge. There is absolutely no correlation between Deborah and the divine prohibition of 1Cor 14.

That first sentence of yours is all I needed to read to know the error in your stance !!!

The 1st century church was lead by the original 11 Apostles + Mathias + Paul, so to say you do not care what they taught in this time frame is a clear not wanting to understand the truth. As the 1st century was lead by the original Apostles and their understudies such as Mark, Luke, Barnabas, Silvanius, Timothy, and James brother of Jesus.

This is who was the instructors in the 1st century !!!

oldhermit · Jul 18, 2015

KennethC said:

Truth is in the grammatical structure of the biblical text, not in the history. History is not the inspired standard.

Can you not see the difference between those who were appointed to the office of an apostle by the Lord and those whom the Church ἐξαποστέλλω. Mark, Luke, Barnabas, Silvanius, and Timothy, were not appointed by the Lord to the office of an apostle as were the twelve along with James and Paul. They were those sent out by the Church for specific purposes. This is an entirely different thing.

Kaycie · Jul 18, 2015

Yes, a woman should learn in submission, and ask her husband questions when she gets home. But what if you don't have a husband?

KennethC · Jul 18, 2015

oldhermit said:

Did you not see the list I gave you ???

The original 11, Mathias, Paul, Mark, Luke, James, Barnabas, and Silvanius where all chosen by God to be Apostles, not by other men in the church. All those who I previously named are your 1st century instructors in the Church of the Lord, and therefore their teachings do matter as they come from the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If you want to deny history study into the early church of the 1st century then you will be lead astray in your study, and this is why even Peter said unless you study into those matters you will misuse and twist Paul's teachings. Just like those who try to say Paul did away with baptism in water when he did no such thing......

oldhermit · Jul 18, 2015

KennethC said:

Did you not see the list I gave you ???

The original 11, Mathias, Paul, Mark, Luke, James, Barnabas, and Silvanius where all chosen by God to be Apostles, not by other men in the church. All those who I previously named are your 1st century instructors in the Church of the Lord, and therefore their teachings do matter as they come from the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If you want to deny history study into the early church of the 1st century then you will be lead astray in your study, and this is why even Peter said unless you study into those matters you will misuse and twist Paul's teachings. Just like those who try to say Paul did away with baptism in water when he did no such thing......

Fine, show be a passage that tells me this.

oldhermit · Jul 18, 2015

Kaycie said:

The word for husband here is ἄνδρας - men. This is also sometimes translated as husband as in 1Cr 14:35. Yet, the intent of the word seems to be "her men" i.e the men within her household whether it be a father, brother, or husband but at the same time her submission is to be to all the men in the body within the established context.

Dude653 · Jul 18, 2015

MikkoAinasoja said:

34. let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. 35. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church. 36. What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone? 37. If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 14:34-37)

So like our dear brother Paulos writes here, that it is a commandment of the Lord Yeshua, that women's position should be as a listener, in a church.

God has made woman form men, and this should be the order also in our time.

Humility this takes to woman, but there is nothing wrong about humility, even though this world time, seems to try to lead us understand differently.

It is a vital doctrine and everyone should keep it.

The word of exhortation: In the Lord Messiah Yešua

This is an erroneous doctrine because when Paul wrote these letters he was specifically addressing the churches of Corinth and Ephesus. So in essence, you are forming a doctrine from someone else's mail

oldhermit · Jul 18, 2015

Dude653 said:

This line of reasoning carried to its natural conclusion would mean that nothing written in the epistles has any meaning for us today. The revealed principles given in all the epistles are as equidistant to time as they are to culture. They are for us as surely as they were for those to whom they were written.

BarlyGurl · Jul 18, 2015

Kaycie said:

Then she would go to the next God ordered authority figure according to her station in life.

KennethC · Jul 18, 2015

oldhermit said:

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Here in this chapter Peter is reaffirming us to remember take in and be mindful of all the words spoken before by the prophets and the Apostles. For all their words that were spoken were inspired by the Holy Spirit for them to write and speak, as people have misused the scripture in 2 Peter 1:21 to say the bible alone. But it does not say the bible in that passage, as it says all prophecy given by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

So don't you think the Holy Spirit would continue to in their instructions during the first century since they were the leaders of the early church??? I think that all scripture in the bible and history applies as the Holy Spirit has guided me down that road to get full understanding behind what is truly being said.

I do not believe the Holy Spirit would have them instruct differently then what they wrote by the Holy Spirit, therefore the 1st century history of the church is a key to understanding the word.

BarlyGurl · Jul 18, 2015

Hermit,
Please expand upon EXACTLY what you mean here...

"but at the same time her submission is to be to all the men in the body within the established context."

oldhermit · Jul 18, 2015

KennethC said:

Peter's words are exclusively referring to Paul and his writings. Peter says absolutely nothing about the supposed apostleship of such men as Mark, Luke, Barnabas, and Silvanius. Let me give you an example. I Galatians 1:18-19 Paul says, "Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother." We do know that Barnabas was apostlized - sent out by the Church in Jerusalem. If Barnabas was an apostle of the same type as Peter, James, and Paul then why does Paul say that he say NONE of the apostle EXCEPT Peter and James when Barnabas was with him at the time of his meeting with these two apostles? Paul excludes Barnabas in this listing of apostles.

oldhermit · Jul 18, 2015

BarlyGurl said:

The women in the assembly are commanded to remain silent and not to exorcise authority over the men. Which men? Those of the assembly. This is the context.

Woman position ( 1 Corinthians 14:34-37)

KennethC

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

BarlyGurl

Guest

KennethC

Guest

KennethC

Guest

Senior Member

KennethC

Guest

Senior Member

Kaycie

Guest

KennethC

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

BarlyGurl

Guest

KennethC

Guest

BarlyGurl

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member