₦airaland Forum

Jeromejnr:
You know what, just google Maria Etter and read her story. Right now I am busy and can't start expounding scriptures.

If God is opposed to Women teaching in public, why will he allow so much power in this woman's ministry? Power that affected streets far away from her camp meetings.

And you know Jesus only confirms His will with signs and wonders following. Jesus is not confused like you said. He will not confirm and give full support to something that is against His will.

There are two things;
1. God allowed and regulated divorce yet He hates it all because of the hardness of men's hearts
2. We do not derive doctrine from practice but practice from doctrine. We establish what scriptures say FIRST and then we walk in it. If same-sex unions turned out happier and more stable than heterosexual unions, this would not overturn the truth that God is against homosexuality. You can't go running around saying, 'hey, look how gays are gay and we are busy divorcing and fighting. Gay is good'

Remember it is the inspired words that say this not me

Winsomex,
What is your take on this?
Personally I regard it a puzzle that women were recipients of the highest of all gifts; prophecy but they were not to teach men. The culture view is quite appealing except Paul appeals to scriptures not culture and it also opens a can of worms. I hon LGBT have argued that anti-homosexuality stance in NT is a 'cultural issue' as well.

[size=2pt]

Jeromejnr:
Go do your research well, that scripture was from the Jewish Halakah were questions were written to Rabbis and the Rabbis would respond back to them using that same Halakah.

In this case Paul was the Rabbi and a question concerning women and their positions based on the former old testament laws were was asked if it was still necessary in the modern church.

That was why he responded with "What! Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment.…"

Let me give you an acid test. They were Jews who knew and observed all the laws strictly. Anything that tried to come against that law was seen as heretic. That was why Jesus was constantly criticized when he brought forth laws that seemed to oppose the former and that was also why Peter faced criticism when he went to preach to the gentiles.

The Jews were already used to leaving women out of public matters so it won't have been a problem observing that in the modern church. But Paul comes along and says something different which surely gains criticism. So he ends by saying "But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored."

If he had said women shouldn't speak, that will never generate criticism because the men and women themselves had already been used to it by tradition.

So that is to show you that because there was a dispute, Paul had to have said something contrary to the norm of their beliefs. Otherwise were will the women have gotten the boldness to stand and speak in Church?

You need to understand that even after this period most Christians of that time still struggled with the old testament practices (E.g. Circumcision). But Paul constantly tried to tell them they were free from all that. If they could struggle with practicing something like circumcision, how will women of that time without commandment come out in public to teach? This practice had been since the time of Abraham.

[/size]
Am not one given to wresting scriptures
What is the purpose of 'as in all the churches of the Saints'? Was that part of the question?

(ESV) 36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached?

Paul has just instructed Corinth to conduct themselves like other churches, not to feel special. He now sarcastically wonders why they should act differently by asking whether they originated the gospel or are the only recipient. The answers to these two questions are in the negative so there is no ocassion for them to think or act differently hence the In Corinth, as in all the churches of the saints, women should keep silent

And he resurfaced in Tanzania

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrgBlPzRUIk

DoubleDeeX:
No matter how hard they try to twist that scripture to mislead women, the truth of the holyghost will never changed; the bible doesn't allow a woman to Pastor a Church or take a position of leadership in things pertaining salvation in the Church of Jesus Christ, period!

Mother Eve messed up our first chance, which is why God is not allowing it happen again! It's as simple as that...

So let's add v14 and v15 to that scripture and see how it plays out!

1Timothy 2:14-15

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self- control.

Question for you
What about the childless or the celibate women? Are they never saved since they never beat children?

[size=3pt]

MuttleyLaff:
@INTROVERT @SUGARBEE - this is complementing some parts in Jeromejnr's original post

]1 Corinthians 14:34-35:
Should Women be Silent in Church?

VIDEO'S TRANSCRIPT:
One controversy concerns the role of women in church ministry. One scripture in particular seems to exclude women from any public ministry:

'Let your women keep SILENT in the churches,
for it is NOT PERMITTED FOR THEM TO SPEAK;
but they are commanded to be under obedience,
as THE LAW also SAYS.
And IF they want to learn something,
let them ask their own husbands at home,
for it is SHAMEFUL FOR WOMEN TO SPEAK IN CHURCH.'
(1 Corinthians 14:34,35)

Some would explain this away as a special command to the unruly women at Corinth to straighten-up, rather than a general command to all women everywhere. But if we treat one scripture this way, what is to stop us treating every scripture this way? Surely the New Testament is written for the whole church.

The subject of the passage is: 'THE WOMEN IN THE CHURCHES (plural)'. This means-'all women.' Moreover the command is based on 'the law' which means it applies to all, rather than just to those in a particular culture or time.

Let us consider what this passage is literally saying. The word for 'silent' does not mean 'quiet' Thus it is not saying that women should have a quiet (meek) spirit. The word translated 'silent' means no word can be spoken!

It is saying WOMEN MUST BE (completely) SILENT IN CHURCH. This doesn't just disqualify them from teaching but also from testifying, praying, prophesing and moving in the gifts of the Spirit-the latter being the context of these verses (1 Cor 12:1)

The First Problem with this passage, is that it contradicts Paul's other teaching in this book.
For he says women may pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor 11:3-5).
In 1Corinthians 12, especially in v13-27 he teaches that all members of the church (men and women), are members of the body and thus have a function in the body working in co-ordination with each other, and so we can all be used in the gifts and ministries of the Spirit.

So, he says: 'if ALL (men and women) prophesy' (1 Cor 14:24)
'When you come together, EVERY ONE (men and women) of you has a psalm, has a doctrine, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation.' (v26)
'You may ALL prophesy one by one.' (v31)

So, why would he say 3 verses later that all women must be silent in church? Is he being doubleminded?
So the first problem is that in the middle of encouraging everyone to move out in ministry, he is telling all women to be silent!

This also contradicts the spirit of the New-Testament with Jesus treating women with honour, with the churches set free from all Jewish traditions (Acts15), with full equality in the church (Gal 3:28) and with the Spirit poured upon all flesh (male and female) to give power for ministry (Acts 1:8, 2:4,16-18)

A Second Problem is the discouragement upon women from even learning:
'and IF THEY WANT TO LEARN.' The tone of this is condescending to women, that not only should they not speak, it is optional for them to learn the Word (it is even mildly frowned upon as if it were not really their place.) This is clearly in contradiction to the New Testament teaching for women and contrasts with what Paul said in 1Timothy 2:11: 'LET a woman learn.' Here he encourages women to study the Word. Here he speaks against those who would discourage them.

A Third Problem is the AUTHORITY used:
'IT IS NOT PERMITTED FOR THEM TO SPEAK ..AS THE LAW ALSO SAYS.'

Which Law is this? There are 4 possibilities:
(1) The Old Testament Scripture. (The Law of Moses)
It is usually referred to by 'It is written' (1 Cor 1:19,31; 3:19,20; 4:6; 9:9; 10:11, 14:21; 15:45,51)

(2) The Teaching of Jesus (1 Cor 7:10).

(3) The Apostolic Teaching and Tradition
-that which Paul and others received by revelation from the Lord (1 Cor 7:12) Paul received special new revelations to meet the needs of a new situation (the Church Age where many Gentiles were becoming believers on an equal footing with the Jews). For example: 1 Cor 2:10-13,16; 4:1,15-17, 7:6,10,12,17,25; 11:1,2,16,17, 23; 14:36,37; 15:1,3

(4) The Oral Law of the Jews (later written as the Talmud)- the interpretation of Moses' Law by the Scribes and Pharisees. It is followed by the Orthodox Jews to this day as of equal authority to the Bible. They falsely claimed it was passed down from Moses by word of mouth. Jesus clashed with Pharisees over this law. He rejected it and came against it's legalistic spirit (Matt15:3, Mark7:3).

Now when 1 Cor 14:34,35 refers to a law of silence for women, it couldn't be:
(1) because there's no such law in the Old-Testament and he would say 'it is written';
neither is it found in the Gospels (2).
Neither is it (3) because it is clearly a pre-existing law.
Therefore by a process of elimination it must be (4) The Jewish Oral Law (the laws of the Pharisees)

This is confirmed by the phrase: 'As also SAYS the Law.' - a reference to the ORAL law rather than the WRITTEN law (scripture).
(see also Matt 5:21,27,31, 33,38,43)

Also, we know this because it agrees completely with the Talmud and applies to Orthodox synagogues today. The service is for men only. Women are discouraged from even learning, but are sometimes allowed to watch from the gallery, for their place is at home not with things too high for them! And it would be shameful for them to speak in a meeting.

TALMUDIC QUOTES illustrate this:
A Jewish Prayer:'Praise God He hasn't created me a gentile, a woman or an ignorant man.'
'The woman, says the law, is in all things inferior to the man.'
Only men could speak in public (Beraktoth 4,36; Mishnah Aboth 1,5)
No woman could give a testimony or conduct business. (Mishnah Shabbath 4,1)

Women were viewed with disregard and repression, and the Talmud contains many distasteful insults of women's character. They were to be avoided. They were not required to know or fulfil the law and so few were learned.

One said: 'May the words of the Torah be burned rather than be given to women.'
In public worship they were segregated and silenced and so had to ask questions of their husbands at home.

Clearly the writer of 1 Cor 14:34,35 reflected this Pharisaical attitude to women and used this Jewish Law to support his views.

So why would Paul say something that stands in contradiction to the immediate context and the rest of the New Testament? Why would he establish this teaching on Jewish Laws that elsewhere, both he and Jesus rejected?

The simple answer is these verses are not Paul's teaching!
Paul's letters are written in response church situations. 1 Corinthians is the most responsive of them all. Paul had received reports about what was going on (1:11, 5:1, 6:1,8 ), and the church had sent a letter to Paul with many questions (7:1,8,10,12,25; 8:1,4; 12:1; 16:1). There was disunity (1:10-12,3:3). In particular there were 2 groups of people saved from different backgrounds disputing -Jews who tended toward legalism, and Greeks who tended toward license. Paul goes through the issues and questions raised one by one.

Examples of when Paul is clearly responding to what one group has said are 6:15-20 (Greeks); 9:1-11; 11:1-16 (Jews) and 15:12,35,36.

Sometimes he refers what they are saying and then he answers them -e.g.1 Cor 4:8: 'You are already full! You are already rich! You have reigned as kings without us.' (this is what some of them had claimed) --'and indeed I wish you did reign, that we might also reign with you.' (Paul's answer - see also 4:10)

Sometimes he even quotes what they say and then answers them. The problem is that there are no punctuation or quote marks in the Greek and the translators often miss them out.

Some examples of this, are when he responds to the 'loose' Greeks as in 6:12,13:
(You say) 'All things are lawful for me.'
(I Paul) say: 'but all things are not helpful.'
(You say) 'All things are lawful for me.'
(I Paul) say: 'but I will not be brought under the power of any.'
(You say) 'Food is for the stomach and the stomach for foods.'
(I Paul) say: 'but God will destroy both it and them.'
We see the same in 10:23,24.

In questions about idols Paul challenges those who pride themselves in their knowledge but who do not hold it in love. (8:1-3) 8:4: 'We know that -'an idol is nothing in the world and that there is but one God' (again he quotes their words (their knowledge) before he answers as confirmed in v10,11.

Other examples are when he responds to the 'legalistic Jews', 7:1:
'Now concerning what you wrote to me,
(some of you said) 'It is good for a man not to touch a woman.'
(But I Paul say) 'Nevertheless because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife...'

Now we can understand what is happening in 1 Cor 14:34,35.
Paul is quoting what some Jewish converts to Christ, had written in a letter to Paul, complaining about women being involved in church services. Although they were saved they were used to male-dominated synagogue - worship and so found the equality of women in church life hard to take.

They were saying: 'Paul, these women are prophesying, praying out loud, speaking in tongues. The Oral law says it's shameful for a woman to speak in public. Tell them to shut-up!'

So as Paul is teaching on every member participating in church services, it is the natural place for him to deal with their objection. So he quotes what they say: 'Let your women keep silent in the churches, for it is not permitted for them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for women to speak in church' (v34,35)

Then he answers them: 'What, came the word of God out from you? or came it to you only? If any think himself a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write to you (not the Talmud) are the commandments of the Lord (the true authority) But if any (choose to be) be ignorant, let him be ignorant.' (v36-38) Paul replies by asserting his apostolic authority above the Talmud.

This also explains why these verses come out of the blue, interrupting the flow of thought, which is picked up again in v39,40: 'Therefore brethren, covet to prophesy and do not forbid to speak with tongues.'

The placement of v34,35 in the passage as a clear interruption and marked contrast to what Paul is teaching, serves to separate them from Paul's own views.

We conclude that Paul isn't silencing women, rather the opposite!

Those who are too quick to agree with v34,35 have unwittingly submitted to an unchristian pharisaical spirit

https://www.nairaland.com/2562744/opinion-women-preaching-church-not/4#37488867

[/size]

A single blow to this theory is verse 33

1 Corinthians 14:33 King James Version (KJV)
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.


1. Paul is giving UNIVERSAL and not a local solution or rules. Note the highlighted

2. These are HIS words and not Q&A

1 Corinthians 7:17 King James Version (KJV)
17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
IN ALL CHURCHES shows that is a standard

3. There is no contradiction; teaching is not prophesying not is it praying

Jeromejnr:
The point is that in the Church teaching is an exercise of authority, and for a woman to exercise authority over a man is to reverse the divine order of the family. Possibly “the man” is here her husband. The true subordination of women to men is in the family, not in the State or the Church. It is not that men in the mass are to command women in the mass, but that the man is to bear rule in his own house.

One needs to examine the logical conclusion of their exegesis or eisegesis in his case.

Since 'teaching is exercise of authority, and for a woman to exercise authority is to reverse the divine order of the family', women did not teach in public worship. This is exactly what that verse is saying.

That there were coworkers means whatever they did, they never taught men. Ministry is more than teaching in other words

1 Timothy 2:8-13New International Version (NIV)

8 Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Does it even remotely appear like Paul is quoting confused Jews who are trying to impose their Jewry in congregations here?

Mutleylaff, don't be carried away by fancy but hollow arguments

MuttleyLaff:
SMH. Paul belittling women?
Nah, not the case and/or never was the case.
Cant believe reading vooks too, propagating this twisted & distorted version of what Paul wrote, meant and addressed
Must think of Paul as a misogynist or someone plagued with a dislike of women

Extra! Extra!! Read all about it here!!!
https://www.nairaland.com/2563021/yes-bible-supports-women-preachers#37502822

I can guess what that thread is saying; women got ecstatic, rowdy, disrupted public worship......and Paul was against this.

Paul is writing 2000 years before you and to a different culture than yours. Get those mixed up and you will be bending and twisting his words to your perdition. If there is any consolation, you won't be the first. You are not alone. Now let me prove me by checking out your thread

Pyrrho:
I'm damn serious

Check the link below

www.nairaland.com/2518968/video-terrorist-women-man-joystick

So men get whole beings while women get organs fastened to a stake?
Allah is a ret@rd

WinsomeX:
OTHER FLAWS IN PENTECOSTALISM

Ditching the Charismatic movement was no light decision on my part. It was leaving the known for the unknown. There is a certain security Pentecostalism offers its adherents. There is the early morning barrage of tongues that gives one the sense that you are immune to all attacks of Satan. There is that Word of Knowledge/Wisdom that comes in meetings that could single you out for a breakthrough. You have your charismatic pastor who offers you a covering. Not to mention your monthly insurance of tithing that is meant to secure your finances and shield your family from illness. Therefore, stepping out of all these into the uncertain life of simple faith based on simple prayers anchored on the simple words of truth written in scriptures was an arduous task for me but I had to do it. I have found out that when Paul instructs that the just will live by faith, this is what he meant.

The following are other albatrosses in the Pentecostal religion.

1. Prosperity

While I have mentioned this before, it is worth expounding on. Pentecostalism leads ultimately to the Prosperity Message. The gospel of prosperity teaches that Jesus Christ died to make men healthy and wealthy. Historically, many orthodox pentecostal churches rejected this gospel of prosperity. Today virtually all pentecostal churches subscribe to the notion that Jesus wishes to make Christians healthy and wealthy. They have reached this inevitable conclusion because pentecostal stems from a similar foundation. When glossolalia was discovered in 1900/1906, the focus of the church shifted from spiritual vitality to healing of diseases, miracles, signs and wonders, and tongues for personal edification. The pentecostal churches had redefined the purpose of the NT Charismatic gifts. Rather than being used to point men to Jesus and the gospel message, so as to bring human beings to faith in Christ and a knowledge of God, the gifts were perverted and made to satisfy people's needs. So rather than Kingdom benefit, the gifts were used for self benefits. A self benefit motive leads ultimately to a gospel of health and wealth, the prosperity message. Those who propagated this message were the Word of Faith harbingers: E. W. Kenyon, Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copland, Benson Idahosa, David Oyedepo, etc.

While many have refused to appreciate the argument of the Cessationists, there point is worth making here. The Cessationists teach that Apostolic signs and wonders have ceased with the first century. They teach that these miracles were given at that time to authenticate a message. When the message of the gospel was sealed in scriptures and given to the church, there was no longer any need for miracles, revelations, tongues and their interpretation. The Cessationists is however accused of teaching a false gospel but fortunately the fruit of the two movements lend credence to the veracity of their doctrine. On one hand, while Pentecostals claim propriety of spiritual gifts, their movement has led ultimately to a false gospel: PROSPERITY. Even many Pentecostals, while adhering to the some minute aspect of the prosperity message, condemn the Prosperity Gospel as a false gospel. On the other hand, Cessationism has led to a biblio-centric Christian movement. Since John Calvin, who resuscitated the Cessationist concept, to the Protestant movement, up till the Fundamentalists movement and even the new Reformed movement of our time, every time people subscribed to a Cessationist point of view, they subscribed ultimately to a bible centered Christianity.

Following the testimony of the book "CHURCHES THAT ABUSE" by Ronald Enrouthe, I discovered that 90% of churches that abuse people spiritually were Pentecostal. Even, vooks, a leading Pentecostal apologist on this forum, agrees that not one group that subscribed to Cessationism was mentioned in that book.

My humble submission here is that while many Pentecostals remain true Christians, a lot more falsehood and even demonic activities occurs in their churches than others that do not espouse their doctrines. This is a result of an over subscription to subjective experiences that emanate from a belief in a supernatural aspect of Christianity that the bible teaches had since ceased (1 Corinthians 13:8; Jude 3; Galatians 1:8-9; Hebrew 1:1-2; Revelations 22:18-19).

My broda,
Am on the side of truth. I believe in Jesus yet I have yet to meet Him, I believe in scriptures though am yet to live them out. That is Pentecostalism.

That there is ZERO support or even hint of cessationism from the scriptures but there is abundance of extrabiblical 'reasons' for cessationism is all that constantly remind me that Cessationism is a watered down skepticism. You deny the Word of God based on your experience and then demand that your inexperience be vindicated by the scriptures.

The wonder of Reformation has been reduced to idolatry where doctrines and theories of men are worshipped. Israel was once delivered by the brazen serpent. They later worshipped it. One can only thank God that despite Cessationists angry vitriol, they are a fringe group.

J

HCpaul:
If God should use this man to judge the world then many will go to hell.

Be careful cuz you may be involved.

rev14vs11:
Strictly speaking,I mean,in a christain context,celebacy is the a pious act,where a christain forsakes certain pleasure chiefly sex to serve and worship Christ Jesus with as few distraction as possible

It is CELIBACY

How would you exercise piety if somebody had been celibate?

Pyrrho:
A huge solid dick that will never bend. A Muslim cleric said this.

Gerrout!!!!

Little wonder Darwin mistook Negroes for monkeys
source
Listen from 8:45

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYn22odkx1Q

And what is the reward for single women in their utopia?

rev14vs11:
Brilliant piece!God keep us from the snare of sexual urge

You would be nonexistent if somebody had not been kept off the snare of sexual urge

tyuhd:
Men and Women will always give reasons for walking the aisle.We hear reasons like,"We're in love","My parents demand I produce a spouse","I'm clocking 35", "I need a child","I just need a companion,whom i can always confide in" Etc But We always discover Most Men and Women never honestly admit the truth--that the Main or chief reason for getting married is to satisfy sexual needs.simple!
I was talking to a Young Lady recently and I Pretended I was a bit curious wanting to know more--Something I already know,"What was your main reasons for marrying him?" I asked.and all she said was,"I'm in love with Him".well, I wasn't comfortable with her reply so I pressed further,"Yes! I know you're in love.but is that the Main reason for getting married?".I was trying to get her admit truth and again all she said was,"Don't bother me! I've already told you,we're in love".
These are the kinds of excuses people raise whenever we ask question that talks about their Spiritual Pedigree..We'll all agree--Marriage is the most rigid and restricted union created by God Almighty and Man by nature being narcissistic and self centered will always whimp out;if there isn't a solid anvil that drives home the nails.Have you ever asked yourself some question like,"Why will a Young Man spend a lifetime savings for a wedding event? Willingly take the responsibility of say four,five or even six people?".I can hear one NL'der saying,"Yes of course! He loves his Bride".Will you stop kidding me! and again has it occured to you,"Will a Young woman willingly change surname for husband's.get pregnant for Him,with all the discomfort and inconvenience that daily meets her as a wife among many other challenges such as "Submission to Husband's authority" etc.
You see @op Man by nature isn't that nice and self denying.He always looks out for his interest first.He never takes any course of action without first asking,"Will this profit me?and in what way?" and obviously a union as restrictive as marriage only tells you the obvious.We hear different reasons people get married but they're all SECONDARY REASONS.Age,societal pressure,love among many others isn't enough reasons people get married.Men and Women will always give excuses to getting Married.but the root cause which Many,If not all,are unwilling to admit is--To enjoy Sexual relations within the confines of God's ordained means--Marriage.Simple!
But @op I envy you sha.May the Lord keep you serving Him to the end even while denying self looking forward to that glorious day of recompense
LIFE WITHOUT SEX IS ACTUALLY SWEETER THAN YOU THINK.JUST TRUST GOD!

Summary:God uses Sex to bring selfish Man to the institution of Marriage and not some flimsy reasons people garner here and there.God is indeed great!

You are horribly silly.
Who made sex? Did 'selfish man' stumble upon it by accident?

rev14vs11:
As i voyage this fleeting world on the sweet chariot of celebacy,i sometimes ask out of curiosity,"why exactly do people get married?".i aways hear different reasons but i'm not satisfied.what's your take
mods pls leave this thread in religion section.

What is celebacy?

gabe15:
don't mind him all he know how to do is to run from one tread screaming tb Joshua

Have you catch an apparition of the Negro?

trapQ:
God bless you abundantly Gabe. I also saw TB Joshua on the 30th of August. I told this doubting Thomas here and as usual he debunked my claims. The wise men are all there except for JOHN CHI who informed T.B JOSHUA that he has a calling and would like to form his own church. T.B Joshua then prayed for him and let him go. Now John Chi's church is flourishing in Cameroon.

I've learnt to stop replying all these people that only seek his demise because the devil has intensified his gimmicks these days. stay blessed

Good teacher, what must I do to catch an apparition of TB Joshua?

parisbookaddict:
its only a jihadist like you that will think it doesnt matter when mualims print shirts to celebrate evil committed by other muslims

Killing infidels is an achievement

Mee234:
yes!!! There is a designated point beyond which u are not allow to wear ur shoe. But that aside , if u go to a church for ur wedding and the officiating minister day " remove ur shoe" . u remove it. unless there more to the shoe . That guy is such an idiot for ruining the day for everybody because of shoe. The lady should run for her dear life

Naija brand of Christianity is full of madness

WinsomeX:
vooks,

Prophecy

Written by Gösta W. Ahlström

Last Updated 10-15-2014

Prophecy, in religion , a divinely inspired revelation or interpretation. Although prophecy is perhaps most commonly associated with Judaism and Christianity, it is found throughout the religions of the world, both ancient and modern.

In its narrower sense, the term prophet ( Greek prophētēs, “forthteller”) refers to an inspired person who believes that he has been sent by his god with a message to tell. He is, in that sense, the mouthpiece of his god . In a broader sense, the word can refer to anybody who utters the will of a deity, often ascertained through visions, dreams, or the casting of lots; the will of the deity also may be spoken in a liturgical setting. The prophet, thus, is often associated with the priest , the shaman (a religious figure in tribal societies who functions as a healer, diviner, and possessor of psychic powers), the diviner (foreteller), and the mystic .

www.global.britannica.com/topic/prophecy

Read the remaining article and note the bold. Brittinicca says in a narrow sense prophecy is forthtelling, in other words primarily prophecy is forthtelling. In a broader sense it includes foretelling.

If the narrow sense of prophecy is forth telling, that means forth telling is a minor component of prophecy and not the other way round

Either way, women filled this office very much as men.

That we had Teachers,Knowledge and Wisdom tells me this gift did something else apart from any of these three yet the three encompass the general idea of forth-telling. Can you see why I insist forth telling was not the highlight of this gift in NT?

Mee234:
CCC , K&S. Thére is a church name mount Zion blessed church of God

Does everyone in the congregation remove heir shoes?

WinsomeX:
OK. I see your point.

Philippians 4:2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord. 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

In the above scripture we see some women "laboring" in the gospel with Paul. Shall we conclude that this laboring excludes preaching?

Remember also that I said that that prophesying in bible time will include revelation. Philip's daughters prophesied. Let's say 1 Cor 11:5 is not sufficient ground to refute prophesying as preaching. Let's see the result of your findings.

I think you have it in reverse.
Women labored with Paul right but he would not suffer them to teach men and they were to keep silent and learn from men. Yet they could prophesy and your definition of prophesying is 'forth-telling' and foretelling. The one example we have of prophecy is foretelling. So either women prophets in NT were only allowed to prophesy very far away from men if prophecy is 'forth telling' or prophecy is not 'forth telling' as commonly and without scriptural basis held.

When one looks at OT women prophets, they had a public ministry and they did prophesy over men. Examples include Miriam and Huldah (2 King 22:14-20). One has to really wonder how different an NT prophetess is from an OT prophetess. I insist they are not

Another point. Prophecy seems spontaneous from 1 Cor 14. A prophet just receives a word in public worship, so much that Paul had to remind them that the prophet spirit was still subject to the prophet and the spontaneity was no excuse for chaos. They were to 'hold it' and prophesy in turns as others checked the prophecy out.

Now,
1. If women were banned from forth telling (teaching) men, then the Holy Spirit would NEVER move among women to prophesy in public with men present lest they start forth telling (teaching) men which they were not supposed to.

2.The other possibility is women prophecy was of a different class from men prophecy. May be men forth told while women foretold. Since foretelling is not teaching, they could exercise it in presence of men so Paul was not contradicting himself.

#1 and #2 are really self-imposed conundrum. They are rooted on assumption that OT prophets are different from NT prophers and also the redefinition of prophecy to 'more forth telling( teaching) than fore telling'.

I suspect a suspect motive for redefining prophecy to have more forth-telling than foretelling. It is far much easier to forth tell than foretell.

Winsomex, Candour, Gombs sharing on the resurrection of Jesus is really forth telling and so he is prophesying. It is very easy to teach scriptures with little room for error and claim the Lord led you, illuminated verses bla de bla.....MacArthur is a great prophet so to speak. He has written books. In fact, to be a prophet all one has to do is to study scriptures diligently. Apollos was a man mighty in scriptures so he was a prophet.... John Calvin too!

Foretelling is a nightmare. Accuracy is IT or you lose your head. But you can't know the future except the Lord revealed it. That's why few want anything to do with this 'component' of prophecy. Their gift can easily be called out as a sham when you miss out on either occurrence or timing. TB Joshua has some smart video editors to tie loose ends.

Prophecy is PRIMARILY foretelling and not forth telling

Gombs:
I've already explained this... Quit holding on to straws.

No you haven't

there is a difference between the gift of tongues that accompanies the baptism in the Holy Spirit, which every believer can receive, and the gift of tongues that is a ministry gift.[

Gombs, what DIFFERENCE exists between these two?
How does operation of the SAME gift differ from the called to the uncalled?

So, if one can't yet interpret his tongues, they shouldn't even bother speaking it?

They should NEVER exercise the gift in public. How often do you disregard this?

You lot were asking where asking if Paul wrote about speaking in tongues in private prayers... A yes of course.

Definitely not me. As I said, uninterpteted tongues have no place in public worship seeing they only benefit the speaker but they are still potent in that they edify. Do you pray in uninterpteted tongues in public?

He however spoke about speaking in tongues to the public, as there is no need for it, if one can't interpret it.

Prayer too. How does one say AMEN to your giving if thanks if they can't hear? Paul is clear, no uninterpteted UNINTELLIGIBLE of any sort is to be had in public
1 Cor 14:16 (ESV)
Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying?

I wonder why you keep getting jittery at what I write, only to misunderstand them, to suit your stance. Remember, we're sharing beliefs, I'm not in the view of forcing you to believe, so should you.

That's what am wondering too. Why are you getting worked up? Substantiate your beliefs with scriptures. Back your posts with scriptures and drop empty cliches and we will be buddies. Or zip it. Nothing irritates me more than regurgitating traditions of men with stunning eloquence.

WinsomeX:
Do I suppose you or Gombs have no objection to the previous post I made quoting MacArthur?

I can't speak for Gombs but I deem it waste of good education,splitting hairs and intellectual dishonesty.
1. Nobody for a second denies that the gifts are temporary
2. The Greek, that tongues will 'auto-cease' while prophesy and knowledge will be 'terminated' is another disingenuous attempt to explain away HISTORICAL instances of miracles and prophecies long after the tongues. The idea is tongues 'auto-cease' well before the 'completion of canon'. You won't meet a more dishonest man than MacArthur. He for instance won't mention Iraneus because he recorded spiritual gifts long after John the revelator. He also quotes Augustine early statement on spiritual gifts and ignores a later statement where he acknowledged existence of the gifts.

I agree with him.

Ok

I believe in the same quote he made it clear that prophesying was primarily speaking forth in the days Paul used the term. However its use in that scripture will certainly including foretelling. Revelation having ceased (Jude 3, Rev 22:18-19), anyone prophesying today is only forth telling. Any foreteller is a false prophet.

Here you are making up more rules. This time,
1. pre-Revelation prophecies had elements of foretelling but post-Revelation had none.
2. NT Canon did away with the need for foretelling

Now that you hint at probable existence of prophets today (forth but NEVER foretelling), when Paul says prophecy will fail, how do you know which aspect of prophecy (forth/fore) he was talking about?

The distinction BTW prophesying then and teaching is basically the difference BTW Preaching and Teaching.

Which is what?

I'm not sure I know of any scripture Paul stated that women could prophesy publicly. What I can remember is him instructing women not to speak in public, talk less prophesy. Pls refer to the scripture you have in mind

1 Cor 11:5 (ESV)
but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven

I look fwd to your findings



No trouble. Peace.

Same

Mee234:
NO!!! The church have no blame at all. Like every establishment, the church have their own rules. [b]Some churches don't allow u wear ur shoe into their church buliding. [/b]I guess that church is such. The groom attended marriage class there so he must have know shoe is not allow. He refusal because of the cost of the shoe shows the kind of man he is. He went to the church. The church did not come to him for marriage. If I were the father of the bride, I will be having a second thought about giving out my daughter to such a stupid fellow

Examples of such churches?

I would remove mine if all had removed and even then if only I knew well before of this rule

Anyway, trust Nigeria to mix paganism,stupidity and superstition with Christ

dre11:
http://leadership.ng/news/471538/kill-joy-church-aborts-couples-wedding-over-grooms-refusal-to-remove-designer-shoes

What is the rule, removing shoes or removing expensive shoes?