A Woman's Role

[malachi83]

Matthew 12:46-50:46While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.

47Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

48But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

49And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

- King James Version

50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

[Obadiah 1:18]

Reporting what you have seen is often called “witnessing” and is included in preaching and teaching.

Reporting what you have seen is also often just called reporting or relaying news, as was the case here. To infer from the Gospel account that when Mary informed the disciples of Christ's resurrection she preached to them as well is to read something into Scripture that isn't there.

Jesus didn’t have to establish a reversal for a precedent that was never set in scripture. Women were never commanded by Yahweh to be silent, to not preach, or to not speak in an assembly that includes men. That was a new rule for church conduct that Paul started.

Are you saying that because Paul "started" it, it's not scriptural? That's a pretty shaky foundation to build your argument on. In I Timothy 1:1, Paul states that he was an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I can see no reason to question this. You can?

Paul made it plain that his directive for women to remain silent in church related to an important spiritual principle, that being that women are not to usurp authority from men. If I were to enter a church and see a woman preaching a sermon to a congregation that included men, I would immediately think that she was exercising authority over those men, and I would be right on the money.

When Jesus told Peter to feed the sheep, He was restoring Peter from a fallen, backslidden state and reestablishing the commission He had given to him and all the rest of His disciples (the twelve, the seventy, the one hundred and twenty, etc.) to serve His people.

Jesus never mentioned Paul.

Jesus never mentioned Pastor Visser, Wesley Swift, or Martin Luther either. Does that mean their church leadership isn't, or wasn't, legitimate? You can't necessarily prove something from Scripture because it is absent in Scripture. It's like the old guy who wrote a story about Jesus and His pet dog because even though the Bible doesn't say Jesus had a dog, the Bible doesn't say He didn't have a dog.

Jesus didn’t need to outline each individual disciple’s role. Mary’s role is like that of any other disciple of Jesus who would take up their cross and follow Him: obey the commands of Jesus, serve His people, preach the gospel, etc.

Jesus didn't need to outline each disciple's role because they, men and women, already knew what their roles were. The men were to be the leaders in the church. The women were to assist the men, not as leaders, but as helpers. They could preach and teach in certain circumstances, as long as they weren't wresting authority from men in the process.

[DunaMiss]

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you…. (Matthew 28:19-20)

For I give you good doctrine: Do not forsake My Law. (Proverbs 4:2)

Jesus didn’t institute a rule for women to be silent in the church and not preach to men. This rule is nowhere to be found in the Law, the Psalms, or the Prophets. Paul was the one who introduced this new rule for church conduct to believers. His foundation for this rule is not the Law of Moses, Jesus’ doctrines, or any other scripture because no precedent for this rule can be found anywhere in scripture.

...the argument that forbidding women to preach to men in church is unscriptural and somehow pharisaical is not a valid one.

The only other witness in the bible to Paul’s new rule for church conduct as written in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is Paul’s own confirmation of it in 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Paul’s confirmation of his own theology is not a legitimate basis for establishing a doctrine and requiring Yahweh’s people to follow it.

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. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1 Timothy 2:11-12)

The tradition of the elders (the Talmud) is the source for Paul’s unique rule for church conduct. It is also the source for his obscure notion that women must have their heads covered.

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 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 shaven, let her be covered. …Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? (1 Corinthians 11:5-6, 13)

“It is prohibited for men to pray in the presence of women whose hair is uncovered (Talmud, Berachot 24a) since it is proper for Jewish women to cover their hair (Talmud, Tosefta Ketubot 7:6). …A woman standing in a doorway with uncovered hair should be avoided (Talmud, Sanhedrin 110a). Financial compensation must be paid to a woman by someone who intentionally uncovers her hair in public (Talmud, Baba Kamma 8:6).” From Encyclopedia of Medicine in the Bible and the Talmud by Fred Rosner

There is no scriptural precedent for Paul’s opinion about women’s head coverings and the impropriety of praying with uncovered hair. In fact, Jesus made it well known that He had no problem with women having free-flowing hair and kissing His feet, worshipping Him, anointing Him, washing His feet with tears, and wiping his feet with their uncovered hair.

And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner. (Luke 7:37-39)

Paul was a Pharisee. His father was a Pharisee. He never publicly renounced Pharisaism. Even years after his conversion to Christianity, He was still testifying that he was a Pharisee.

But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee….” (Acts 23:6)

Paul claimed to have studied under Gamaliel, the preeminent Pharisee of his day.

I am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, and I was brought up and educated here in Jerusalem under Gamaliel. At his feet I learned to follow our Jewish laws and customs very carefully…. (Acts 22:3)

I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. (Galatians 1:14)

He never claimed to have sat at the feet of Jesus or to have studied with any of those who did. In fact, he stated emphatically that he did not consult with anyone who had lived with, travelled with, or received instruction directly from Jesus (as the disciples in Jerusalem had) but went away alone to get his doctrine.

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it…. I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. (Galatians 1:11-12, 16-17)

With such indoctrination in the traditions of the elders and no first-hand experience with Jesus, His doctrines, or His followers, it’s not surprising that Pharisaical ideas would surface in Paul’s writings. This seems to be the source for some of the confusion in Paul’s teachings.

In I Timothy 1:1, Paul states that he was an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I can see no reason to question this. You can?

Jesus never called Paul an “Apostle.” None of the apostles Jesus appointed called Paul an apostle. Paul called himself an apostle. He’s the only one who ever used that title for himself anywhere in the bible. He would have been the thirteenth apostle, since there were already twelve.

And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. …For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:15-26)

[DunaMiss]

Jesus saith unto her, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to My Father: but go to My brethren, and say unto them, ‘I ascend unto My Father, and your Father; and to My God, and your God.’” Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things unto her. Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. (John 20:17-19)

Jesus wasn't commissioning her to preach to men, he was merely instructing her to report what she had seen to His followers....

Reporting what you have seen is also often just called reporting or relaying news, as was the case here. To infer from the Gospel account that when Mary informed the disciples of Christ's resurrection she preached to them as well is to read something into Scripture that isn't there....

Jesus gave Mary a specific message to preach (or tell, proclaim, declare, speak, report good news) to the assembly of disciples: "Go to My brethren, and say unto them, ‘I ascend unto My Father, and your Father; and to My God, and your God.'"

All preachers should endeavor to speak a message from Jesus. This is the essence of scriptural, Spirit-filled preaching. And what a glorious message Mary was given! This message is as vital today as it was when she spoke it. There are still Israelites who are unaware that Jesus is alive and has ascended to the Father with His own blood in payment for their redemption and reconciliation to Him.

[Obadiah 1:18]

Jesus didn’t institute a rule for women to be silent in the church and not preach to men. This rule is nowhere to be found in the Law, the Psalms, or the Prophets. Paul was the one who introduced this new rule for church conduct to believers. His foundation for this rule is not the Law of Moses, Jesus’ doctrines, or any other scripture because no precedent for this rule can be found anywhere in scripture.

Jesus didn't need to institute a rule because it was already accepted that women were not to have authority over men. This rule, as you call it, goes right back to the Garden of Eden, where God Himself set the precedent for it by forming Adam before Eve, who was created to help Adam, not to seize control from him. And that precedent is echoed by both testaments, with all the leaders of Israel and the early church being men, including all the prophets, major and minor, whose books comprise much of the OT. When it comes to Christian leadership, men, not women have almost always been God's mouthpiece. The only times this wasn't so is when the men of Israel were derelict in their duty to God.

The only other witness in the bible to Paul’s new rule for church conduct as written in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is Paul’s own confirmation of it in 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Paul’s confirmation of his own theology is not a legitimate basis for establishing a doctrine and requiring Yahweh’s people to follow it.

Paul's "new rule" cannot be separated from his statement that women are not to have authority over men, which, again, he directly links to what happened in the Garden of Eden. So the doctrine was established long before he articulated it.

The tradition of the elders (the Talmud) is the source for Paul’s unique rule for church conduct.

This is not supported by Scripture. That there are some small similarities between what the Talmud says and what Paul said does not prove that the Talmud inspired his teachings. I agree with Martin Lindstedt that Christians shouldn't race mix, but that doesn't mean that I look to him for inspiration and guidance on religious matters.

There is no scriptural precedent for Paul’s opinion about women’s head coverings and the impropriety of praying with uncovered hair. In fact, Jesus made it well known that He had no problem with women having free-flowing hair and kissing His feet, worshipping Him, anointing Him, washing His feet with tears, and wiping his feet with their uncovered hair.

You could also argue that Jesus didn't have that much of a problem with the woman who was caught in the act of adultery because He didn't see to it that she was put to death for her sin, which she should have been according to His Father's law. Exceptions do not prove the rule, only that whoever makes the rule can make an exception to that rule. Moreover, there is no Scripture that states that Christ had no problem with women having uncovered hair, nor is there one that even implies He made it "well-known" that he had no problem with "free-flowing" hair.

Paul was a Pharisee. His father was a Pharisee. He never publicly renounced Pharisaism. Even years after his conversion to Christianity, He was still testifying that he was a Pharisee.

Paul may have been a pharisee in name but not in deed, and that is a crucial difference. Before his conversion, he was persecuting Christians, but after his conversion, he was persecuted as a Christian. Further, He was called to be a Christian by the audible voice of Christ Himself, and following his conversion to Christianity was accepted into the fold by no less a man than Barnabas, who presented him to the disciples and explained to them how confidently and courageously Paul had been been preaching in the name of Jesus.

He never claimed to have sat at the feet of Jesus or to have studied with any of those who did. In fact, he stated emphatically that he did not consult with anyone who had lived with, travelled with, or received instruction directly from Jesus (as the disciples in Jerusalem had) but went away alone to get his doctrine.

The overwhelming majority of godly men and women in the history of the Church cannot make that claim either. He didn't go off by himself to get his doctrine, the Bible says that after Ananias visited him, under direct instructions from the Lord, he remained with the disciples for several days in Damascus (Acts 9:19). Doubtless they would have taught him much about Christian doctrine.

With such indoctrination in the traditions of the elders and no first-hand experience with Jesus, His doctrines, or His followers, it’s not surprising that Pharisaical ideas would surface in Paul’s writings. This seems to be the source for some of the confusion in Paul’s teachings.

It is plain from the account of Paul's conversion in the Book of Acts and the events that followed his conversion that he was a man called by God, a calling that was recognized by other Spirit-led men and women of that time. Some of the greatest passages in Scripture, including Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 13, were written by Paul. Should we dismiss these Scriptures too, or only those that women champing at the bit to preach a sermon to men disapprove of?

Jesus never called Paul an “Apostle.” None of the apostles Jesus appointed called Paul an apostle. Paul called himself an apostle. He’s the only one who ever used that title for himself anywhere in the bible. He would have been the thirteenth apostle, since there were already twelve.

Paul's manifest calling by Jesus Christ is recorded in Scripture and was corroborated by devout men such as Ananias and Barnabas, who were guided by God to help and encourage him. I'd say that this trumps the above quote.

Jesus gave Mary a specific message to preach (or tell, proclaim, declare, speak, report good news) to the assembly of disciples: "Go to My brethren, and say unto them, ‘I ascend unto My Father, and your Father; and to My God, and your God.'"

No. He gave her a specific message to tell them. No mention whatsoever is made of her turning that message into a sermon which she preached to men.

[DunaMiss]

Jesus didn't need to institute a rule because it was already accepted that women were not to have authority over men. This rule, as you call it, goes right back to the Garden of Eden, where God Himself set the precedent for it by forming Adam before Eve, who was created to help Adam, not to seize control from him. And that precedent is echoed by both testaments, with all the leaders of Israel and the early church being men, including all the prophets, major and minor, whose books comprise much of the OT. When it comes to Christian leadership, men, not women have almost always been God's mouthpiece. The only times this wasn't so is when the men of Israel were derelict in their duty to God.

“Preaching” is not a synonym for “authority” in the bible, nor is it one of the definitions of “authority” in the dictionary. “Preaching the gospel” does not equal “authority over men.”

Paul's "new rule" cannot be separated from his statement that women are not to have authority over men, which, again, he directly links to what happened in the Garden of Eden. So the doctrine was established long before he articulated it.

In the beginning, Yahweh gave them—men and women—their commission together as ONE:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:27-28)

Yahweh created women in His Own image to help the men He created in His Own image carry out the commission He gave them to do together as ONE.

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. …And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:18, 23-24)

Jesus reiterated what Yahweh established in the beginning: men and women were to carry out their commission in obedience to Yahweh as ONE. He rebuked husbands for having hard hearts and breaking apart what God had joined together as ONE:

…Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. …He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (Matthew 19:4-8)

Yahweh commanded husbands and wives to be joined together as ONE in obedience to Him. There is a judgment for breaking the Law of one flesh obedience to Him:

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (Genesis 3:16)

One of the curses established in the garden for Yahweh’s women who violate His Law was that their husbands would rule over them. When Yahweh’s people obey His One Flesh Law, they are not subject to the curse. When Israel obeys the Law, blessings follow. When Israel breaks the Law, curses come.

When Paul wrote his epistles, he created a doctrine out of this curse in the garden. He called the curse a blessing by perverting it into a doctrine for the church to be subject to. The leaven of that doctrine has permeated the entire Kingdom of God.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. (1 Timothy 2:11-15)

Yahweh never said: “Adam was formed before Eve, and thereby men will have dominion over women henceforth forevermore.”

Furthermore, women are not saved in childbearing. This is a lie against the doctrines of Jesus Christ. They are saved by believing in the gospel of Jesus Christ and receiving the remission of their sins in baptism, just like men are. The Lamb of God didn't discriminate against women when He took away the sins of the world. I can only imagine where Paul came up with this idea.

You could also argue that Jesus didn't have that much of a problem with the woman who was caught in the act of adultery because He didn't see to it that she was put to death for her sin, which she should have been according to His Father's law. Exceptions do not prove the rule, only that whoever makes the rule can make an exception to that rule.

Jesus didn’t violate Yahweh’s Law to make an exception for the woman caught in adultery. Jesus advised the woman’s accusers to go ahead and stone her by telling them who should throw the first one. After the witnesses all left the scene, there was no longer a legal means for carrying out the sentence. The bible doesn’t say that Jesus was a witness to the crime, and He would never bear false witness by accusing someone based on hearsay.

Moreover, there is no Scripture that states that Christ had no problem with women having uncovered hair, nor is there one that even implies He made it "well-known" that he had no problem with "free-flowing" hair.

Jesus didn’t have a problem with free-flowing hair because He didn’t rebuke the woman for wiping her hair all over his feet in public. He always did and said what His Father commanded Him to. He never had a problem giving a public rebuke when needed. It’s well-known that He had no problem with her hair because multiplied millions of people have read this chapter of the bible, as He knew they would.

Jesus never mentioned Pastor Visser, Wesley Swift, or Martin Luther either. Does that mean their church leadership isn't, or wasn't, legitimate?

Not at all. Paul was a man commissioned to preach the gospel and bring people into the Kingdom just like Martin Luther, Wesley Swift, Pastor Visser, and all disciples of Jesus Christ. He was not authorized to add to or take away from the Law of Moses, the Prophets, or the doctrines of Jesus. No disciple of Jesus has been authorized to violate the Law or the commands of Christ.

Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him…. (2 John 1:9-10)

[Obadiah 1:18]

"Preaching" is not a synonym for "authority" in the bible, nor is it one of the definitions of "authority" in the dictionary. Preaching the gospel does not equal authority over men.

The point of this debate isn't whether a woman should preach but whether a woman should preach to men in church. The precise meaning of the word preaching isn't in dispute here.

In the beginning, Yahweh gave them--men and women--their commission together as ONE:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:27-28)

Yahweh created women in His Own image to help the men He created in His Own image carry out the commission He gave them to do together as ONE

That all changed with the Fall, and God was very specific about what had changed:

Genesis 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

There is no commandment in the Bible that rescinds the above God-given law. Men are still to rule over women in a society, marriage, and church where His laws are obeyed. The proliferation and the general acceptance of female preachers we see today is symptomatic of His people's apostasy. When we look in the Bible at those all too brief periods when Israel and the early Church did obey God we see that, without exception, men, not women, held the positions of leadership. Why? Because that is God's clearly established pattern, a pattern based on His clearly established laws.

Adam and Eve, though married, were intended by God to be prototypical of all white men and women. Therefore what applied to them applies to all white people, married or not, just as the curses that resulted from the Fall apply to everybody; men are to be the leaders, are to have the rule, in and out of church.

Jesus reiterated what Yahweh established in the beginning: men and women were to carry out their commission in obedience to Yahweh as ONE. He rebuked husbands for having hard hearts and breaking apart what God had joined together as ONE:

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (Matthew 19:4-8)

Jesus was talking about the marriage relationship here, not church leadership. If, as you seem to believe, these verses prove that it's permissible for a woman to preach to men in church, then, by extension, only a married woman can do the preaching, since they apply only to marriage.

Yahweh commanded husbands and wives to be joined together as ONE in obedience to Him. There is a judgment for breaking the Law of one flesh obedience to Him:

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (Genesis 3:16)

One of the curses established in the garden for Yahweh's women who violate His Law was that their husbands would rule over them. When Yahweh's people obey His One Flesh Law, they are not subject to the curse. When Israel obeys the Law, blessings follow. When Israel breaks the Law, curses come.

One of the resulting curses of Israel's disobedience is that women would rule over men. When women preach to men in church, they are ruling over them, for whoever is preaching a sermon in a church is in a position of authority while he or she is preaching that sermon.

When Paul wrote his epistles, he created a doctrine out of this curse in the garden. He called the curse a blessing by perverting it into a doctrine for the church to be subject to. The leaven of that doctrine has permeated the entire Kingdom of God.

Here we go again with the Paul-bashing! It's central to your thesis, isn't it? And it has to be because the only way you can attempt to make your arguments stick is to put a question mark over anything Paul wrote that stands in the way of your unscriptural belief that it's okay for women to preach to men in church. "Paul was a pharisee! Paul didn't receive his teaching from the mouth of Jesus! Paul's statement can't be supported by other Scripture!" It never ends.

Paul couldn't have made it plainer that the directives he gave in his epistles were God's commandments.

1 Corinthians 14:37
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Paul's teachings were the same, regardless of where he taught, so they, whether seen as a whole or in part, cannot be dismissed as being relevant only to a particular assembly at a particular time.

1 Corinthians 4:17
For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

The Apostle Peter made no bones about the fact that Paul's epistles were Divinely inspired.

2 Peter 3:14-17
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
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.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. (1 Timothy 2:11-15)

Yahweh never said Adam was formed before Eve, and thereby men will have dominion over women henceforth forevermore.

Yahweh did indeed say it through Paul's writings, whose Divine inspiration was substantiated by Peter. Also, "dominion" would be better put as "loving authority" and it is not "forevermore". It only applies to us for as long as we are in these flesh and blood bodies.

Furthermore, women are not saved in childbearing. This is a lie against the doctrines of Jesus Christ. They are saved by believing in the gospel of Jesus Christ and receiving the remission of their sins in baptism, just like men are. The Lamb of God didn't discriminate against women when He took away the sins of the world. I can only imagine where Paul came up with this idea.

Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. If you deem Paul a liar, you deem the Holy Ghost a liar!

As for women being saved in childbearing, many Bible commentators believe that what Paul meant was that women would find fulfillment through motherhood rather than through assuming leadership roles in the Church. I think that is a very reasonable interpretation, one which dovetails perfectly with Paul's counsel on women

Jesus didn't have a problem with free-flowing hair because He didn't rebuke the woman for wiping her hair all over his feet in public. He always did and said what His Father commanded Him to. He never had a problem giving a public rebuke when needed. It's well-known that He had no problem with her hair because multiplied millions of people have read this chapter of the bible, as He knew they would.

Men were to pray and prophesy in church with their head uncovered. Women were to pray and prophesy in church with their head covered. The women were to do this as a sign of their submission to the God-ordained headship of men in general, and, if they were married, their husbands in particular. The woman who washed Christ's feet with uncovered hair wasn't in violation of this commandment, since, by her actions, she was submitting to Christ, Who was at that time present in the flesh, and was her headship and thus her covering. However, in church, where Christ, though present in the Spirit, has put men in charge, a woman's head ought to be covered, as it signifies her obedience to the authority of man, as well as the greater authority of Christ.

[Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him (2 John 1:9-10)

Does that also go for people who reject the doctrine of Christ that was given through Paul?

[seedliner]

Does that also go for people who reject the doctrine of Christ that was given through Paul?

I know, what's with the recent Paul-bashing?

[DunaMiss]

Here we go again with the Paul-bashing! It's central to your thesis, isn't it? And it has to be because the only way you can attempt to make your arguments stick is to put a question mark over anything Paul wrote that stands in the way of your unscriptural belief that it's okay for women to preach to men in church. "Paul was a pharisee! Paul didn't receive his teaching from the mouth of Jesus! Paul's statement can't be supported by other Scripture!" It never ends.

You’re right, Obadiah. Verifying that Paul overstepped his authority is central to my thesis. The doctrine of women being silent in the church and not preaching to men is Paul’s doctrine, doesn’t agree with Jesus’ doctrine, and has no confirmation in the Law, the Prophets, or the Psalms. If you’d like to discuss Paul further, please meet me at the new “The Controversial Paul” thread under “New Testament.” I’ve responded to your points over there.

I know, what's with the recent Paul-bashing?

It came to the surface with the recent surge in Pauline theology since my latest post about Dr. Comparet.

I believe Dr. Comparet was entirely in line with scripture when he gave his radio-pulpit to his wife, Inez Comparet, to give (a.k.a. preach) messages for the listening church, both men and women, to hear.

I haven’t said so yet, but I also believe that the Visser family is in agreement with scripture in letting women post messages on this forum-pulpit for the viewing church, both men and women, to read. Some of the posts around here are better sermons than you get in many so-called “Christian” churches, and the Vissers graciously let both men and women write (a.k.a. preach) them here.

Let it be known that I don’t disagree with everything Paul said. I agree with the things he wrote that line up with the doctrines of Jesus.

[Obadiah 1:18]

You’re right, Obadiah. Verifying that Paul overstepped his authority is central to my thesis. The doctrine of women being silent in the church and not preaching to men is Paul’s doctrine, doesn’t agree with Jesus’ doctrine, and has no confirmation in the Law, the Prophets, or the Psalms. If you’d like to discuss Paul further, please meet me at the new “The Controversial Paul” thread under “New Testament.” I’ve responded to your points over there.

Just what this forum needs, DunaMiss, another thread in which you do your utmost to besmirch one of the greatest figures in the history of the Christian Church. As far as I'm concerned, you're a heretic who doesn't have a scriptural leg to stand on. So you can count me out of contributing in any way to this new paean to feminism of yours that you've started in the NT sub-forum. If people are ignorant enough to buy into your anti-Paul claptrap, that's their problem. The Bible gives dire warnings about taking away from the Word of God, which is exactly what you've been doing -- and, no doubt, will continue to do -- by undermining and casting aspersions on Paul's Spirit-anointed epistles or sections thereof.

I haven’t said so yet, but I also believe that the Visser family is in agreement with scripture in letting women post messages on this forum-pulpit for the viewing church, both men and women, to read. Some of the posts around here are better sermons than you get in many so-called “Christian” churches, and the Vissers graciously let both men and women write (a.k.a. preach) them here.

The last time I looked, this was a message board, an online discussion forum, not a church. Likening it to a literal Church pulpit is ridiculous, but then, so is your push to become the Joyce Meyers of Christian Identity.

Let it be known that I don’t disagree with everything Paul said. I agree with the things he wrote that line up with the doctrines of Jesus.

You disagree with anything that would prevent you from preaching the Word to men in church. If Peter and others had made similar points to Paul, you'd be attacking them, calling them liars, unrepentant pharisees, etc. as well. Paul isn't your problem, Church doctrine is.

Just out of curiosity, DunaMiss, are you Joy Reigns?