Friday, June 17, 2016

Church of God False Teacher Claims Women Can Only Sing In Church and NOT Preach

and preach...

The Church of God's newest self-appointed false prophet was not particularly happy when The Journal recently had a series of articles on women preaching. The die-hard legalists just cannot get past the idea that only THIER opinions and interpretations are valid.

Almost Arrested Elisha Elijah Amos Thiel lashes out at Tina Engelbart and her interpretation of the Greek words for women preaching.  The most important thing for COG leaders like Thiel, Flurry, Pack and Kubik is that the patriarchy must always reign supreme.

For a woman to preach in church seems to be the most disgusting thing ever to happen.  The only thing women are allowed to do is nurse babies, change diapers and sing.  Women may sing all they want, as long as they don't preach while singing.
First, while Tina Engelbart is entitled to her opinion about what she thinks the Greek means, the reality is that there is no record of Christian women preaching in either the New Testament nor in early Christian writings. While it is possible that the apostate Simon Magus may have had a female preach, and maybe did some other apostates, people who understood koine Greek at the time apparently did not feel that the Apostle Paul was allowing women to preach. 
Second, UCG is correct that women should not be preaching. This is confirmed by the following passage that is in the Bible (hence, even allowing for a different translation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, this is not something only to be derived from the Talmud as Tina Engelbart indicates): 
11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. (1 Timothy 2:11-12). 
Third, as far as the Talmud goes, Tina Engelbart needs to consider that the Jews DID allow women to sing and hence the prohibition they had related to women speaking before the assembly did not include singing. That is the same in the Christian church as well.


Opinionated said...

I wonder what her dead husband Ozzie would have to say on this subject?

Almost arrested Bob should shut his trap. He is a first rate asshole. No one asked him for his worthless opinion.

Anonymous said...

1 Cor 14:
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

What law? You can search the scripture end to end and not one word like that.
Paul was still learning and was teaching from the oral law on this stuff.
It is a Jewish fable.

Byker Bob said...

Ho hum. Why can't these self-proclaimed prophets come up with something actually important, and useful? Like, why couldn't Thiel have warned us that the Belgian takeover would ruin Budweiser? I mean, Judas Priest! Each can tastes completely different and you never know what you are going to get! I actually had to switch to Coors.


Anonymous said...

I for one, would not want to hear a woman preach to me. I believe in equality, but the fact remains that both sexes are better suited to some roles rather than others. These genetic differences need to be honoured.

Mish-Mash of the Poconos said...

I can't wait to see the COG leadership set their hair on fire if Hillary Clinton gets elected. What's that scripture about "women ruling over them"?

Ralph said...

Breathe deeply, and again....then think. From the Topic Header:-

"The die-hard legalists just cannot get past the idea that only THEIR opinions and interpretations are valid."

A perfect example of a 'Two Way Street'. It's just one of those things that makes human nature so fascinating.


Anonymous said...

The women who would end up preaching would be the very spoilt and smug pastors wives. They would rarely have anything worthwhile to preach anyway. It is all about status and power.

Lake of Fire Church of God said...

I'm confused!!!!

I thought "Almost arrested" Bob Thiel was a profit (OOps, I mean Prophet). If his ACOG role is one of a prophet, why is he wasting time on this inconsequential dribble and not focusing 100% of his attention to prophesying which is the role of a Prophet? I didn't think Prophets get their hands dirty in Church administration and Church doctrines. And as Byker Bob states, how about some useful prophecy for a change - like which team will win the World Series this fall? We won't ask him to prophesy about the next Super Bowl because we all know how he feels about Football.


Lake of Fire Church of God said...

Mish-Mash of the Poconos said, "What's that scripture about "women ruling over them"?

MY COMMENT - I don't remember the exact scripture off hand, but WCG used this scripture as the prophecy and definition of cursed British Israelite nations (America and U.K. Common Wealth and western Europe)...."Children would be their oppressors and women shall rule over you".

Decades after I left the WCG, I had a disagreement with my mother who remained in the Church and died while a member of the idiot Meredith's LCG. Remembering the scripture from my youth many decades ago, I used this scripture as a lightning rod so to speak to throw the WCG/LCG under the bus and said to her during our disagreement, "I will not let a woman rule over me!"

To my surprise, my mother who spent 40+ years in Armstrongism replied, "the scripture could be translated to read women CAN rule over you!"


DennisCDiehl said...

Oh no...what if....??

Women in Church History


Rev. Kathryn J. Riss

Scripture mentions a wide variety of women's ministries that were approved by God and praised by the early church. New Testament offices held by women include apostle, prophet, pastor, deacon, eldress, widow and virgin. In addition, Paul names a number of women as well as men whom he called "fellow workers." These women were the apostle's colleagues in ministry. The New Testament relates even more ministry activities of women, including prayer, hospitality, teaching and evangelism.


In Romans 16:7, Paul praises a woman named Junia as "outstanding among the apostles." Despite the modern mistranslation of her name as masculine "Junias" or "Junius," no commentator prior to the 13th century questioned that this apostle was a woman.1 For example, John Chrysostom, whose writings often express misogyny, wrote of Romans 16:7, "O how great is the devotion of this woman that she should be counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!"2 This unanimity of testimony over a milennium is particularly striking since it remained during a long period of eroding toleration of women's ministries in the medieval church. The reason for the witness is simple: all the ancient Greek and Latin manuscripts commending the oustanding apostles in Romans 16:7 read either "Junia" or "Julia", both feminine forms.

Both Junia and Julia were very common ancient Greek woman's names, whereas the masculine alternatives suggested by modern commentators have no manuscript evidence to support them. "Junius" and "Junianus" suggested by some, are perfectly good Roman man's names. However, they occur in NO ancient manuscript of Romans 16:7! Of the hypothetical name "Junias," Bernadette Brooten writes, "What can a modern philologist say about Junias? Just this: it is unattested. To date, not a single reference in ancient literature has been cited by any of the proponents of the Junias hypothesis. My own search for an attestation has also proved fruitless. This means that we do not have a single shred of evidence that the name Junias ever existed."3 Note that Brooten is not only speaking of the lack of this name in NT manuscripts, but in ANY ancient manuscript, Greek or Latin, secular or sacred!

Certain early manuscripts do contain a variant name, but it, too, is feminine. "Julia" is found in P46, it, cop, eth, and Ambrosiaster. P46, a papyrus manuscript dating about 200 AD, is one of the most ancient and reliable Greek mss of the NT extant. In Romans 16:7, P46 reads "Julia," which can only be feminine. What does this mean? That in Romans 16, St. Paul commends a noteworthy woman apostle. It also means that translators who found a woman apostle unacceptable made up the name "Junias" to substitute their own word for the Word of God. That is how important limiting women's freedom has been to religious legalists. We will find that this attitude and practice have been all too common.

What does the Bible say? Paul calls Junia his kinsman and fellow prisoner. Like Paul, she had suffered persecution and imprisonment for the Gospel. Evidently, her ministry and faith were known even outside the church. Sometimes we forget what early Christians under the iron fist of pagan Rome had to suffer to proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord. For Junia and Andronicus (perhaps her husband), being an apostle wasn't a matter of privilege, but prison.....

See article:

Anonymous said...

1 Cor 14 says a woman has to keep silent as the 'law' says.
But there is no such law in scripture.
It was from the oral law only.
Paul was still growing when he said that.
And also the church fail to take into consideration "to the law and the testimony" and if they don't speak according to that, forget it.
So Pauls head covering mandate is also invalid because that also is not in scripture.

Retired Prof said...

I long ago gave up the idea of finding out what I am supposed to think by consulting a single ancient anthology of myths, folk sayings, pseudo-history, poems, and precepts. A range of sources from various cultures allows me to sift through more options. I hold them up against experience. It is the experience, interpreted through enlightened eyes, that I go by.

After many years of this process I can say with confidence that neither men nor women hold an overall advantage in wisdom or in the ability to communicate it--the prime requisites for preaching. These qualities also apply to general administrative ability, which I am better qualified to comment on than preaching and counseling skills.

My university had administrators of both genders, with the proportion of women increasing steadily over the thirty-five years I worked there. Some women and some men were excellent, some were wretched. My academic department was chaired by a series of people, all at least pretty good. (I was a lucky man.) The one who was only "pretty good," because sometimes inattentive to our best interests and occasionally indecisive in carrying out policies, was the man in place when I was hired. The one before him, also a man, was said by colleagues who knew him to be tyrannical and arbitrarily oppressive. It is hard to rank the department heads during my tenure; they all had their strengths and weaknesses, but all carried out their duties competently and treated department members fairly. Four were men and two were women. Among administrators higher in the university hierarchy, there were good ones and bad ones of both genders. The very worst was a woman who held the top post of chancellor. Obviously, that one example does not warrant the generalization that women do not make suitable leaders.

In sum, jurisdictions and organizations, including churches, that omit women as candidates for certain jobs by adhering to Abrahamic patriarchal values are squandering a chance to find the best people.

Byker Bob said...

These self-appointed teachers are all stuck within the doctrinally inbred "gene pool" of Armstrongist theology. They've equated the old coot to God Himself, in that they claim to be following God and not a man, yet they fail to consider the many additional aspects and dimensions to any given topic that the literalist interpretation totally misses. Frankly, in addition to falling into the error of the Pharisees, the ACOGs even hold to bad or inferior literalist positions. As others have already pointed out, there is much deeper information and thought available on this topic, as well as most others.

What kind of woman would a Christian man really be seeking? Wouldn't she be one with a deeper knowledge of the scriptures, and therefore an asset to his Christian walk? One who could be effective in lovingly imparting that fund of knowledge to the children? In the ACOGs, there is so much insecurity that a woman's deep spirituality would be seen as a threat to the authority of man.