Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
35 online now:
dwise1, ICANT, PaulK (3 members, 32 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,419 Year: 18,455/19,786 Month: 875/1,705 Week: 127/518 Day: 1/52 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pauls Contradiction?
karen
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 31 (262548)
11-22-2005 7:43 PM


Hi,

First time to post on this site, maybe some of you EvC members can shed some light on a query I have:

Paul states in 1 Cor.11,5 "Any women who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had her hair cut off" (women in biblical times who had their hair short were usually less honoured citizens,eg: prostitutes)

Then in 1 Cor.14,34-35, Paul says " As in all the churches of the holy ones, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak and should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a women to speak in the church." (Strangely enough,this is not in context with the rest of the this passage...)Also here Paul states 'as even the law says',yet he writes over and over in Romans that we are dead to the law.

My big dilemma on both of these scripture quotes is that they seem to condradict each other. On one hand it's ok for women to speak out in church if the head is covered, and on the other,they can't talk at all in church!

I'm confused-help!!

This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 11-30-2005 04:22 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by arachnophilia, posted 11-22-2005 8:00 PM karen has not yet responded
 Message 5 by purpledawn, posted 11-23-2005 5:47 AM karen has not yet responded
 Message 6 by iano, posted 11-23-2005 12:02 PM karen has responded
 Message 13 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 5:54 PM karen has not yet responded
 Message 14 by celestialGyoud, posted 11-30-2005 2:25 AM karen has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Carico, posted 12-07-2005 12:41 PM karen has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-15-2005 11:55 PM karen has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 12-16-2005 7:32 PM karen has not yet responded
 Message 26 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2005 10:08 AM karen has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Rainman2, posted 04-23-2006 12:40 AM karen has not yet responded

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 31 (262551)
11-22-2005 7:48 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 3 of 31 (262556)
11-22-2005 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by karen
11-22-2005 7:43 PM


hi, welcome to evc.

Paul states in 1 Cor.11,5 "Any women who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had her hair cut off" (women in biblical times who had their hair short were usually less honoured citizens,eg: prostitutes)

the ironic thing about this verse (which will confuse you more) is that deeply religious married jewish women shave their heads. i think it's something about the head-covering requirement, and not seeing hair. some nowadays will observe this ritual, but wear a wig, others just go with the traditional head-covering.

My big dilemma on both of these scripture quotes is that they seem to condradict each other. On one hand it's ok for women to speak out in church if the head is covered, and on the other,they can't talk at all in church!

perhaps paul is saying women should shut up in general? wouldn't suprise me: he doesn't think they should teach, either. but maybe it's only a context issue: in traditional jewish churchs at the time, men would sit in the front, and women had a separate section or second tier. women asking their husbands questions in church would constitute a lot of noise.

Also here Paul states 'as even the law says',yet he writes over and over in Romans that we are dead to the law.

might the difference between The Law and the law. the "law" he's referring to is genesis, where woman is created from man's side, and then condemned to be subordinate upon expulsion from the garden.

i don't think that "dead to the law" means we are to whatever we feel like, either. it just means that for the purpose of punishment for misdeeds, we've already been killed.

This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-22-2005 08:02 PM


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by karen, posted 11-22-2005 7:43 PM karen has not yet responded

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 2179 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 4 of 31 (262580)
11-22-2005 9:47 PM


Right, what has happened here is that Paul has changed the law. Corinthian women used to be allowed to talk in church, but it turned out to be shameful, so now they have to shut up. Paul does this all the time, often 2 or 3 times in one letter.

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1740 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 5 of 31 (262632)
11-23-2005 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by karen
11-22-2005 7:43 PM


Paul's Answers
A common dilemma. First remember that these worshippers were a mixed group of Jews and Gentiles (from the pagan religions). Greek women supposedly had more freedoms than the Jewish women in such situations. They were dealing with a difference in customs. Notice it says shame, not sin.

1 Corinthians 11:5
but every woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame to her head...

If you move on to verse 16 you'll notice that Paul says:

However, if anyone wants to argue about it, the fact remains that we have no such custom, nor do the Messianic communities of God.

Mini-skirts used to be shameful, women smoking used to be shameful, etc. It was culture clash. The church had to hash it out if they felt it necessary.

1 Corinthians 14...

As Arach pointed out this was due mainly to the noise level created by talking across the separation between men and women.

ABE: Found this site you might find interesting and might help in understanding Paul and the law.

Works of the Law

This message has been edited by purpledawn, 11-23-2005 07:37 AM

This message has been edited by purpledawn, 11-23-2005 07:38 AM


Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission. -Eleanor Roosevelt-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by karen, posted 11-22-2005 7:43 PM karen has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 224 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 6 of 31 (262684)
11-23-2005 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by karen
11-22-2005 7:43 PM


Hi Karen,

Welcome to EvC. Not having thought about it in depth I would tend to agree with Purple Dawns analysis that it had to do with the culture of the day. This because (as she has noted) there is a hint from Paul that this is indeed the case. Whilst I don't feel that everything in the NT (or OT for that matter) should be weighted so significantly in the light of the culture, there is a case to be made here.

I think there are many contentious issues in the bible and it is very easy to form falsh doctrine. It would seem to be wise to take in the overall tenet of scripture when deciding what the overall means to say. Jesus heralded the New Covenant. He and his arrival is the most significant thing in the bible. He is a model of behaviour for us to follow. And he had a lot of time for woman and there is no indication that he considered their views of lesser worth than mens views. If scripture (via Paul) appears to be unexplainably sexist, then there is a possibility (although only a possibility) that it has to do with our misunderstanding whats being said


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by karen, posted 11-22-2005 7:43 PM karen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by karen, posted 11-24-2005 5:22 PM iano has not yet responded
 Message 27 by DeclinetoState, posted 04-08-2006 8:23 PM iano has not yet responded

  
karen
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 31 (262986)
11-24-2005 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by iano
11-23-2005 12:02 PM


Thanks guys.

While not dismissing the head covering issue mentioned,it is not important to my query at all.(Should have pointed this out in original message). Nor do I have a problem acknowleding that women being silent was in line with the times.
What I don't understand is how on one hand it is ok for women to prophesy and a few chapters later they are told to be silent. Why this change of heart? The audience hadn't changed, so why did the teaching ...

This message has been edited by karen, 11-24-2005 05:24 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by iano, posted 11-23-2005 12:02 PM iano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by purpledawn, posted 11-24-2005 7:58 PM karen has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1740 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 8 of 31 (262999)
11-24-2005 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by karen
11-24-2005 5:22 PM


There's a difference between women asking their husbands questions and a woman who is prophesying.

Sorta like the women talking in the backrow of the church as opposed to the woman reading the lesson or preaching today.

One is disturbance and the other is participation.


Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission. -Eleanor Roosevelt-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by karen, posted 11-24-2005 5:22 PM karen has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by iano, posted 11-25-2005 2:01 PM purpledawn has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 224 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 9 of 31 (263097)
11-25-2005 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by purpledawn
11-24-2005 7:58 PM


Karens Bible writes:

Then in 1 Cor.14,34-35, Paul says " As in all the churches of the holy ones, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak and should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a women to speak in the church."

Purpledawn writes:

There's a difference between women asking their husbands questions and a woman who is prophesying. Sorta like the women talking in the backrow of the church as opposed to the woman reading the lesson or preaching today.One is disturbance and the other is participation.

There seems to be a number of things contained within Karens passage which need teasing out. What do you reckon on things like "silence" I understand that if men and women were segregated then shouts across the church would be disturbing - but one would imagine that common manners applied in those days and that folk had figured out a a way of meeting in all kinds of circumstances without pandamonium. Why would it suddenly occur in the church. Did it occur in the synagoge? Hardly.

It seem to mention silence - period. Does that mean men could talk quietly amongst themselves and women couldn't. I would have imagined that if men talking among themselves didn't upset the preacher (presuming they did it that way) then the women who were positioned further back would have had an even less effect.

It seems to indicate that the discussing and decision making was for the men and not the women. Men leading and women following? Difficult that...

There is this difficult issue of subordination as the law says. If its the case of rightful behaviour and not works as you hold in the other thread, what does it mean here. The spirit of the law is that a woman is to be subordinate. Like "wives obey your husband"

I don't mean to debate you intensely on it PD, but just curious as to what position you hold - especially given the increased emphasis on equality of the sexes these days.

Then there is the issue of prophesying. This is not the same as speaking - which is the person themselves at work. Prophesying involves the action of the Holy Spirit speaking through the person. This naturally won't be forbidden.

This message has been edited by iano, 25-Nov-2005 07:04 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by purpledawn, posted 11-24-2005 7:58 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by purpledawn, posted 11-25-2005 6:30 PM iano has not yet responded
 Message 11 by karen, posted 11-29-2005 4:21 PM iano has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1740 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 10 of 31 (263128)
11-25-2005 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by iano
11-25-2005 2:01 PM


quote:
but one would imagine that common manners applied in those days and that folk had figured out a a way of meeting in all kinds of circumstances without pandamonium. Why would it suddenly occur in the church. Did it occur in the synagoge?
1. No one said it was a sudden occurrence.
2. Again there is a mixing of cultures. Manners vary.
3. Paul is responding to letters written to him concerning the situation in that area.

It is my understanding that women are not obligated by Jewish law to attend formal religious services.

As I understand it the pagan women had more participation in their religious practices.

I don't see any problem with Paul bringing the Gentiles into line with the practices of the Jewish sevices.

quote:
There is this difficult issue of subordination as the law says. If its the case of rightful behaviour and not works as you hold in the other thread, what does it mean here. The spirit of the law is that a woman is to be subordinate. Like "wives obey your husband"
You really don't understand the difference between "works of the Law", Law's of God, and laws of man.

Show me the law of subordination from God.

quote:
I don't mean to debate you intensely on it PD, but just curious as to what position you hold - especially given the increased emphasis on equality of the sexes these days.
Equality.

This message has been edited by purpledawn, 11-25-2005 08:53 PM


Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission. -Eleanor Roosevelt-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by iano, posted 11-25-2005 2:01 PM iano has not yet responded

  
karen
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 31 (264188)
11-29-2005 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by iano
11-25-2005 2:01 PM


Iano writes:
It seems to indicate that the discussing and decision making was for the men and not the women. Men leading and women following? Difficult that...

This, I'm sure, was not so difficult then as it is now.Bit like going back to when women couldn't vote.For us now it is difficult to accept that this was once the case, but then was quite acceptable.Or, as in Victorian times, children sent up chimneys to sweep them was the norm, wheras now we shudder at the thought of such a thing!

All of this does not change Gods word, but it is our interpretation of it which changes.Afterall,'Slaves obey your masters' is(at least in the western world),obsolete.Does this change the word of God? No, but rather, it is not applicable in our times.

And I still don't get where Paul's coming from with his 'as the law says' bit.As far as I was aware, Gods law is written on our hearts...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by iano, posted 11-25-2005 2:01 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 11-29-2005 4:26 PM karen has not yet responded
 Message 16 by iano, posted 11-30-2005 8:56 AM karen has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31458
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 12 of 31 (264191)
11-29-2005 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by karen
11-29-2005 4:21 PM


You also need to remember that much from that period was purged for political, cultural and social reasons. We know very little about what happened to the original apostles, and even less about the second wave. We have some evidence of a Gospel of Mary but little or information on her ministry.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by karen, posted 11-29-2005 4:21 PM karen has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3182 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 13 of 31 (264236)
11-29-2005 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by karen
11-22-2005 7:43 PM


apples and oranges
Karen, Paul is not saying a woman can speak in the church. Confusion can set in when we don't pay close attention to the singular and plural in Paul's words. A woman can speak. If she couldn't, she couldn't prophesy.

But "women" plural should not speak among themselves during the service because it's disruptive. It's really not mysogeny as some claim. It's that the men and women sat in different sections, and some women were talking among themselves or asking their husbands in a manner that was disruptive.

Paul probably could have just changed the seating arrangements and had the women sit with their husbands, but they would still need to not be disruptive.

So A WOMAN can speak, teach, preach, whatever to the congregation, but the women as a group should not talk and be disruptive; nor imo, should a woman "teach" her husband in the sense of be his master and he the disciple, if he is not willing. Paul alludes to the law in maintaining a complementarian marital status, but in spiritual affairs maintains equality between the sexes.

This message has been edited by randman, 11-29-2005 05:54 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by karen, posted 11-22-2005 7:43 PM karen has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by berberry, posted 11-30-2005 4:00 AM randman has not yet responded

  
celestialGyoud
Member
Posts: 564
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 14 of 31 (264370)
11-30-2005 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by karen
11-22-2005 7:43 PM


IMPROPER: when a woman speaks or prophesies not in the name of ELYON

Karen writes:

But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a women to speak in the church." (Strangely enough,this is not in context with the rest of the this passage...)Also here Paul states 'as even the law says',yet he writes over and over in Romans that we are dead to the law.

-------

Ephesus *:**,

Wives,
let your submission be in fidelity [aemunah] to יהוה Yhvh,
because the spouse is the head of the wife,
but the Word of I AM is the Salvation of her head,
and I AM, in person, is the One that saves her entire body.

-------

Ephesus *:**,

And as the gatherings of people are under the authority of Word of I AM -- [Yhvh'óshua],
so let the wives be under that same authority also before their spouses in all things.

-------

quote:
1 Corinzi -- To the gathering of people of Corinto, Greece
Restored fragments of Scripture that has been omitted

Álef -- The head of every man is Yhvh'óshua
[The Word that became flesh],
a woman's head is her spouse,
but Yahveh--I AM is the head of the living Word [that a woman comes to recite or prophesy].

Beth -- Every woman who comes to recite or prophesy the word of I AM with her forehead uncovered disgraces the ornament of her own head, for that is even all one and the same as if her head were shaved.

Gêmel -- If a woman will not cover [or reclothe] her forehead,
then let her hair be shorn also [in like manner].
But since it is a cause of indignation for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, let her wear the forehead covering as a war helmet so that she might stand before man equal to equal when using the weapon of the word in the wars of Yahveh. For such as man is semblance of a glory made for Yahveh I AM, likewise a woman, without her forehead covered, is semblance of a glory made for man.

Dálet -- Also man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was the first man formed for woman, but the first woman was formed for man.
For this reason [when prophesying or reciting the Word of I AM]
ought the woman to reclothe her forehead with a Sign of Power of Yahveh,
because [of the authority of the Word she shall speak] it is over angels.

Hê -- Thus in Yhvh both are put in subjection under Yhvh's Spirit only:
neither is the spirit of man bond to woman
neither is woman put in subjection under a spirit of man.
For as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman,
and in all things [of the Spirit] both are of Yhvh's power only.

Vav -- Let every woman judge by herself if it is decent for her to recite or prophesy Yhvh's Word with her forehead uncovered. Does not Torah instruct that when a foreigner woman was taken by force and had her head shaved, that was a sign that man had humilliated her by taking her to serve him as a wife?

Záyin -- But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her.
For her long hair is given to her for a veil.
And if anyone seems to be contencious [whether impeding or imposing the use of a forehead covering]
we [the Hebrews] do not have it [to be worn] for a custom [or segment of tradition],
Neither we [the Hebrews] nor the gatherings of people of the Most High.


-------

-------

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by karen, posted 11-22-2005 7:43 PM karen has not yet responded

    
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 31 (264376)
11-30-2005 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by randman
11-29-2005 5:54 PM


Re: apples and oranges
So what about the men, rand? Are they allowed to discuss amongst themselves and disrupt services?

If what you say is true, then why didn't the racist, sexist, homophobic apostle Paul say what you said? Didn't god inspire Paul in his sexism? Aren't Paul's words god's words? Was god too stupid to know that thousands of years hence a bunch of fundamentalist idiots would insist that this bullshit was inerrant? Why couldn't god have inspired Paul to be a little less confusing?

And why is it that fundies ignore all this crap but insist on enforcing Paul's anti-gay rantings on people who don't give a damn what the hell this blithering dolt said?


"We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you."-George W. Bush, Gulfport, Miss.,
Sept. 20, 2005.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 11-29-2005 5:54 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jaywill, posted 04-16-2006 8:23 AM berberry has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019