|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Women In 1 Corinthians | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Ok, here is the whole chapter so there's no confusion.
quote: I want to focus on the following quote which is directly from the chapter above.
quote: Ok, read that in context of the chapter. Ok, read it again. One more time. Let's look at each statement made in that particular passage.
quote: I see 2 ways you can possibly interpret this. One is by face value of those words and the other... you have to use a little bit of imagination. The first way is as written, that as in ALL the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. I don't think you can get anymore self-explanatory than that. The other interpretation is as ICANT seems to suggest, that women should remain silent when it comes to speaking in tongues. But why only women? Surely, if Paul was concern about people speaking in tongues or misinterpreting god's words, he would have stated just that, that both men and women should be careful with that. Instead, he specifically referred to women and ordering them to remain silent.
quote:Again, 2 possible interpretations. The first is taking it at its face value, that women are not allowed to speak and they must be in submission as the Law says. Again, very self-explanatory. The second way to interpret this is as ICANT suggested, that women are not allowed to speak in tongues OR that they are not allowed to question those who are speaking in tongues. Again, why only target women?
quote:Again, 2 possible interpretations. The first is taking the words at its face value, that if the women want to inquire something they should ask their husbands at home because for them to speak in church is disgraceful. Very self-explanatory. The second way to interpret this is that women are not allowed to ask questions about those speaking in tongues and they should only ask their questions at home rather than speak in the church because it's disgraceful for them to speak in church about speaking in tongues. Um, why only target women if you didn't mean to downplay their role in society? As far as I can see this, both of these interpretations clearly put women in a position that is inferior to their male counterparts.
ICANT writes:
ICANT, I am very confused, and so far you've refused to explain why you don't think this is an example of scripture putting down women. Here is a thread dedicated to this particular topic so please feel free to post as many messages on this as you need to. If you need more than 300, I will be happy to start a second thread on this. I an not going to try to rationalize this passage. To do so I would have to have rational people to explain it to. Since you and Taz have your mind made up it would take too many posts, And I am not going to try Percy's patience. And also, here is a humble request for Admin. At anytime, if you feel you need to suspend ICANT for whatever reason in regard to this topic, please suspend me instead so ICANT has nothing to fear and thus should be able to fully explain this to me and others here who are very eager to hear his very wise explanation on this topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13029 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
In this thread post post #78, member Hill Billy writes in response to T4C and me...
Now,as far as I know,there ain't no law round these parts that says anything at all about womenfolk speakin in church. So to me, that passage says, specifically, that women can in fact speak in church provided it is legal to do so.
So, let us look at the passage again.
quote:Did you notice the underlined portions, Hill Billy? "As in all the congregations of the saints" tell me that Paul was talking about church Law, not the law of the land. Think about it for a minute. We are talking about a time when christians were still a religious sect with only a few members compared to the other religions. In fact, it was being persecuted by both mainstream religions at the time as well as the Roman authority. I find it hard to believe that there was already a law of the land in place dictating how people should act or speak inside christian churches. Beside, you are directly contradicting ICANT in this. So, which one of you is right? Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Hi Taz. This response is likely to make me even more unpopular here than I already am but I'll be forthright in addressing this controversial issue head on.
1. The male leadership role in the family, in government and in social cultures throughout recorded human history is evident. There have been exceptions to this but by and large it is a fact. 2. Whether one is evolutionist or Biblical, the science of the brain as I understand is that men are more left frontal lobe and women more right frontal lobe. The logic relative to your topic is that the properties of the left frontal lobe being the more logic and calculative so far as function would tend towards male leadership role. I don't want to stray from the topic on a sedgeway but there are other male/female characteristics which would explain the phenomena of the male leadership role throughout history. 3. Nearly all human social orders such as governments, clubs, busineses, sports; you name it, function best having not multiple but one presiding officer/leader/president, etc. As stated above there has been reasons for the leadership roles to be filled by the male by and large. Perhaps many of the social national and family problems as well as the breakdown of the home and family becoming so prevalent in modern cultures can be attributed to the deterioration of the male leadership role in society. 4. The apostle Paul in his epistles to the churches is not introducing a new concept, dogma or stigma relative to the role of women in society. He was applying what has been natural and prevalent throughout history to the church. 5. The women of the day were not likely adverse to this ruling. It was to be expected. 6. For what it's worth, the OT prophet Isaiah forsaw prophetically the latter day phenomena of the end of the male leadership role in social orders: Isaiah 3:12
As for my people, children are their oppressors and women rule over them. Oh my people, they that lead you cause you to err and destroy the way of your paths.
(note this is worded in the present tense but the entire context of the chapter is future. This is often the case in eschatology.) Since you raised your voice a bit to emphasise I'll follow suit with a morsel of my own: THE APOSTLE PAUL AS WELL AS OTHER NT WRITERS OF THE EPISTLES REMINDED MEN OFTEN TO LOVE THEIR WIVES AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH. If the leader husband honors and loves the wife as he loves himself he will not oppress, abuse or dishonor the wife. Your OP pertained to the church, yes, but it would not make logical sense for the male to be leader of the wife/home but not the church. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4924 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
It's a letter addressing a specific context so you have to try to infer what that context is. We know he couldn't have meant women cannot speak in the church at all since women could prophesy according to Paul and he laid out rules for that church in doing so.
A clue is the statement, if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. This has been taken to mean that they were asking their husbands questions and generally talking too much in church, and Paul is saying, hey, be quiet and not disruptive. Some go as far as to believe that women sat on one side of the room and men on the other and so they were having to be somewhat loud to communicate with their husbands. On this part, I have no idea really, but I think it's clear something disruptive and disorderly to a degree was going on, and that the problem was with the women. The other thing to note is the reference to the Law involves women being created after man to be man's help-meet. Paul is saying that the way you conduct church must preserve the headship of the man in the family is how I read it. Others read it women cannot teach. A big problem, imo, with the women cannot teach interpretation is that women, like Deborah, in the Law were not so much "under obedience" and also Paul mentions there is neither male, nor female in Christ and women preachers and apostles. I think the solution here is to once again consider the context. Perhaps they were following more of a synagogue approach from that era or a format where men could ask questions or interject. Paul's letters though they establish leaders are generally less leader/priest/pastor dominated than today's churches. There is more of an equality because he says any of you may share a revelation or doctrine, a hymn, etc,.....seems a bit more free-flowing. However, it may have appeared unseemly to allow women in that soceity the same freedom as men as it could seem to place women, who share an equality spiritually, an equality in the family, which Paul elsewhere insists the man is the head of the wife. Paul and the New Testament unequivocally make men the heads of their families. However, I disagree with many that argue women cannot teach or preach or occupy leadership roles. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3937 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
The logic relative to your topic is that the properties of the left frontal lobe being the more logic and calculative so far as function would tend towards male leadership role. Even IF this was true which you don't support, what makes you think that such traits automatically produce better leadership which you also did not support. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Jazzns writes: Even IF this was true which you don't support, what makes you think that such traits automatically produce better leadership which you also did not support. Hi Jazzns. I appreciate that you're still active in the debates. The reason I didn't support with documentation is that it would lead off topic as it would require a substantial amount of discussion on that topic to delve into the science of the brain. I assume that most here are apprised enough on the brain lobe functions to know what I'm referring to. If not, a search on the brain lobe functions should suffice. As I stated, as I understand, briefly putting it, the left frontal lobe has a different function than the right, the left being more oriented to decision making, logic and calculating whereas the right being more receptive to what enters the brain through the organs which feed info into the brain; things like the metaphysical (as per church relative to this topic), for example. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Bump for ICANT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Taz,
Taz writes: ICANT, I am very confused, and so far you've refused to explain why you don't think this is an example of scripture putting down women. Sorry it took so long I been kinda busy. I also thought I would put a lot of eggs in one basket. We need to start at the beginning.Woman was taken from the side of man. Not from the sole of his feet. She was to be a help mate. Not a door mat. Gen. 2:21-24 21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23And 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. 24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Verse 24 tells us man will cling to, stay close, keep close, stick with. Keep in mind this is before Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.After eating the fruit. 16Unto 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. Lets notice a couple of things here. Why did the serpent go to the woman instead of the man?Why do con men prey on little old women instead of little old men? Women are more prone to being deceived than a man. It seems they are a little more emotional. Now to the text at hand.I Corinthians Lest anybody misunderstand lets see what Paul is speaking about. 18I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: Paul is talking about speaking in other languages. Paul spoke several different languages. Now back to verse one. Paul said follow after charity. Love.Desire spiritual gifts, There were several of which one was being able to speak in a language unknown to the one speaking it. But could be understood by someone who spoke that language. The first known time speaking in other tongues was recorded is in Acts 2:4-8
4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. 5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. 6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Every known language was present in Jerusalem at this time of Pentecost.Every man heard the disciples speaking in their own tongue and was amazed. This is not what is observed today that is known as speaking in an unknown tongue. Now back to Paul and his problem he was trying to deal with.It seems everybody wanted to speak during the meeting, in tongues and it was causing quite a lot of confusion. So Paul tells them to desire to be able to prophesy rather than any of the other gifts.
3But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. 4He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. Paul explains that everybody benefited from the prophesy. But if everyone spoke the same language the only person edified would be the one speaking in the other tongue. Now if you realize they could not understand themselves how did they get edified. It made them feel good and important. In verse 22 Paul says tongues are for a sign to those who do not believe. Paul then in verse 23 talks about the worship service and said:
23If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
So if you were having services and an unbeliever came in and there was 50 different languages being spoken they would think everybody was crazy. But if everybody prophesy the unbeliever could be convinced.
26How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
Paul wanted to know why everyone had these things and there was mass confusion. Then Paul addresses the problem.
27If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. 28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.. Taz take special notice here. Vs 27 If any man. With a maximum of three speak one at a time.Vs 28 If there is no interpreter man NO speak in the church. Let the prophets speak maximum three. That all may learn.From what I understand the Church at Corinth was a fairly large congregation in the hundreds. Pauls reasons for giving these instructions was the God was not the author of confusion. Now the bad boy.
34Let 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. Let your women keep silence in the churches.Everybody on here is reading this MAKE slight difference. Paul further explains that it is not permitted for them to speak.Now since Paul has been speaking for some 33 verses about prophesying and speaking in other tongues. I would conclude he is still speaking of the same thing in verse 34 as he has not changed the topic. Not only that but it has been pointed out that it could get quite noisy and confusing with a bunch of women asking their husbands, what did he say? Because of that Paul said in verse 35 wait until you get home and ask your husband. Then Paul committed the unpardonable sin according to most women. When he said: it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.So now I am going to get to the part you are not going to like. God made man and gave him a helper.The helper was deceived by the serpent. God put man in charge and made him responsible. Some of the early men took advantage and made door mats out of their wives. Some still do today.When I was growing up in the 40's a child did not talk back to a mother. They would find themselves getting up off the floor. Dad might take it but it was not allowed for mom she had to work too hard to put up with that It was a capital offense for a man to raise his hand against a woman must less strike her.We had no such thing as an abusive husband in our community. If one did raise his hand and strike his wife he would get a visit from the local correction team. It would never happen again. As things got better the women became ladies and were placed on a pedestal. Men were content to work and bring home the bacon for the ladies to prepare Then people had to have a lot of stuff. Stuff costs money. Got to the point man could not make enough. Mom had to get out of the kitchen and go to work. Leaving kids to raise themselves. Mom had now ceased to be a lady and had become a woman demanding equal everything. Most men said OK you want it you got it. They quit doing anything but going to work coming home flopping on the couch in front of TV till bedtime. Mom was left to do her job then come home and do the job that had to be done there also. I have ladies that attend the church I pastor and they are loving every minute of it. They might not have all the stuff they want. But they have their very desire of a loving caring husband to take care of them. Would one of them dare to speak in another language in church no. Would any of the men not if their life depended on it. None of them can Now if we have some of our Cuban friends come visit us I ask one of the ladies that is fluent in their tongue to interpret what I am saying.Will my women speak in church yes. I even have a couple that will get my attention during the sermon and ask me a question. Which I am always glad to answer if I have the information or clarification they are seeking. I encourage anyone to ask questions. As cavediver says the only stupid question is the one that is not ask. Now I have explained what Paul was saying if you disagree that is your privilege, and I am sure many of you will. I also explained how I feel about it by telling you how I operate. You can like that or you can lump it. My wife of 50 years thinks I am doing just fine keeping her on her pedestal. She has no desire to climb down and be equal. Y'all Have fun now. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Could you make this a little bit clearer? I couldn't tell where you made the transition from "it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church" to "Will my women speak in church yes."
Then Paul committed the unpardonable sin according to most women. When he said: it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.So now I am going to get to the part you are not going to like. God made man and gave him a helper.The helper was deceived by the serpent. God put man in charge and made him responsible. Some of the early men took advantage and made door mats out of their wives. Some still do today.When I was growing up in the 40's a child did not talk back to a mother. They would find themselves getting up off the floor. Dad might take it but it was not allowed for mom she had to work too hard to put up with that It was a capital offense for a man to raise his hand against a woman must less strike her.We had no such thing as an abusive husband in our community. If one did raise his hand and strike his wife he would get a visit from the local correction team. It would never happen again. As things got better the women became ladies and were placed on a pedestal. Men were content to work and bring home the bacon for the ladies to prepare Then people had to have a lot of stuff. Stuff costs money. Got to the point man could not make enough. Mom had to get out of the kitchen and go to work. Leaving kids to raise themselves. Mom had now ceased to be a lady and had become a woman demanding equal everything. Most men said OK you want it you got it. They quit doing anything but going to work coming home flopping on the couch in front of TV till bedtime. Mom was left to do her job then come home and do the job that had to be done there also. I have ladies that attend the church I pastor and they are loving every minute of it. They might not have all the stuff they want. But they have their very desire of a loving caring husband to take care of them. Would one of them dare to speak in another language in church no. Would any of the men not if their life depended on it. None of them can Now if we have some of our Cuban friends come visit us I ask one of the ladies that is fluent in their tongue to interpret what I am saying.Will my women speak in church yes. I even have a couple that will get my attention during the sermon and ask me a question. Which I am always glad to answer if I have the information or clarification they are seeking. I encourage anyone to ask questions. As cavediver says the only stupid question is the one that is not ask. Now I have explained what Paul was saying if you disagree that is your privilege, and I am sure many of you will. I also explained how I feel about it by telling you how I operate. You can like that or you can lump it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Taz,
Taz writes:
Could you make this a little bit clearer? I couldn't tell where you made the transition from "it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church" to "Will my women speak in church yes." Taz I did not make the transition I left that for you to figure out for yourself. Have fun, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Honestly, I'm not being dense. All I saw was a lot of words talking about how you think women should be treated and then jump from "it is a shame for a woman to speak in church" to "will my women speak in church yes." Explain it to me please. I read it several times now. Still can't figure out where you decided it's ok to go against scripture.
Added by edit. Oh yeah, you forgot to explain this part.
quote: Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Taz,
Taz writes: Honestly, I'm not being dense. So you want me to do like Paul did and commit suicide.
Then Paul committed the unpardonable sin according to most women. When he said: it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church. So now I am going to get to the part you are not going to like. God made man and gave him a helper.The helper was deceived by the serpent. God put man in charge and made him responsible. TazGod's order is man is responsible to him. Woman is responsible to man. Man is responsible for woman. to God. At that time there was plenty of men willing to take care of the teaching so it was not necessary for the women to have to do it.
1Tim 2:12 (KJV) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Paul's thing was if the woman taught, spoke in tongues, or prophesied she was usurping authority over man. God said to the woman "thy husband shall rule over thee." Somebody has to be in charge. God put man in charge. Man is answerable to God for the mess we are in not the women.
Taz writes: Still can't figure out where you decided it's ok to go against scripture. I don't see that I am. My ladies don't speak in tongues unless I need an interperter. If I had a man that knew the language He would be glad to do it. And the lady would be glad also because I go to fast sometimes. Paul was trying to control confusion. And point out that the women were not supposed to be over men but in subjection to them. My ladies or men don't prophesy. I have men that teach. I have ladies that teach but they do not teach a men's class.Now if my interpetation of what Paul said is wrong then I will have to answer to God for it. So be it. Have fun, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Your understanding is wrong. In fact, your statement is 100% false. My husband just taught a lecture to his to his Educational Psychology class that debunked that and all the other popular mythology attached to this issue. So, all the stuff you argue after that is worthless since your premise is false.
quote: Sure there are. But having the brawn and agression neccessary to crush skulls and bring down large prey isn't exactly valuable in a leader these days, is it? Wouldn't you say that being skilled in communication, negotiation, and diplomacy are more valuable in leadership positions these days? Which gender traditionally excells in those skills?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2667 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
1. The male leadership role in the family, in government and in social cultures throughout recorded human history is evident. There have been exceptions to this but by and large it is a fact. Wrong. If you insist, cites please.
2. Whether one is evolutionist or Biblical, the science of the brain as I understand is that men are more left frontal lobe and women more right frontal lobe. Wrong. If you insist, cites please.
3. Nearly all human social orders such as governments, clubs, busineses, sports; you name it, function best having not multiple but one presiding officer/leader/president, etc. As stated above there has been reasons for the leadership roles to be filled by the male by and large. Wrong. If you insist, cites please.
5. The women of the day were not likely adverse to this ruling. It was to be expected. Wrong. If you insist, cites please. Buz. Your word is not enough. You need to support your bare assertions.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024