Women Are Not To Teach From The Pulpit or In Church Media.

[cjab]

The high priest went into the holy of holies alone and nobody was to be in the tabernacle (Lev 16:17). The breaking of bread is a passover celebration not a day of atonement celebration.

Im talking about formal occasions as distinct from informal occasions. Where formality is required, rules are required to be obeyed, including rules of order. The OT suggests what those rules of order consist of, as between the sexes.

Further the idea that any man is head over my wife simply because he is male and my wife is female (as you are interpreting 1 Cor 11:3) is outright lunacy.

I am not interpreting 1 Cor 11:3 in such a perverse way, but considering the matter of order in public assemblies and what can be extrapolated from H-W relations, which are the norm and typical.

 

[cjab]

That isn't a law.

"The law" relates to the whole of the five books of Moses, not just the Levitical law. It a rule for life.

The only issue is that the Hebrew itself admits of some difficulty:

The Hebrew phrase in question does not include a verb and is literally translated “toward your husband your desire.”

The LXX interprets "desire" by the word "submission" i.e. “towards your husband your submission.”

But in any event, "he shall rule over you" is uncontrovertibly a law and was interpreted as such,

This fact happens to be husband and wife related. If you are using this to bolster your point on 1 Tim 2:12 about men and women in general versus the idea of husbands and wives, you've undercut yourself.

No I haven't undercut myself, because if a woman must be silent before her husband, how much more should she be silent before another man.

 

[Dant01]

.
No manuscripts existing today are original; not even the so-called "better" manuscripts.
They're copies of copies of copies of the originals; which have all been lost in time so
there is no way to check and compare.

So; unless folks have access to time machines and/or warp drives about which I'm
unaware, it's futile to argue over whose dad can whup whose dad; so to speak.

I suggest that which ever, and/or what ever, version of today's Bibles that folks select for
their guide that they be true to it, and not be one of those intolerant left wingers unable
to be content letting others do their own thinking.

* I don't know who hereabouts is keeping up with current events but be advised the US
Federal Government is working on a form of George Orwell's thought police calling itself
the "Disinformation Governance Board". This portents the beginning of a dystopian
society wherein freedom of the press no longer exists. Point being: select a Bible now
because your favorite just might get banned in the future on the basis of sexism, male
supremacy, racism, and hate speech. etc.
_

 

[Stephen]

Im talking about formal occasions as distinct from informal occasions. Where formality is required, rules are required to be obeyed, including rules of order. The OT suggests what those rules of order consist of, as between the sexes.

If you are discussing "formal" from "informal", you would be hard pressed to find where that occurs in the New Testament.

I can't recall Christ ever presiding over a formal gathering during his mortal ministry except for possibly the last supper (a passover feast), nor is there one recorded in Acts. There is no proscribed worship service in the NT, there are no priestly vestments described, there is no building layout, and there is no furniture described (all were described in detail in the OT).

In contrast, many of these meetings were held in houses that were in fact owned by women.

I am not interpreting 1 Cor 11:3 in such a perverse way, but considering the matter of order in public assemblies and what can be extrapolated from H-W relations, which are the norm and typical.

You are extrapolating the idea that just because somebody is speaking, then they are the head of whomever they are speaking to. Where in the supposed chain of command in 1 Cor 11:3 does this person sit? If you believe them to be your head (presuming you are male) when they are speaking, that would be an interesting proposition to defend.

 

[Stephen]

.
No manuscripts existing today are original; not even the so-called "better" manuscripts.
They're copies of copies of copies of the originals; which have all been lost in time so
there is no way to check and compare.

So; unless folks have access to time machines and/or warp drives about which I'm
unaware, it's futile to argue over whose dad can whup whose dad; so to speak.

There is a science to this called "textual criticism" where people actually seek to discover the influences for given manuscripts. For example, when 1 Cor 12:34-35 is examined through the textual history, you can see where it was inserted. There are ways to check and compare, no time machine is required.

I suggest that which ever, and/or what ever, version of today's Bibles that folks select for
their guide that they be true to it, and not be one of those intolerant left wingers unable
to be content letting others do their own thinking.

First you want people to not to do their own thinking and not ask pertinent question of the translations. Then you want to label somebody a "left winger' who lets "others do their own thinking"

Let's not go around suggesting the idea that we should divorce ourselves from the burden of doing our own thinking about what the bible says, while at the same time accusing others of not doing their own thinking.

* I don't know who hereabouts is keeping up with current events but be advised the US
Federal Government is working on a form of George Orwell's thought police calling itself
the "Disinformation Governance Board". This portents the beginning of a dystopian
society wherein freedom of the press no longer exists. Point being: select a Bible now
because your favorite just might get banned in the future on the basis of sexism, male
supremacy, racism, and hate speech. etc.
_

God will take care of his word. He rules in the kingdoms of men.

 

[cjab]

If you are discussing "formal" from "informal", you would be hard pressed to find where that occurs in the New Testament.

I can't recall Christ ever presiding over a formal gathering during his mortal ministry except for possibly the last supper (a passover feast), nor is there one recorded in Acts. There is no proscribed worship service in the NT, there are no priestly vestments described, there is no building layout, and there is no furniture described (all were described in detail in the OT).

In contrast, many of these meetings were held in houses that were in fact owned by women.

If you look carefully you will discern informality from formality. Contrast Paul's rules for public teachers in 1 Tim 2:11 as against Aquila and Priscilla tutoring Apollos privately at home. Contrast Paul's rules for bishops in 1Ti 3:2 with the practice of having female workers for the gospel, and again with the formal apostolic grouping of 12 or 13 males.

So in 1 Cor 14 Paul is alluding to the highest church assembly, the whole church. Doubtless Christians met all the time in smaller groups, when such formalities were unnecessary (cf. the four daughters of Philip who prophesied).

You are extrapolating the idea that just because somebody is speaking, then they are the head of whomever they are speaking to.

In a public setting this would often be the case. But there is more: in the ecclesia, being the whole church, it couldn't have been right for women to displace males. So if you have one hour, and women take up 1/2 the time, then that leaves a lot of males who have been displaced by females. So females are seen to take precedence over the males who didn't speak but could have.

Since the man is the head of the woman, the man gets to speak in the ecclesia. It's that simple. I know some men enjoy being taught by women but they are generall wimps.

It is disgraceful for a church to have female pastors. She is displacing the male and taking precedence over him and reversing the natural order of roles. It's not good, and nearly all female led churches have declined into moral and spiritual bankruptcy, just as males who have no father figure often have many issues in life.

Where in the supposed chain of command in 1 Cor 11:3 does this person sit? If you believe them to be your head (presuming you are male) when they are speaking, that would be an interesting proposition to defend.

You are trying to reduce this to absurdity.

 

[kiwimacnz]

The law in question is Gen 3:16. “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Gen. 3:16.)

A law given by God himself, no less. Do they teach you anything worthwhile at your church?

The only link between those verses is the one you are imposing on them.

 

[Dant01]

.

There is a science to this called "textual criticism" where people actually seek to
discover the influences for given manuscripts.

So-called textual criticism, and higher criticism, are sophisticated terms for taking
an educated guess.
_

 

[kiwimacnz]

.


So-called textual criticism, and higher criticism, are sophisticated terms for taking
an educated guess.
_

Twaddle. Textual critics are extremely well-educated. You may not easily dismiss them.

 

[cjab]

The only link between those verses is the one you are imposing on them.

BS.

 

[cjab]

Twaddle. Textual critics are extremely well-educated. You may not easily dismiss them.

On the contrary, the greater the education, the more likely it is that guess work will be relied upon, as the greater will be the willingness to credit one's own opinions as true.

 

[kiwimacnz]

BS.

Yes, your cross-referencing is.

 

[kiwimacnz]

On the contrary, the greater the education, the more likely it is that guess work will be relied upon, as the greater will be the willingness to credit one's own opinions as true.

On that basis the village idiot is Einstein.

 

[cjab]

On that basis the village idiot is Einstein.

Certainly an idiot in respect of his religious views.

 

[cjab]

Yes, your cross-referencing is.

Your want of rationale betrays you.

 

[Slyzr]

Female prophets have to do their prophesying outside the formal church meeting, I guess. May be write a book of prophesy, like Nostradamus. Can't say I've ever come across a female prophet to date.

They weren't exempt. Not everyone can accept Paul's teaching. He said as much. Some will always be content with an inferior sort of Christianity.

Had women prophecy over my life .....

No bueno.

It is rather simple, women give birth to us, but we should grow up.

As Paul addresses.

When I was a child .... etc.

 

[cjab]

Had women prophecy over my life .....

Well good for you. May be I just don't move in the right circles where female prophets are located.

 

[Slyzr]

Well good for you. May be I just don't move in the right circles where female prophets are located.

Maybe you did not read my post.

 

[cjab]

Maybe you did not read my post.

I did but I had difficulty understanding it. I didn't know whether you were referring to true prophets or false prophets. I wouldn't ever refer to a false prophet as a "prophet" if I were you as it is very confusing, if not wrong.

 

[Slyzr]

I did but I had difficulty understanding it. I didn't know whether you were referring to true prophets or false prophets. I wouldn't ever refer to a false prophet as a "prophet" if I were you as it is very confusing, if not wrong.

Read what Paul said about it.