Was Paul right about everything??

[Elijah John]

Was Paul right about everything?

How about his prohibition of women speaking in Church?

Seems Evangelicals overlook this Pauline admonition, with female pastors and Bible teachers such as say...Joyce Meyer*.

For debate:

Are Evangelicals also "guilty" of cherry picking Scripture even as they claim not to do so?

(*not a criticism of JM, but rather a challenge to Paul's infallibility)

If Paul was wrong about this, what else could he be wrong about?

[Pierac]

Was Paul right about everything?

How about his prohibition of women speaking in Church?

Seems Evangelicals overlook this Pauline admonition, with female pastors and Bible teachers such as say...Joyce Meyer*.

For debate:

Are Evangelicals also "guilty" of cherry picking Scripture even as they claim not to do so?

(*not a criticism of JM, but rather a challenge to Paul's infallibility)

If Paul was wrong about this, what else could he be wrong about?

1Co 14:33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached?

The passage appears to be a clear and straightforward injunction for women not to speak (let alone teach!) in the church, very much like the passage from 1 Timothy 2:9. However, most scholars are convinced that Paul did not write the 1 Timothy passage, because it occurs in a letter that appears to have been written instead by a second-generation follower of Paul in his name. No one doubts, however, that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. But there are doubts about this passage. For as it turns out, the verses in question (vv. 34-35) are shuffled around in some of our important textual witnesses. In three Greek manuscripts and a couple of Latin witnesses, they are found not here, after verse 33, but later, after verse 40. That has led some scholars to surmise that the verses were not written by Paul but originated as a kind of marginal note added by the scribes, possibly under the influence of 1 Timothy 2. The note was then inserted in different places of the text of various scribes—some placing the note after verse 33 and others inserting it after verse 40.

There are other good reasons for thinking that Paul did not originally write these verses. For one thing, they do not fit well into their immediate context. In this part of 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is addressing the issue of prophecy in the church, and is giving instructions to the Christian prophets concerning how they are to behave during the Christian service of worship. This is the theme of verse 26-33, and it is the theme again of verse 36-40. If one removes versus 34-35 from their context, the passage seems to flow seamlessly as a discussion of the role of the Christian prophets. The discussion of woman appears, then, as intrusive in its immediate context, breaking into the instruction that Paul is giving about a different matter.

Not only do the verses seem intrusive in their context of chapter 14, they also appear anomalous with what Paul explicitly says elsewhere in 1 Corinthians. For earlier in the book, as we have already noticed, Paul gives instructions to women speaking in the church: according to Chapter 11, when they pray and prophecy--activities that were always done aloud in the Christian services of worship-- they are to be sure to wear veils on their heads (11;2–16). In this passage which no one doubts Paul wrote, it is clear that Paul understands that women can and do speak in church. In the disputed passages of chapter 14, however, is equally clear that “Paul� for bids women from speaking at all. It is difficult to reconcile these two views--either Paul allowed women to speak (with heads covered, Chapter 11) or not (chapter 14). As it seems unreasonable to think that Paul would flat out contradict himself within a short spaces of three chapters, it appears at the verses in question do not derive from Paul.

And so on the basis of a combination of evidence to several-- manuscript that shuffle the versus around, the immediate literary context, and the context within 1 Corinthians as a whole-- it appears that Paul did not write first Corinthians 14:34-35. One would have to assume, then, that these versus are scribal alteration of the texts.


Paul

[Wootah]

Just some observations ...

It seems to me that women leaders don't do well: Angela Merkel, Marrissa Meyer, Julia Gillard and there does seem to me to be an air of weakness in an organization with a woman at its head.

I blame men of course. I feel that men have really taken a step back from their role in society. If society had more male leaders would we need to sacrifice women by putting them in these roles?

Might not therefore the bible have a point? By not permitting women to speak is that not also shaming men into action - to step up.

It's about order and that appears to be God as the head of mankind and man as the head of the family.

Of course I question the verse all the time but when I am for it those are some of my thoughts. I have found my manhood, if I can phrase it that way, since becoming a Christian and didn't know I had lost it beforehand.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 3 by Wootah]

I have found my manhood, if I can phrase it that way, since becoming a Christian and didn't know I had lost it beforehand.

Interesting.

Maybe you have found, not so much "manood" as such, but what it is to be a man of God instead of being a man of this world.

[Elijah John]

Yes, interesting. But what does it say about Paul's authority or infallibility if even Fundamentalists often ignore his orders on this matter?

Wrong on this, was he wrong on other things as well?

And what of the claim that Evangelicals don't "cherry pick" as some accuse me of doing?

(Atheists make that same accusation against me by the way, and I plead "guilty";))

[bluethread]

[quote="Wootah"

I blame men of course. I feel that men have really taken a step back from their role in society. If society had more male leaders would we need to sacrifice women by putting them in these roles?

Might not therefore the bible have a point? By not permitting women to speak is that not also shaming men into action - to step up.[/quote]

Though you're never going to get an antagonist accept that argument, I do agree that men tend to be less motivated intellectually. In fact, current trends show that women in general are out performing men academically. So, it could be argued that the admonition the wives with questions ask them of their husbands at home, might be a way of forcing men to be more intellectually engaged.

[Elijah John]

I have heard some convoluted arguments but isn't the simple truth of the matter that Evangelicals (who claim that Paul's letters are sacred Scripture) pretty much disobey his orders on this matter and do what they see fit?

Encouraging women to speak in Church and also to become Pastors and Bible teachers.

And isn't it that too, "cherry picking"?

At least the JWs are consistent on this matter, but they do let women speak from the "pews" but not the "pulpit". So maybe even they cherry pick.

And again, a question for Evangelicals and JWs especially, and any other Bible literalist. If Paul is wrong on this matter, what else could he be wrong about?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

If Paul was wrong about this, what else could he be wrong about?

It may not be a matter of whether Paul was wrong or right, but of whether we are wrong or right in our understanding of what he did and did not mean.

To add to this debate, I quote a relevant passage and cite a link to a relevant possible alternative view.

2 Peter 3:

15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

https://www.gci.org/church/ministry/women9

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

If Paul was wrong about this, what else could he be wrong about?

It may not be a matter of whether Paul was wrong or right, but of whether we are wrong or right in our understanding of what he did and did not mean.

To add to this debate, I quote a relevant passage and cite a link to a relevant possible alternative view.

2 Peter 3:

15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

https://www.gci.org/church/ministry/women9

Sorry, I seldom follow links. If you want to briefly summarize the argument, please do. Otherwise I generally regard links as appeals to authority, with some exceptions.

Using that verse from Peter you seem to be suggesting that anyone who takes issue with Paul's plain teaching on women speaking in Church are "distorting Paul's teachings to their own destrustion"?

Does this include Evangelicals who ignore this teaching?

Don't get me wrong, I applaud them for doing so, I believe women should be allowed to speak in Church.

But again, if Paul is wrong on this one, is he wrong on other matters too? I suspect he is, in spite of the many good things he has to say.

In light of Paul's clear prohibition, what do would you guess Paul would think of the wonderful Joyce Meyer speaking/teaching/preaching in Church?

Seems that when Evangelicals don't like certain verses and disregard plain meaning they are simply "interpreting" when they twist them. When others don't like certain verses and ignore them they are "cherry picking".

The phrase "double standard" comes to mind.

[oldbadger]

.

And isn't it that too, "cherry picking"?

Paul was a cherry picker, and most Creeds and Churches cherry-pick.

A control or rule which is wanted is classed as 'The Law' or 'God's law as handed down' etc.

But any law that irritates, does not fit or is just plain 'not wanted' can be eliminated either by an angel's visit with new instructions, or simply by the declaration of 'New Covenant!'

One example: Cephas had a vision at Joppa which repealed various Jewish laws about food, so Christians didn't need to bother with them, but various other laws were gripped tightly and held on to, right up to this day.

What a cop out!